Sri Mohd. Abdul Rafi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES–CUM- II

ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : NELLORE.

Thursday, this the 27 th day of December, 2018.

Present: Sri Mohammed Abdul Rafi,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE NO.18 OF 2017

1. Name of the Complainant:State represented by the InspectorofPolice,Anti CorruptionBureau,Tirupati Range, Tirupati.

2.Names of the Accused 1) Koramath Leela, persons w/o late Sudhakar, Aged 55 years, Tahsildar,Dagadarthi Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2) Jaladanki Sai Prasada Rao, s/o Sundara Ramaiah, Aged 56 years, VRO, Ulavapalla and Ananthavaram villages, Dagadarthi Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Crime Number:13/RCT-NLR/2014 of ACB., Nellore Range, Nellore.

4.Section of Law:Charges Under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2.

5.Plea of the Accused persons::Pleaded not guilty.

6.Finding of the Court:Accused Officer-1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

7.Result (Order of sentence):In the result, Accused Officer-1 is found guilty for the offencespunishableunder 2

Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and she is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Thus, Accused Officer-1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Officer-1 is further sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The remand period of the Accused Officer-1 from 23.12.2014 to 29.01.2015 shall be set of as against the term of imprisonment as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Both the substantial sentences awarded against Accused Officer- 1 shall run concurrently. The bail bonds of Accused No.2 shall be inforce for a period of six months from this day. The case property of MOs.1 to 4 and 7 to 9, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.5,000/- (MO.5) and cash of Rs.2,000/- (MO.6) shall be returned to PW.1 after expiry of appeal time. The total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence 3 of Sri P. Venkata Subbaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri V.R. Machavaram, counsel for Accused Officer-1, and Sri P. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, counsel for Accused No.2 the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore has laid a Charge Sheet against Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2 in Cr.No.13/RCT-NLR/2014 charged under

Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 of IPC with the following allegations:

2. That Gochipathala Chinnamma (PW.1) is a native of

Ulavapalla village of Dagadarthi mandal. An extent of Acs.2.00 of

Government land vested in Rs.No.46-3(2) situated in Ulavapalla Gram

Panchayat was given to her husband by name Gochipathala Kondaiah in the year, 1976 as patta land under the scheme of Joint forming Co-

Operative Society. Likewise, the land in an extent of Acs.2.00 was given to Pothupogu Venkata Swamy and another Acs.2.00 of the land was given to Pothupogu Kondaiah. In the year, 2002 the villagers of

Ananthavaram namely Guddeti Ramanaiah and his sons namely Venkata

Rao and Ramesh and two others occupied the land of PW.1.

When PW.1 and two others tried to cultivate the lands, but the above persons misbehaved, for that, PW.1 and others filed petitions

before RDO, Joint Collector and District Collector but they could not get

justice. After receiving and considering the petitions of PW.1 and others,

SCs and STs Commission, Andhra Pradesh and Human Rights Commission of Andhra Pradesh in the month of December, 2008 gave directions in the month of December, 2009 to the District Collector, Nellore to hand over the lands to PW.1 and two others and sent orders accordingly.

As per the instructions of the District Collector, Nellore, the RDO,

Kavali handed over the lands to PW.1 in the year, 2009. Later the encroachers of the lands filed a petition before the Hon’ble High Court of 4

AP and also in the Court of Joint Collector, Nellore. The Joint Collector,

Nellore directed the RDO, Kavali called both the parties conduct enquiry and take action. The RDO by name Subrahmanyeswara Reddy without giving notices to the husband of PW.1 and two others recorded as they refused to take notices and gave favourable orders to the encroaching party. Due to that the husband of PW.1 committed suicide.

Again PW.1 appealed the matter before the Court of Joint Collector on 15.08.2013. The Joint Collector called for the report from Tahsildar,

Dagadarthi mandal (AO-1). Taking advantage of it, Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2, who was VRO of Ulavapalla village, with an intention to have wrongful gain sent a word through Gampala Seenaiah, who was

Talari (PW.9) to PW.1 and others asked them to meet Accused Officer-1 in the Tahsildar office. Upon that, PW.1 and others met AccusedOfficer-1 and Accused No.2 on 13.12.2014 at Tahsildar Office, they explained the purpose of their calling and Accused Officer-1 demanded an amount of

Rs.30,000/- for her to send a favourable report in their names. At the request of PW.1, Pothipogu Gangamma (PW.3) and Pothipogu Venkaiah (LW.5) the amount was reduced to Rs.17,000/-. Later Accused Officer-1 received an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Accused Officer-1 further informed that the balance amount of Rs.7,000/- to be paid in ratio i.e.

Rs.5,000/- to her and Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2 and further directed the amount should be put in covers and should deliver either at her house or at the office. Accused No.2 also demanded them to give bribe amount, as demanded by Accused Officer-1.

Both Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 also threatened PW.1 and others that they would not send report in their favor, if they failed to pay the said amount to them. Having no other go, to safe guard their land,

PW.1 and others agreed to give the demanded bribe amount and went away. On 16.12.2014 PW.1 and others pooled up the amount among them and went to the Tahsildar Office and came to know that the 5

Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 went to inspect the land proposed for construction of Airport along with the Collector. Upon that PW.1 and three others came to Sunnapubatti area NH-5 road, at that time Accused

Officer-1 who was going on her way in a car got stopped the car and called PW.1 and others, who were waiting for the bus, and asked them to meet her in her house at Kavali and then PW.1 and three others were waiting for the bus, at that time Accused No.2 met them there and demanded them to give demanded bribe amount as quickly as possible, so that they would send the report quickly.

PW.1 and three others informed Accused No.2 that they were going to the house of Accused Officer-1 on that aspect. PW.1 and three others went to Kavali and met the Accused Officer-1 at her house at about 4.00 p.m. on 16.12.2014. Accused Officer-1 enquired them whether they brought the demanded amount, for which, PW.1 handed over a sum of Rs.10,000/- as stated above and expressed their inability to pay the balance amount and they came out of the house of Accused

Officer-1. The amount given to Accused Officer-1 was pooled up by PW.1 and two others with great difficulty and they were not willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2, they approached ACB office, Nellore and lodged a report to take necessary action against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2.

On 22.12.2014 after due verification, RVSN Murthy, DSP, ACB,

Prakasam District FAC of DSP, ACB, Nellore (PW.13) registered report of

PW.1 as case in Crime No.13/RCT-NLR/2014 under Section 7 of the P.C.

Act, 1988 and investigated into. PW.13 conducted pre-trap proceedings on 22.12.2014 from 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. in the presence of two mediators namely Kumbagiri Kondaiah, MEO, Venkatachalam mandal (PW.4), Gandhavalli Aruna, Tyist in the office of DEO., Nellore (PW.12), the other Inspectors, staff, PW.1 and others. All the required formalities to be observed were complied with.

6

On 22.12.2014 at about 12.00 noon Accused Officer-1 was trapped in his chamber in the office of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal, when

Accused Officer-1 demanded and received cover containing bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from PW.1 in the presence of PWs.2, 3 and P. Venkaiah (LW.5) with her right hand and counted the said amount with her both hands and also received another cover containing bribe amount of

Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 from PW.1. The chemical test conducted on both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1 yielded positive results. PW.13 conducted search in the room of Accused Officer-1 and found two brown covers were lying under the wooden rack present to the northern side to the chair of Accused Officer-1. On suspicion, PW.13 asked the mediators to take out the covers present on the floor under the wooden rack, upon that, PW.4 took out two long brown covers from that place and found currency notes present in both of them.

On verification, the said two covers containing Rs.5,000/- and

Rs.2,000/- respectively and the same were seized by PW.13 under post- trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II. The surface of floor from where the above covers containing tainted amounts recovered subjected to sodium carbonate solution test which yielded positive result. Further,

PW.13 enquired Accused Officer-1 about the file of PW.1 and 2 others pending in the office of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal, upon that, she took assistance of Deputy Tahsildar by name Y. Meena Mumar (PW.5) and gave him the keys of her office steel almyrah got opened and handed over the file pertaining to land dispute in between PW.1 and others as one party and Guddeti Venkata Rao and Guddeti Ramesh as other party.

PW.13 got information about the attending of Accused No.2 to the office of Tahsildar at that time, upon that, PW.13 instructed Inspector by name N. Siva Kumar Reddy (PW.11) and other staff to keep Accused No.2 under surveillance. On enquiry, Accused NO.2 admitted that the land issue of PW.1 and other two members was long pending in the office of 7

Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal and he has knowledge about the issue. By then, it was pending before the Joint Collector, Nellore and he merely assisted Accused Officer-1 in the course of enquiry and he did not have any knowledge about demanding and accepting of bribe amount by

Accused Officer-1 for herself and for himself. The Government of AP being the competent authority to remove Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 from service has accorded sanction to prosecute Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 and to take cognizance of the offence by the competent

Court after having satisfied vide G.O.Ms.Nos. 52 and 53 dated 03.02.2017. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2. On appearance of both the accused before this Court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 were examined under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, wherein, they denied the commission of offence, whereupon, charges under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C.Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC were framed against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28, and MOs.1 to 9. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Pothipogu Venkaiah (LW.5) as he died and

Mohammad Jilani Basha (LW.7).

6. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, Accused Officer- 1 and Accused No.2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, they denied the 8 incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. During the course of defense side evidence,

DWs.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.D1 to D8.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record including the written arguments filed on behalf of both sides.

8. Now the points for determination are:-

I) Whether Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 were

public servants as on the date of trap as defined

under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988?

II) Whether there was any official favour pending

with Accused Officer-1 as on the date of trap?

III) Whether Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2

demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1

and others?

IV) Whether Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 by

abusing their official position and also by

resorting illegal and corrupt practices, obtained

pecuniary advantage or valuable security either

for themselves or for some other person?

V) Whether there was valid sanction to prosecute

Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

VI) Whether the prosecution has proved its case

against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 for

the ofences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2)

r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

9. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing their official position demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- and

Rs.2,000/- respectively from PW.1 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing an official favour of sending the enquiry report with regard to the disputed agriculture land of PW.1 and two others in favour of them situated at Ulavapalla village and as such Accused Officer- 1 and Accused No.2 are liable for punishment for the offences punishable

U/Secs.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 r/w 34 of IPC. On the other hand, the defence of the Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 is one of 9 total denial of the prosecution case.

10. In order to prove the guilt of Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses, out of them, the Defacto-complainant namely Gochipathala Chinnamma was examined as PW.1, the brought up daughter of PW.1 by name Kavali Rani @ Pavani, who scribed Ex.P1 report was examined as PW.2, Pothipogu gangamma , who is the legal heir of another beneficiary of assigned land was examined as PW.3, one of the mediators namely Kumbagiri

Kondaiah, MEO, Venkatachalam mandal, who is said to be present at the time of ACB trap was examined as PW.4, Yasam Meena Kumar, the then

Deputy Tahsildar in the office of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal was examined as PW.5, Pasupuleti Subrahmanyam, who is the then Camp

Clerk of Joint Collector, Nellore was examined as PW.6, Nuthalapati

Chandra Sekhar, Section Officer, A.P. Secretariat, Revenue, Vigilance-III,

Velagapudi, Guntur District was examined as PW.7, Vuddandi Nageswara

Rao, Gazetted Superintendent in the land matters section in the office of

Collectorate, Nellore was examined as PW.8, Gampala Seenaiah, who is village servant of Ananthavaram village was examined as PW.9, M.

Krupanandam, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore, who conducted preliminary enquiry on Ex.P1-report and 2nd Investigating

Officer in this case was examined as PW.10, N. Siva Kumar Reddy,

Inspector of Police, Nellore, who assisted PW.13 in conducting pre-trap and post-trap proceedings was examined as PW.11, another mediator namely Gandhavalli Aruna, the then Typist in the office of DEO, Nellore said to be present at the time of ACB trap was examined as PW.12, RVSN

Murthy, the then DSP, ACB, Ongole FAC of DSP, ACB, Nellore, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case was examined as PW.13.

11. In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents and material objects:

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW.1 to the ACB police concerned, 10

Ex.P2 is the representation of PW.1 made to SCs and STs Commission,

Ex.P3 is the proceedings of DEO, Nellore dated 20.12.2014, Ex.P4 is the pre-trap proceedings dated 22.12.2014 in Mediators Report –I, Ex.P5 is the notice dated 29.11.2014 issued by incharge Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal namely Jaya Prakash, Ex.P6 is the report of incharge Tahsildar,

Dagadarthi Mandal dated 28.11.2014 addressed to the District Collector,

Nellore, Ex.P7 is Prosecution Sanction Order in G.O.Ms.No.52, Revenue (Vigilance-III.2) Department dated 03.02.2017 in respect of Accused

Officer-1, Ex.P.8 is Prosecution Sanction Order in G.O.Ms.No.53, Revenue (Vigilance-III.2) Department dated 03.02.2017 in respect of Accused

No.2, Ex.P9 is the Notice dated 25.11.2014 dispatched to both the parties and Tahsildar, Dagadarthi Mandal from Collectorate, Nellore, Ex.P10 is a relevant contradictory portion in Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9 recorded by the ACB police concerned, Ex.P11 is the memo dated 02.01.2015 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, Ex.P12 is the show-cause notice dated 20.03.2015 issued by PW.10 to Accused

Officer-1, Ex.P13 is the show-cause notice dated 20.03.2015 issued by

PW.10 to Accused No.2, Ex.P14 is the explanation dated 13.04.2015 submitted by Accused Officer-1, Ex.P15 is the explanation dated 24.03.2015 submitted by Accused No.2, Ex.P16 is the job chart and service particulars of Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 along with covering letter dated 22.05.2015 of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal, Ex.P17 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.13/RCT-NLR/2014 of ACB, Nellore Range,

Nellore, Ex.P18 is the made up file containing Exs.P5, P6 and P9 and other relevant documents, Ex.P19 is the post-trap proceedings dated 22.12.2014 in Mediators Report-II, Ex.P20 is the original FIR in Crime

NO.13/RCT-NLR-2014 of ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore, Ex.P21 is rough sketch for the scene of offence, Ex.P22 is the memo dated 31.12.2014 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, Ex.P23 is the notice

dated 09.12.2014 issued by the Joint Collector, Nellore, Ex.P24 is the

11 suspension order of Accused Officfer-1, Ex.P25 is the suspension order of

Accused No.2, Ex.P26 is the search list in respect of house search of

Accused Officer-1, Ex.P27 is the search list in respect of house search of

Accused No.2, Ex.P28 is the explanation dated 02.12.2014 given by

Accused No.2 to the Joint Collector, Nellore.

MO.1 is the sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate

Powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings, MO.2 is the sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings, MO.3 is the sealed bottle containing right hand wash of Accused Officer-1, MO.4 is sealed bottle containing left hand wash of Accused Officer-1, MO.5 is cash of Rs.5,000/-, MO.6 is cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.7 is sealed bottle containing wash of surface of floor from where the envelop covers were contacted, MO.8 is sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate

Powder used in Post-trap Proceedings, MO.9 is two envelop covers.

12. In order to establish the charges leveled against the Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13, among them, Pws.1 to 3, 12 and 13 are the main witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 13, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 13 and the documentary evidence is to be appreciated by the Court. No material discrepancies going to the root of the case have been elicited in the cross examination of material witnesses. There is no reason for these witnesses is comingforth to speak falsehood as against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2. Thus, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of these material witnesses and their evidence is consistent through-out and inspires the confidence of the court. Therefore, these witnesses can be believed and can be depended upon in adjudicating the matter.

13. PO INT NO.I:-

It is to be first seen whether the Accused Officer-1 and Accused 12

No.2 were public servants as on the date of trap as defined under

Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the Accused Officer-1 worked as

Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal till 22.12.2014 and Accused No.2 worked as

VRO of Ulavapalla and Ananthavaram villages till 22.12.2014. By virtue of the posts held by them, they fall under the category of public servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. There is no dispute from the side of the Accused persons with regard to their designations as on the date of trap, and their discharged their duties by receiving salaries from the State Government funds.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 were public servants as on the date of trap as defined under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

14. POINT NO.II:-

It is to be next seen whether there was any official favour pending with the Accused Officer-1 pertaining to PW.1 and two others as on the date of trap. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the husband of lPW.1 by name Gochipathala Kondaiah was obtained

Government patta land in the year, 1976 in an extent of Acs.2.00 situated in Rs.No.46-3(2) of Ulavapalla revenue village under the scheme of Joint Forming Co-Opetative Society. Likewise, the land in an extent of

Acs.2.00 was given to Pothupogu Venkata Swamy and another Acs.2.00 of the land was given to Pothupogu Kondaiah. In the year, 2002 the villagers of Ananthavaram by name Guddeti Ramanaiah and his two sons namely Venkata Rao and Ramesh and two others occupied the aforesaid lands. After considering the applications of PW.1 and two others made to the SCs and STs Commission, Andhra Pradesh and Human Rights

Commission of Andhra Pradesh in the month of December, 2008 gave directions in the month of December, 2009, to the District Collector,

Nellore to hand over the lands to PW.1 and two others and sent orders 13 accordingly. As per the instructions of the District Collector, Nellore, the

RDO, Kavali handed over the lands to PW.1 in the year, 2009. Later the encroachers of the lands filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High

Court of AP and also filed a petition in the Court of Joint Collector, Nellore.

The Joint Collector, Nellore directed the RDO, Kavali to call both the parties, conduct enquiry and take action. The RDO by name

Subrahmanyeswara Reddy without giving notices to the husband of PW.1 and two others recorded as they refused to take notices and gave favourable orders to the encroaching party.

15. Further, PW.1 preferred an appeal before the Court of Joint

Collector, Nellore on 15.08.2013 and the Joint Collector, Nellore called report from Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 in this matter. Taking advantage of it, Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 with an intention to have wrongful gain sent a word through village servant by name

Gampala Seenaiah (PW.9) to PW.1 and others asked them to meet in the

Tahsildar office. Upon that, PW.1 and others met Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 on 13.12.2014 at Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal and at that time Accused Officer-1 demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for herself to send favourable report in their names. Accused No.2 also demanded them to give the bribe amount as demanded by Accused Officer-1. Both

Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 also threatened PW.1 and two others that they would not send report infavour of them, if they failed to pay the said amount to them. Having no other go, to safe guard their land, PW.1 and others agreed to give the demanded bribe amount and went away.

On 16.12.2014 PW.1 and three others handed over a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Accused Officer-1 at her house, Kavali and agreed to pay further a sum of Rs.5,000/- to Accused Officer-1 and Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2. But they were not willing to pay further bribe amount to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2, they approached ACB office, Nellore and lodged a 14 report for taking necessary action against Accused Officer-1.

16. In order to prove the official favour pending with Accused

Officer-1 pertaining to PW.1 and two others the prosecution has examined the defacto-complainant namely Gochipathala Chinnamma as

PW.1, who stated in her evidence that in the year 1976 the Government gave land to an extent of Acs.2.00 to her husband namely Gochipathala

Kondaiah and so also Pothupogu Kondaiah and Pothupogu Venkataswamy to an extent of Acs.2.00 each situated at Ulavapalla Village. While so, in the year, 2008 Guddeti Ramanaiah along with his two sons namely

Guddeti Venkat Rao and Guddeti Ramesh came to their lands and informed that in the year, 2002 the Government issued Pattas in their favour for the lands in their occupation and they restrained them to cultivate their lands, for which, they made representations to the

Collector, R.D.O., Tahsildar and the relevant authorities with a request to restrained them to occupy their lands, which were given pattas by the

Government in their favour. When they approached Revenue Divisional

Office, Kavali where they were informed that the Pattas were issued in favour of Guddeti Venkat Rao and Guddei Ramesh during the tenure of the R.D.O. namely Masthan Rao. They approached the aforesaid

Revenue authorities several times and went around the said offices, but invain.

17. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that they approached

Human Rights Commission at Hyderabad and made a complaint-petition stating that the Government assigned lands to them and for very same lands, the R.D.O. concerned issued Pattas to other persons, due to which, they could not cultivate their lands. Subsequently, they were called

before the R.D.O., Kavali and enquired them along with their opponents

and submitted the report. After conducting enquiry by the RDO, Kavali they were asked to attend before the Human Rights Commission,

Hyderabad. Accordingly, they attended before the Human Rights 15

Commission, Hyderabad, where they were informed that R.D.O., Kavali submitted a report stating that they were not residing in the given addresses for the last 10 years. Then they produced documentary proof, showing that they have been residing in the given addresses, before the

Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad. Then the Human Rights

Commission, Hyderabad passed Orders permitting them to cultivate their lands. Then they approached the R.D.O., Kavali along with Orders passed by the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad. After perusal of the orders passed by the Human Rights Commission, R.D.O., Kavali also permitted them to cultivate their lands and he sent a report to that effect to the District Collector.

18. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that Guddeti Venkat Rao and Guddei Ramesh approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed a Writ

Petition wherein they were issued notices by the Hon’ble High Court. At that time, Accused Officer-1 was the Tahsildar of Dagadarthi Mandal.

They were informed by Accused Officer-1 that they could not cultivate the aforesaid lands and so also Guddeti Venkat Rao and Guddei Ramesh till adjudicate the dispute by the Hon’ble High Court. Subsequently, on one day Accused Officer-1 sent Talari by name Seenaiah (PW.9) to their house, who informed them that they were called by Accused Officer-1 to her office. Accordingly, herself, PW.2, PW.3 and Venkaiah (LW.5) went to the office of Accused Officer-1 and met her, who asked them to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to deliver their lands, altogether Rs.30,000/-.

Then they expressed their inability to pay that much amount to her, who reiterated her demand for delivering their lands. Then thet left the

Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi Mandal and return back to their village and discussed about the demand of Accused Officer-1.

19. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that after discussing, they have decided to pay Rs.10,000/- collectively instead of Rs.30,000/- and they pooled up the said amount Rs.10,000/- in a week and they went to 16

Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi Mandal along with the said amount of

Rs.10,000/-, but Accused Officer-1 was not available in the office on that day. They were informed that Accused Officer-1 followed the Joint

Collector to the function of laying the foundation stone of Airport at

Damavaram village of Dagadarthi Mandal. Then they left the Tahsildar’s

Office and while they were waiting for bus at Sunnapubatti Center. At that time, while going by Accused Officer-1 by car noticed them and she came to them at Sunnapubatti Center and enquired them whether they brought the demanded amount, for which, they replied positively and then she asked them to come to her house at Kavali, so saying, she left the said place. After 10 minutes, Accused No.2 approached them at

Sunnapubatti center and he also enquired them whether they brought the demanded amount made by Accused Officer-1, for which, they replied their inability to pay that much amount and they pooled up a sum of Rs.10,000/- for paying the same to the Accused Officer-1. Then

Accused No.2 told them that Accused Officer-1 did not demand much amount and she asked only Rs.5,000/- per acre. Then Accused No.2 told them to meet Accused Officer-1 at her house at Kavali and he also demanded them to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for him.

20. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that they went to the house of Accused Officer-1 at Kavali and then Accused Officer-1 enquired them whether they brought the demanded amount, for which, they expressed their inability to pay that much amount and informed to her that they brought a sum of Rs.10,000/-.Then Accused Officer-1 told them that amount was not sufficient for doing their work and asked them to pay at least another Rs.5,000/-. Then she handed over a sum of Rs.10,000/- to

Accused Officer-1 in her house. After receiving the said amount of

Rs.10,000/-, the Accused Officer-1 warned that next time onwards they have to give the amount by keeping the same in the cover. Then they also informed to Accused Officer-1 that Accused No.2 also demanded 17 them to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for him. Then Accused Officer-1 told them that they have to pay another Rs.5,000/- for her on coming Monday and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 and further told them that if they failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- to her, she would not attend their work and on the other hand, she would do favour to their opponents. Thereafter, they left the house of Accused

Officer-1. As they were not willing to pay further bribe amount to Accused

Officer-1 and after discussing among them, they have decided to lodge a report in the ACB office concerned and accordingly on the next day, they went to ACB office, Nellore and lodged Ex.P1 report for taking necessary action against accused persons.

21. The aforesaid testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 with regard to assigning the lands to the husband of

PW.1 and two others in the year, 1976 by the Government, preventing by

G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh to cultivate their lands stating that they were issued lease pattas for very same lands in the year 2002 by the then RDO, Kavali, claimed their ownership over the said lands, making of application by the husband of PW.1 and two others before the RDO,

Kavali, informing lease pattas were issued in the year 2002 infavour of G.

Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh by the then RDO, Kavali etc., facts. The aforesaid testimony of PW.1 is further corroborated by the evidence of

PW.2 with regard to approaching Human Rights Commission by the husband of PW.1 and others, calling the report by the Human Rights

Commission, Hyderabad from RDO, Kavali in respect of ownership of their lands, conducting enquiry by the RDO, Kavali and submitting his report to the Human Rights commission, Hyderabad stating that the families of husband of PW.1 and two other beneficiers namely P. Kondaiah and Pothipogu Venkaiah were migrated from Ulavapalla village 10 years ago and they were not resided from 1991 to 2002 and the said lands were cultivated by G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh from 1992 to 2002 18 and Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal submitted his report recommending to issue pattas infavour of G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh and on the basis of said report of Tahsildar concerned, the then RDO by name K. Masthan

Rao issued proceedings vide RC No.2668/2002 dated 05.08.2002 wherein issued pattas in favour of G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh.

22. PW.2 in her evidence further stated that in the year, 1992 the said Guddeti Venkat Rao and Guddeti Ramesh were aged only 10 and 8 years respectively and their father namely Guddeti Ramanaiah was the small Railway Employee. PW.1 and two others denied that their families were migrated from Ulavapalla village in between 1992 to 2002 before the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad and submitted proof of residence during the said period by producing house hold supply cards, voters identity cards, electricity bills of lands, electricity bills of houses, and house tax receipts. After perusal of proof of residence documents submitted by PW.1 and two others, the Human Rights Commission,

Hyderabad passed an order directing the District Collector, Nellore to conduct enquiry and allowed PW.1 and two others in case they are eligible for the said lands.

23. PW.2 in her evidence further stated that as per the orders of the District Collector, Nellore, an enquiry was conducted by the RDO,

Kavali. As per the permission given by the RDO, Kavali, they started cultivating the lands by raising paddy crop. Since they were permitted to cultivate the said lands by the RDO, Kavali, then their opponents namely

Guddeti Venkata Rao and Guddeti Ramesh challenged the said act of

RDO, Kavali permitting them to cultivate the subject lands before the

Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ Petition and the said Writ Petition was

dismissed with an observation to approach the Joint Collector concerned for their grievances. As per the observation of the Hon’ble High Court, their opponents filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nellore, wherein, PW.1 and two others received Notices from the Joint Collector 19 and accordingly they attended before the Joint Collector, Nellore. The

Joint Collector, Nellore passed an Order directing the R.D.O., Kavali to conduct enquiry and submit his report. The R.D.O. concerned without serving notices, passed an exparte Order stating that PW.1 and two others refused to receive the Notices and submitted his report to the

Joint Collector, Nellore. Then PW.1 and two others challenged the report of R.D.O., Kavali before the Joint Collector, Nellore by way of appeal.

During enquiry, the Joint Collector, Nellore communicated oral information to the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi Mandal through Camp Clerk namely Subramanyam that both the parties were not permitted to enter into the subject land till adjudication of the dispute and further asked to submit the report in respect of the subject lands.

24. PW.2 in her evidence further stated that the then Tahsildar issued Proceedings directing both the parties not to enter the subject land till adjudicating the matter. On 13.12.2014, Accused Officer-1 called

PW.1 and two others to the Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi Mandal through

Village Servant by name Seenaiah (PW.9) to the Tahsildar Office.

Accordingly, herself, PW.1 and others went to Tahsildar’s Office,

Dagadarthi Mandal and met Accused Officer-1 in her chamber where they were informed by Accused Offticer-1 that a report was called by the Joint

Collector, Nellore from her with regard to the subject lands and she demanded them to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per each acre for sending favourable report in their names to the Joint Collector i.e., per head

Rs.10,000/- altogether Rs.30,000/-. Then they expressed their inability to pay that much amount towards bribe. At that time Accused No.2 was also present in the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and he advised them stating that Accused Offticer-1 asked very little amount of Rs.5,000/- per acre for sending favourable report and asked them to pay the said amount to Accused Offticer-1. Accused Offticer-1 further stated that if they paid total amount of Rs.30,000/- to her towards bribe, then only she 20 would send favourable report to the Joint Collector, Nellore for the subject lands, otherwise she would not do in their favour.

25. PW.2 in her evidence further supported the testimony of PW.1 with regard to herself, PWs.1, 2 and Venkaiah (LW.5) went to Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal along with a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as Accused

Offticer-1 was not available in the Tahsildar Office, while they were waiting for the bus at Sunnapubatti centre, Accused Offticer-1 meet them and later Accused No.2, and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- was handed over to Accused Offticer-1 in her house at Kavali, demanding further amount of Rs.5,000/- to her and Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 by the

Accused Offticer-1 to them etc., and later lodging of Ex.P1 report in ACB office, Nellore on 18.12.2014 for taking necessary action against accused persons.

26. The aforesaid testimony made by PWs.1 and 2 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 with regard to assigning the lands by the Government in favour of husband of PW.1, her father-in-law namely P. Kondaiah and P. Venkata Swamy, claiming the said lands by G.

Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh by showing lease pattas issued in their favour by the RDO, Kavali, calling them to the Tahsildar office,

Dagadarthi mandal by Accused Offticer-1, demanding bribe amount for sending the report in their favour, payment of Rs.10,000/- to Accused

Offticer-1 in her house at Kavali and demanding them further amount of

Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2 by the Accused

Offticer-1, lodging of report in ACB office, Nellore for taking necessary action against accused persons etc., facts.

27. PW.5, who is the then Deputy Tahsildar in the office of the

Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal in his evidence stated that the land in an extent of Acs.6.00 of Co-operative Joint Forming Society, which is situated in Ulavapalla Grama Panchayat Limits was allotted to 3 persons,

Acs.2.00 each about 40 years ago. The RDO concerned is the Pattadar of 21

Co-operative Joint Forming Society lands and the persons in whose possession the said land are the enjoyers.Accused Officer-1 was on leave at that time the Tahsildar, Bhogolu was in-charge of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi

Mandal. The office of the Joint Collector, Nellore made a phone call to the in-charge Tahsildar, Bhogolu Mandal asking him to secure the presence of both the parties, who quarreled with regard to the aforesaid lands. On receipt of the said information through in-charge Tahsildar, Bhogolu mandal by him, he prepared Notices asking both the parties to attend

before the Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi Mandal and they served the

notices to Pws.1, 3 and P. Venkaiah (LW.5), Guddeti Venkat Rao and

Guddeti Ramesh, wherein they were asked to attend before the Tahsildar

Office, Dagadarthi mandal on or before 23.12.2014. In the mean time, on 22.12.2014 Accused Officer-1 was trapped by the ACB Police concerned.

On 01.12.2014 after availing leave, Accused Officer-1 joined duty as

Tahsildar, Dagadarthi Mandal. On the date of trap i.e. on 22.12.2014 the

ACB officials trapped Accused Officer-1 in between 11.00 a.m. and 11.30 a.m., later ACB police concerned asked him to submit the file concerned to this case and accordingly he produced the file containing the petitions of PWs.1, 3 and LW.5 and other connected papers.

28. PW.6, who is then camp clerk of the Joint Collector, Nellore in his evidence stated that on 01.12.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. Pws.1, 3 and others came to the office of the District Collector, Nellore as it was grievance day and they met the Joint Collector by name Rekharani and they placed their land dispute before the Joint Collector. At that time, he was with the said Joint Collector being the Camp Clerk. After hearing the land dispute of Pws.1, 3 and others, the Joint Collector namely Rekharani instructed him to contact the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi Mandal and asked her to come to the Joint Collector’s Office along with the file of PW.1 and others. Accordingly, he contacted the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi Mandal (Accused Officer-1) and informed her that the Joint Collecter instructed 22 her to come to the Joint Collector’s Office along with the land dispute file of PW.1 and others.

29. PW.8, who is the then Gazetted Superintendent in land matters

Section in the Office of Collectorate, Nellore, in his evidence stated that in the year, 2013 RDO, Kavali passed an order against PW.1 and others, permitting their opponents namely Guddeti Venkata Rao and Guddeti

Ramesh to cultivate the disputed lands situated at Ulavapalla Village of

Dagadarthi Mandal. Aggrieved by the said Orders passed by the RDO,

Kavali, PW.1 and others filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nellore wherein his office prepared notices and dispatched the said notices to the both parties to appear before the Joint Collector, Nellore. In the said notices, copy was extended to the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi Mandal with a direction to submit the report along with the relevant documents and appear before the Joint Collector, Nellore on 23.12.2014 (Ex.P23).

30. On the other hand, Accused Officer-1 contended that husband of PW.1 by name Gochipathala Kondaiah and two other beneficieries namely Pothupogu Kondaiah and Pothupogu Venkata Swamy sold out their assigned lands to Perikala Malyadri and Karra Polaiah for a sale consideration of Rs.2,900/- per acre and inturn the said Perikala Malyadri and Karra Polaiah sold out the said assigned lands to G. Venkata Rao and

G. Ramesh in the year, 2002 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in the year 2002 the then RDO, Kavali issued lease pattas infavour of G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the disputed lands.

31. The undisputed facts are that in the year, 1976 the

Government assigned the lands to an extent of Acs.2.00 to the husband of PW.1 by name Gochipathala Kondaiah and also assigned Acs.2.00 each to Pothapogu Kondaiah and Pothaplogu Venkata Swamy situated at

Ulavapalla village and the said land of total Acs.6.00 is under Co-

Operative Joint Forming Society and the RDO, Kavali is the pattadar of 23 the said Co-Operative Joint Forming Society and beneficiaries namely

G. Kondaiah, P. Kondaiah and P. Venkata Swamy were the enjoyers of the said land. The dispute arose when G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh prevented husband of PW.1 and two others for cultivating the said lands by claiming ownership over the said lands by showing lease pattas issued by RDO, Kavali in the year, 2002 in their favour. It is also an undisputed fact that when there was an obstruction from G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh claiming the ownership over the said assigned lands, the aforesaid beneficiaries had approached the revenue authorities from

Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal upto District Collector, Nellore, but invain.

32. Further, the husband of PW.1 and two other beneficiaries had approached Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad seeking to restrain

G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh from interfering with their assigned lands and the said Human Rights Commission called the report from the

District Collector, Nellore. Accordingly, as per the instructions of the

District Collector, Nellore an enquiry was conducted by the RDO, Kavali and submitted the report before the Human Rights Commission through the District Collector, Nellore wherein RDO, Kavali observed that the husband of PW.1 and two others left the aforesaid assigned lands and migrated from Ulavapalla village for a period of 10 years from 1992 to 2002 and the then RDO, Kavali issued lease pattas in favour of G.

Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh as they were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands . After perusal of the report submitted by the RDO,

Kavali, the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad passed orders wherein directing the District Collector, Nellore to conduct fresh enquiry and allow

PW.1 and others to cultivate the subject lands if they are eligible. In pursuance of the orders passed by the Human Rights Commission,

Hyderabad, the RDO, Kavali conducted fresh enquiry as per the instructions of the District Collector, Nellore and in the meantime, RDO,

Kavali permitting PW.1 and two others to cultivate the subject lands.

24

33. Further, aggrieved by the said permission, given by the RDO,

Kavali, G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh approached the Hon’ble High

Court and filed a Writ Petition vide WP No.37382/2014 wherein, at the first instance granted interim order to maintain status-quo and issued notices to PW.1 and others and finally the said Writ petition was dismissed with an observation to avail proper remedy by filing an appeal

before the Joint Collector, Nellore against the orders passed by RDO,

Kavali. Accordingly, G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh preferred an appeal

before the Joint Collector, Nellore, wherein the Joint Collector, Nellore

asked RDO, Kavali to conduct enquiry with regard to subject lands and submit the report. Accordingly, RDO, Kavali conducted enquiry and submitted his report before the Joint Collector, Nellore. In pursuance of the said report filed by the RDO, Kavali, the appeal was decided in favour of the G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh by the Joint Collector, Nellore.

34. It is also an undisputed fact that the RDO, Kavali while conducting enquiry issued notices to both sides and he submitted the report by setting PW.1 and others exparte, as they refused to receive the notices. PW.1 and others came to know the said enquiry report filed by the RDO, Kavali they filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nellore in

RC. E5/280/2013, wherein the Joint Collector, Nellore issued notices to both sides to appear before 23.12.2014 at 11.00 a.m. and copy of the said enquiry notice was extended to the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal to appear before the Joint collector, Nellore personally on 23.12.2014 along with the file of the aforesaid disputed land including copy of adangal,

FMB, copy of ROR, extract of 1-B Register and relevant documents and her detailed enquiry report. Ex.P23 is the copy of enquiry notice dated 09.12.2014.

35. It is also an undisputed fact that Accused Officer-1 was on leave from 15.11.2014 to 30.11.2014 and during her leave period, the

Tahsildar, Bhogolu mandal by name Jayaprakash was FAC to the post of 25

Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal. Ex.P5 is the notice dated 25.11.2014 issued by the incharge Tahsildar namely Jayaprakash to both the parties directing them not to enter into the disputed land till the dispute is cleared and both the parties received Ex.P5 notices on 30.11.2014.

Accused Officer-1, after completion of the leave, joined duty on 30.11.2014. As per the orders of the Joint Collector, Nellore, Accused

Officer-1 being the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal has to attend before the

Joint Collector, Nellore personally on 23.12.2014 at 11.00 a.m. along with the file of disputed land, relevant revenue records of disputed land like adangals, 1-B register, ROR extract and her detailed enquiry report.

36. The claim of PWs.1 to 3 is that Accused Officer-1 demanded them to pay bribe amount to submit her enquiry report before the Joint

Collector, Nellore in their appeal vide RC E.5/280/2013 in their favour.

The said report has to be submitted by Accused Officer-1 before the Joint

Collector, Nellore on 23.12.2014. In the mean time, on 22.12.2014

Accused Officer-1 was trapped by the ACB police concerned on Ex.P1 report lodged by PW.1 and others. The official favour pertaining to PW.1 and others was pending with Accused Officer-1 as on the date of trap.

PW.1 in her evidence stated that on 13.12.2014 Accused Officer-1 called her and two others to her office through Village Servant namely Seenaiah (PW.9) and accordingly, they met Accused Officer-1 in Tahsildar’s office,

Dagadarthi mandal and they were informed by Accused Officer-1 that the

Joint Collector, Nellore called her enquiry report in respect of the subject lands in their appeal pending before the Joint Collector, Nellore and she demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per acre for submitting favourable report

before the Joint Collector, Nellore altogether Rs.30,000/-. They expressed

their inability to pay that much amount and left Tahsildar office. On 16.12.2014 with great difficulty, she and two others pooled up a sum of

Rs.10,000/- and the said amount was handed over to Accused Officer-1 in her house at Kavali and on receipt of the said amount, Accused Officer-1 26 demanded further amount of Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- to

Accused No.2 to be given on 22.12.2014, failing which, the report would be submitted to the Joint Collector, Nellore against them and infavour of their opponents. As she and two others after discussing with each other, they were not willing to pay further bribe amount to Accused Officer-1 an 18.12.2014 they lodged Ex.P1 report in ACB office, Nellore for taking necessary action against Accused Officer-1.

37. The aforesaid testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 and their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.3. Further, PW.6 the then Camp clerk of the Joint

Collector, Nellore in his evidence stated that on the instructions of the then Joint Collector, Nellore namely Rekha Rani, he contacted Accused

Officer-1, who was Tahsildar of Dagadarthi mandal, over a phone and asked her to attend the office of the Joint Collector, Nellore along with the file of PW.1 and others. Further, PW.8, who is the then Gazetted

Superintendent in the land matters Section in the office of Collectorate,

Nellore, in his evidence stated that aggrieved by the orders passed by the RDO, Kavali, PW.1 and others preferred an appeal before the joint collector, Nellore and in the said appeal, his office prepared notices and dispatched notices to both parties to appear before the Joint Collector,

Nellore on 23.12.2014 and copy of aplpeal notice was extended to

Accused Officer-1, who was the Tahsildar of Dagadarthi mandal with a direction to submit her detailed enquiry report along with relevant documents by appearing before the Joint Collector, Nellore personally on 23.12.2014.

38. The aforesaid testimony made by PWs.5 and 8 supported the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 that an appeal vide RC. E5/280/2013 was filed

PW.1 and others was pending before the Joint Collector, Nellore against

G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh on the orders passed by the RDO, Kavali, wherein permitting G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh to cultivate the 27 subject lands and Accused Officer-1 being the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal has to submit her detailed enquiry report before the Joint

Collector, Nellore on 23.12.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. by attending personally along with the relevant record. Therefore, official favour pertaining to PW.1 and two others was pending with Accused Officer-1 as on the date of trap.

39. At this juncture, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 has vehemently contended that the prosecution failed to establish any official favour was pending with Accused Officer-1 pertaining to PW.1 and others as on the date of trap and that the Accused Officer-1 never demanded PW.1 and others to pay any bribe amount for submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore in their appeal vide

RC.E5/ 280/2013. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel

for the Accused Officer-1 has relied upon the following decisions:

i) The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State Vs. K. Narasimhachary reported in 2006 CRI.L.J.518,wherein it was held that – “The accused merely a recommending authority and not the valuation or the final authority. The accused also not a outward Clerk for issuance of property Valuation Certificate. The said Certificate was already forwarded and signed by final authority before alleged demand of bribe by the accused. Aforesaid circumstances create suspicion about demand of bribe. The acquittal of the accused was proper.” ii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao reported in 2004 CRI.L.J. 1412,wherein it was held that – “We think the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the contract for which PW.1 had offered his bid was only under consideration and was not finally accepted, therefore, the question of respondent agreeing to given work order on payment of bribe did not arise.” iii) The decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 Crl.L.J. 3155, wherein it was held that – “From the prosecution witnesses, it is proved that there was no work of Radhey Shyam pending with the accused, therefore he could not have given even any money as bribery. Demand of the money by the Accused is not proved. Accused is entitled for acquittal”.

iv) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of U.P.reported in1994 28

CRI.L.J.1383,wherein it was held that – “There was no motive for demanding and accepting the bribe because no bill was pending before the accused for pre-audit. Acquittal of the accused by trial court justified.”

40. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that it is clear in the evidence of PW.1 that the Joint Collector,

Nellore asked Accused Officer-1 to submit detailed enquiry report in respect of the aforesaid disputed land along with relevant revenue records and other connected documentsin the appeal filed by PW.1 and others inRC. E5/280/2013, Accused Officer-1 called PW.1 and others to her office on 13.12.2014, demanded them to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per each acre from the said 3 beneficiaries altogether Rs.30,000/- for submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore on 23.12.2014 and on receipt of a sum of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1 and others on 16.12.2014 by Accused Officer-1 in her house at Kavali, further demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2 for submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore in their appeal on 23.12.2014 and the said part of testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.5 and 8 in respect of appeal vide RC.E5/280/2013 was pending before the Joint Collector, Nellore filed by PW.1 and others, wherein asked Accused Officer-1 to submit her detailed report along with connected revenue records and relevant documents on 23.12.2014 before the Joint Collector, Nellore and therefore official favour pertaining to PW.1 and others was pending with

Accused Officer-1 as on the date of trap i.e. 22.12.2014.

41. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of Bombay High Court rendered in Prakash Sankarrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2110,wherein it was held that – “As rightly observed by the trial court, for succeeding in 29 the case under P.C. Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that the accused made demand of bribe and accepted amount pursuant to that demand. It may be that accused could not directly do any favours to the person from whom he was accepting the demand. However, if the accused is capable of doing certain work and he holds a post or position which can ordinarily be taken to be capable of giving him necessary powers then nothing more is required to be proved by the prosecution that the fact of demand , the representation made by the accused, of doing favours and the fact of acceptance of bribe.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat

reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1497, wherein it was held that – “If the accused used his official position to extract illegal gratification, the requirement of the law is satisfied. It is not necessary in such a case for the court to consider whether the public servant was capable of doing or intended to do any official act or favour or disfavour.” iii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs., R. Jeevaratnam reported in 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 486 (SC), wherein it was held that – “The High Court concludes, on the basis of evidence, that by 23.11.1991 the file had already been cleared to the knowledge of the complainant. The High Court concludes that as the file was already cleared, the question of doing favour of not, doing favour did not arise.”

42. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record. From the beginning PW.1 in her Ex.P1 report lodged to ACB police concerned and her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated that Accused

Officer-1 called her and other beneficiers to her office i.e. Tahsildar Office,

Dagadarthi mandal on 13.12.2014 demanded them to pay a sum of

Rs.5,000/- per each acre altogether Rs.30,000/- for Acs.06.00 to submit favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore on 23.12.2014 and she gave a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Accused Officer-1 on 16.12.2014 at her house and on receipt of the said amount, Accused Officer-1 demanded them to pay further amount of Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- to

Accused No.2 for submitting favourable report in their appeal before the 30

Joint Collector, Nellore. They agreed to pay the total amount of Rs.7,000/- to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 and as they were not willing to pay further bribe amount to Accused Officer-1, she along with others lodged Ex.P1 report in ACB Office, Nellore on 18.12.2014. This part of testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3.

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW.1 and others, which is strong piece of corroborative evidence and it corroborates oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3.

43. Further, PW.13 who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that after the trap, Ex.P18 file pertaining to the dispute of subject land was seized from the Deputy Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal (PW.5). The said part of testimony made by PW.13 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.12, who is second mediator for the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. The aforesaid part of testimony made by PWs.12 and 13 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.5 that the ACB police concerned seized Ex.P18 file from his possession and the said file containing Exs.P5, P6, P9 and other relevant documents with regard to the land dispute of PW.1 and others.

44. Having considered the material available on record, it can be safely concluded that the power of submitting enquiry report before the

Joint Collector, Nellore in RC.E5/280/2013 vested in Accused Officer-1 and she is capable of doing certain work being the Tahsildar of Dagadarthi mandal which can ordinarily be taken to be capable of giving to her necessary powers than nothing more is required to be proved by the prosecution as per the decision of Bombay High Court rendered in

Prakash Sankarrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2110 and also the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1497. Further, as per the aforesaid decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of

Andhra Pradesh Vs., R. Jeevaratnam reported in 2004 (2) ALD 31 (Crl.) 486 (SC) wherein it was observed that it is not required that the official favour should be pending as on the date of trap. But in the instant case, official favour pertaining to PW.1 and others was pending with

Accused Officer-1 as on the date of trap i.e. to submit detailed enquiry report along with relevant revenue records and connected documents in respect of disputed patta land under the scheme of Joint Forming Co-

Operative Society in an extent of Acs.06.00 situated at Ulavapalla village

before the Joint Collector, Nellore in the appeal vide RC.E5/280/2013 filed

by PW.1 and others on 23.12.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. by personally

Accused officer-1 attend before the said authority.

45. POINT NO.III:-

It is to be next seen whether Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1 and others. As per the prosecution, the then RDO, Kavali namely Subrahmaneswara

Reddy without giving notices to the husband of PW.1 and other two beneficiaries recorded as “they refused to take notices” and decided to enquiry infavour of G. Venkata Rao and G. Ramesh. Aggrieved by the said enquiry conducted by RDO, Kavali, PW.1 and others preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nellore who called report from the

Accused Officer-1. Taking advantage of the same, Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 with an intention to have wrongful gain called PW.1 and others through PW.9, to the Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal and on 13.12.2014 PW.1 and others met Accused Officer-1 in Tahsildar office,

Dagadarthi mandal, at that time Accused Officer-1 demanded them to pay total sum of Rs.30,000/- as bribe for submitting favourable report in their names before the Joint Collector, Nellore in the appeal filed by them. They expressed their inability to pay that much amount and left

Tahsildar Office, Dagadarthi mandal. They pooled up a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the said amount was paid to Accused Officer-1 on 16.12.2014 in her house at Kavali and on receipt of the said amount, Accused OIfficer-1 32 demanded them to pay further a sum of Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2 for submitting favourable report before the Joint

Collector, Nellore in their appeal and having no other go, they agreed to pay the said amount on 22.12.2016 and after discussing each other and as they were not willing to pay further amount to Accused Officer-1, on 18.12.2014 they lodged Ex.P1 report in ACB office, Nellore for taking necessary action against Accused Officer-1.

46. After following the due procedure, the DSP, ACB, Ongole FAC of

DSP, ACB, Nellore (PW.13) registered the report of PW.1 and others as case in Crime NO.13/RCT-NLR/2014 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 on 22.12.2014 at 9.00 a.m. and investigated into. Further, during the course of investigation, PW.13 conducted pre-trap proceedings in ACB office, Nellore from 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. in the presence of the mediators. After conducting pre-trap proceedings, on the same day at about 12.15 p.m. Accused Officer-1 was trapped by the ACB police concerned in Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi mandal, when she demanded

PW.1 and others to pay further amount of Rs.5,000/- for her for submitting favourable report in their appeal before the Joint Collector,

Nellore and PW.1 handed over brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- and the same was received by Accused Officer-1 in her chamber at Tahsildar Office, Dagadarthi mandal with her right hand counted the tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- from taking out from the cover with her both hands and kept the said amount in the same cover and further she also received another brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 and others, for Accused No.2. The chemical test conducted to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1 yielded positive result. The brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- (MO.5) and another brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- (MO.6) were for collected under the wooden rack towards left side of Accused Officer-1 in her chamber and PW.13 33 seized the said amounts (MOs.5 and 6) in the presence of the mediators under Exs.P19-post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II. Further, the surface under the wooden rack, wherein the envelop covers contacted was subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, which yielded positive result. Subsequently, PW.13 secured the presence of Accused No.2 and

PW.13 enquired Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe amount from PW.1 and others and their versions were incorporated in Ex.P19-post-trap proceedings.

47. In order to prove the demand and acceptance, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant namely Gochipathala Chinnamma as PW.1, who reiterated the contents in her Ex.P1 report. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that, on one day i.e. on 13.12.2014 Accused

Officer-1 called her and others to her office i.e. Tahsildar office,

Dagadarthi mandal through the Village Servant by name Seenaiah (PW.9). Accordingly, herself, PWs.2, 3 and Venkaiah (LW.5) went to the office of Accused Officer-1 and they met Accused Officer-1, who demanded them to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per head to get their lands.

Then they expressed their inability to pay that much amount to Accused

Officer-1, but she reiterated her demand for getting their lands. After discussing, they have decided to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on their behalf instead of Rs.30,000/- and they pooled up an amount of Rs.10,000/- in a week and on 16.12.2014 they went to Tahsildar’s office, Dagadarthi mandal, but Accused Officer-1 was not available in the said office and they were informed that the Accused Officer-1 followed Joint Collector to the function of laying the foundation stone of Airport at Damavaram village of Dagadarthi mandal. Then they left the Tahsildar office, while they were waiting at Sunnapubatti centre for the bus, at that time while going in that way by Accused Officer-1 on her car noticed them and she came to them at Subbapubatti centre and enquired them whether they 34 brought demanded bribe amount, for which, they replied positively and then they were asked to come to her house at Kavali.

48. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that after 10 minutes

Accused No.2 approached them at Subbapubatti centre and advised them to comply the demand of the Accused Officer-1 and also demanded them to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for him. They met Accused Officer-1 in her house at Kavali and handed over a sum of sRs.10,000/- for submitting the report in their favour in their appeal filed before the Joint

Collector, Nellore. On receipt of the said amount of Rs.10,000/- from

PW.1, Accused Officer-1 demanded them to pay further a sum of

Rs.5,000/- for her and a sum of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 by keeping in separate covers. Even though they agreed to give further bribe amount to Accused Officer-1, but after discussing they were not willing to pay further bribe amount to Accused Officer-1 and they decided to lodge a report in ACB office, Nellore against Accused Officer-1 and accordingly, on 18.12.2014 they lodged Ex.P1 report in ACB office, Nellore for taking necessary action against Accused Officer-1.

49. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that as directed they attended ACB office, Nellore on 22.12.2014 at about 8.00 a.m. The DSP (PW.13) conducted pre-trap proceedings wherein he handed over copy of

FIR to the mediators and asked them to confirm the contents of the report with PW.1 and accordingly, the mediators (PWs.4 and 12) read over the contents of the report to PW.1 and others and they confirmed the contents of Ex.P1 report are genuine. Then the DSP enquired them whether they brought intended bribe amount, for which, she replied positively and produced cash of Rs.7,000/- and it was divided into two parts as Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/-. The denominations and numbers of the currency notes were incorporated in pre-trap proceedings. On the instructions of DSP (PW.13) one of the constables handled the currency notes from the mediators and rinsed his both hand fingers in the 35 solution, it remained unchanged and thereafter the said constable applied some white powder on the currency notes with the help of cotton swab and later the said constable kept a sum of Rs.5,000/- in one envelop cover and kept a sum of Rs.2,000/- in another envelop cover and the said two envelop covers containing tainted amount kept in a carry bag carried by her after making it empty.

50. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that PW.13 instructed her not to touch the said currency notes and they have to tender the said tainted amount to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 in case of their further demand, but not otherwise. In case Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 further demanded and accepted the tainted amount, they should come out and give a signal by wiping her face with saree frill thrice. The pre-trap proceedings was concluded by 10.30 a.m. after completion of pre-trap proceedings at about 11.00 a.m. they all started from ACB Office, Nellore in three vehicles in order to go to Tahsildar’s

Office, Dagadarthi Mandal and at about 12.00 noon they reached nearby

Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi, where PW.13 got stopped the vehicles and asked them to get down from the vehicle and the DSP (PW.13) reiterated his earlier instructions to them and asked them to proceed to the office of Accused Officer-1. Accordingly, herself, PWs.2, 3 and Venkaiah (LW.5) proceeded to the Tahsildar’s Office and they enquired the Attender at the

Chamber of Accused Officer-1, who informed them that Accused Officer-1 was available in her chamber and they were allowed to enter into the

Chamber of Accused Officer-1.

51. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that when they entered into the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and on seeing them, Accused Officer-1 enquired them whether they brought the demanded remaining amount, for which, they replied positively. Then she picked up an envelop cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- and handed over the same to 36

Accused Officer-1, who received the said cover containing Rs.5,000/- with her right hand and counted the said amount with her both hands and later kept the amount in the said brown colour envelop cover. Then they told Accused Officer-1 that they brought the amount for Accused No.2, but he was not available in the office, then Accused Officer-1 received the said cover containing Rs.2,000/- from her saying that the said amount would be handed over to Accused No.2 and after receiving the amounts, Accused Officer-1 assured that their work would be completed soon. Then they came out from the Chamber of Accused Officer-1 and relayed plre-arranged signal. Then ACB trap party rushed to the said office and on their way they were informed to wait outside till they were called inside of the Tahsildar Office.

52. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that after one hour they were called inside the room of Accused Officer-1. Then the DSP (PW.13) enquired her and three others with regard to the things that were happened from the time of alighting the vehicles till relaying of the signal. Her version and versions of PWs.2, 3 and Venkaiah were incorporated in Ex.P19-post-trap proceedings. Then the DSP confronted the version of Accused Officer-1 with them and they denied the said version of Accused Officer-1 and stuck to their earlier versions.

53. The aforesaid testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, who is the brought up daughter of PW.1, with regard to the demand made by Accused Officer-1 at Tahsildar Office, Dagadarthi mandal on 13.12.2014 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each acre altogether

Rs.30,000/- for submitting favourable report in their appeal filed before the Joint collector, Nellore on 23.12.2014, meeting of Accused Officer-1 at

Sunnapubatti centre, while they were waiting for the bus on 16.12.2014, further payment of Rs.10,000/- to Accused Officer-1 by PW.1 in her house at Kavali on 16.12.2014 during evening time and on further demand of

Accused Officer-1 to pay further sum of Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- 37

for Accused No.2 by keeping the said amount in the covers on

22.12.2014 either at her office or in her house for submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore in their appeal, further demand of Accused Officer-1 in her chamber on the date of trap i.e. 22.12.2014 at about 12.00 noon, accepted brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- from PW.1 by Accused Officer-1 with her right hand, counted the said amount with her both hands and kept the said amount in the said cover and also received another brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 from PW.1 by

Accused Officer-1, soon after receipt of the amounts by Accused Officer- 1, relayed the signal to the trap party members and later their participating in the post-trap proceedings by giving their versions with regard to the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. The aforesaid testimony of

PWs.1 and 2 is further corroborated by PW.3, who is legal heir of

Pothupogu Kondaiah, who was assigned land by the Government.

54. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined PWs.4 and 12, who are said to be mediators for pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and PWs.10 and 13, who are the Investigating

Officers in this case. PW.13, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on 18.12.2014 at 6.00 p.m. the

Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore by name M. Krupanandam (PW.10) received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and three others, upon that he informed the contents of the report to him over a phone and then he instructed

PW.10 to verify the contents of the report and verify the antecedents of

Accused Officer-1, Accused No.2, PW.1 and three others. Accordingly,

PW.10 conducted preliminary enquiry and endorsed the same on Ex.P1 and submitted to him on 22.12.2014 at 08.45 a.m. after his visiting ACB

Office, Nellore and he obtained necessary oral permission from his head office and registered the report of PW.1 and three others as a case in 38

Cr.No.13/RCT-NLR/2014 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 at 09.00 a.m on 22.12.2014 and issued Ex.P20-FIR. PW.10 secured the presence of mediators namely Kumbagiri Kondaiah (PW.4) and Gandavalli Aruna (PW.12) by giving requisition to the authority concerned and the said mediators came to ACB Office, Nellore on 22.12.2014 at 9.15 a.m. Then he called mediators (PWs.4 and 12) and

PW.1 inside his room at ACB office, Nellore and introduced PW.1 to the mediators and vice – versa.

55. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that then he handed over copy of FIR to the mediators and asked them to verify the contents of the report with PW.1 and accordingly the mediators read over the contents of the report to PW.1, who affirmed that the contents of the report are genuine and on the request of PW.1, he called her daughter namely

Pavani (PW.2) to his room and he introduced PW.2 with the mediators and vice-versa. PW.1 informed him that the total amount of Rs.7000/- which is intended bribe amount to be given to Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2, out of the said amount of Rs.7,000/-, an amount of Rs.3000/- belonging to her, remaining Rs.4000/- belonging to P. Venkaiah (LW.5) and PW.3 for Rs.2000/- each. At his instance the mediators called PW.3 and P. Venkaiah (LW.5) to his room.

56. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that the mediators ascertained the genuineness of contents of Ex.P1 report and also their sharing amount with PW.3 and LW.5. After satisfaction of version of PWs 1 to 3 and LW.5, the Mediators endorsed on copy of FIR as ‘seen’ and put their signatures. Then he asked PW.1 to produce the intended bribe amount and accordingly PW.1 produced two covers containing Rs.5000/- consisting of three Rs.1000/- currency notes and four Rs.500/- currency notes and another cover containing Rs.2000/- consisting of four Rs.500/- currency notes and on his instructions, PW.4 received the said two covers containing cash of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively, counted 39 the amounts and verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and incorporated in Ex.P4-Pre-trap Proceedings. On his instructions, Police Constable No.2245 by name Ragababu prepared

Sodium Carbonate Solution in a glass tumbler and handled the currency notes and rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solution, but there was no change in the colour of the solution. On his further instructions, the said Police Constable applied Phenolphthalein Powder on both sides of currency notes with the help of cotton swab and put the amounts in the said envelope covers and kept the said covers in the polythene cover brought by PW.1 after making it empty and handed over the said polythene cover to PW.1.

57. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that then the said Police

Constable rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solution, it turned into pink in colour. He instructed PW.1 not to touch the said currency notes and she has to tender the same to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 in case of their further demand only, but not otherwise. In case Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2 further demanded and accepted the said amount, she should come out and give a signal by wiping her face with her saree frills. He demonstrated the significance of the chemical tests to the mediators, PW.1 and three others. Then he has drawn the samples of

Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein Powders in two separate covers, got them sealed, labelled and affixed identity slips duly signed by him and mediators, MOs.1 and 2 are the same. The entire pre-trap proceedings were typed by PW.12 on the computer available in ACB

Office, Nellore. Ex.P4-Pre-trap Proceedings was concluded by 10.30 a.m.

58. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that at about 10.40 a.m himself, mediators, PWs 1 to 3, LW.5, Inspectors and other ACB trap party members started from ACB Office, Nellore in three vehicles in order to go to Tahsidar Office, Dagadarthi mandal and at about 11.50 a.m., they reached near the Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal and he got stopped 40 the vehicles there and he asked P.Ws 1 to 3 and LW.5 to get down from the vehicle and proceed to the Tahsildar office and he reiterated his earlier instructions to PWs 1 to 3 and L.W.5 and he instructed PW.10, PC 251 and WPC 314 to follow P.Ws 1 to 3 and L.W.5 closely up to the gate of

Tahsildar office and taking vantage positions there and relay the signal after receiving the pre-arranged signal from PW.1. Accordingly, PWs1 to 3 and L.W.5 proceeded to the Office of the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal and PW.10, PC 251 and WPC 314 followed them closely up to the gate of

Tahsildar office and took vantage positions near the gate of Tahsildar office. At about 12.10 pm they received signal from PW.10, PC 251 and

WPC 314 by raising up their both hands, upon that, he along with mediators and remaining trap party members including Inspector rushed towards the office of the Tahsildar and on their way, they found PWs. 1 to 3 and LW.5 near to the gate of Tahsildar office and he instructed them to wait outside of the gate till they were called inside.

59. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that then they rushed into the room of Tahsildar and they found one woman oifficer aged about 55 to 58 years sitting in the chair of Tahsildar and he approached the said woman officer and disclosed his identity and the identity of other trap party members and ascertained the identity the said woman officer as

Accused Officer-1. On hearing their identity, Accused Officer-1 tried to rub her both hand fingers to her cloths, on seeing the same, she warned

Accused Officer-1, not to do so. Then he got prepared Sodium Carbonate

Solution through Police Constable No.315 in two glass tumblers and asked Accused Officer-1 to rinse her both hand fingers separately in the said solutions, while doing so, both the solutions turned into Pink in colour. The resultant solutions were transferred into two separate clean glass bottles got them sealed, labeled and affixed identity slips duly signed by him and mediators, Mos.3 and 4 are the same. Meanwhile she sent one police constable for watching the movements of Accused No.2.

41

After sometime, he got information about attending of Accused No.2, who was VRO to the office of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal. He also instructed the inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore by name N. Sivakumar

Reddy (PW.11), HC 1958 and PC 2306 to keep Accused No.2 under surveillance. Then he enquired Accused Officer-1 the things that were happened just prior to their entering into her chamber. The version of

Accused Officer-1 was incorporated in Ex.P19-Post-trap Proceedings.

60. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that Accused Officer-1 stated that PW.1 handed over a brown colour cover to her and she received the said cover from PW.1 and handed over the same to PW.1 by informing her that she tried to solve her problem. Then he called PW.1 inside the room of Accused Officer-1 and enquired PW.1 with regard to the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. The version of PW.1 was incorporated in Ex.P19-post trap proceedings, wherein she stated that when she entered into the office of the Tahsildar, she did not find Accused No.2 in the office, upon that she went into the room of Accused Officer-1 along with PWs. 2, 3 and LW.5 and requested Accused Officer-1 to do favour to her, upon that, Accused Officer-1 asked her whether she brought the bribe amount as demanded by her, for which, she replied positively and she handed over brown colour cover containing tainted amount of

Rs.5000/- to Accused Officer-1 and informed Accused Officer-1 that the said amount of Rs.5000/- to her only, then Accused Officer-1 asked PW.1 to hand over the second cover which is intended bribe amount to

Accused No.2 and then PW.1 handed over the second cover containing tainted amount of Rs.2000/- to Accused Officer-1 and the said covers were received by Accused Officer-1 with her right hand and opened the first cover containing a wad of currency notes, she counted the said amount, it was Rs.5000/- and then she opened the second cover containing wad of currency notes and she kept the said amounts in the 42 said covers. After receiving the said covers and after verification,

Accused Officer-1 asked her and others to leave her chamber and assured that she would attend their work as early as possible.

61. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that later he called PWs.2 and 3 and LW.5 to the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and all of them stated as that of PW.1. Then he informed the versions of PWs. 1 to 3 and

LW.5 to Accused Officer-1, who kept silent. Then he conducted search in the room of Accused Officer-1 and found two brown colour covers were lying under the wooden rack which is at distance of 2 feet 6 inches from the seat of Accused Officer-1 towards northern side. On his suspicion, he asked the mediators to collect the said covers from the bottom of the wooden rack, upon that PW.4 collected both the brown colour covers and found wad of currency notes, in both the covers and then PW.4 opened the covers and counted the amounts, and found a sum of Rs.5000/- in one cover and another sum of Rs.2000/- in another cover and then he verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes which were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P4- pre trap proceedings.

Then he seized the said two brown colour covers containing cash of

Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively, MOs 5 and 6 are the same. Then himself and mediators attested the said brown colour covers.

62. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that then he enquired

Accused Officer-1 about the file of PW.1 and two others, for which,

Accused Officer-1 took the assistance of Deputy Tahsildar by name Y.

Meena Kumar (PW.5) and handed over one file which was taken out from the steel almyrah after opening it with the key available with Accused

Officer-1.He seized the said file (Ex.P18) from AccusedOfficer-1. The said

Ex.P18 made up file, containing 75 sheets, first sheet relates to petition of PW.1 and other beneficiaries, which was endorsed to Accused Officer-1 for enquiry by the Joint Collector, Nellore, remaining sheets in Ex.P18 made up file relating to earlier enquiry and correspondence of the land 43 issue of PW.1 and others with Guddeti Venkata Rao and Guddeti Ramesh and he attested Ex.P18 along with mediators. Later he called Accused

No.2 to the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and ascertained his name and designation and his role in dealing with the land issue and about the allegation of PW.1, upon that Accused No.2 stated that land issue long pending one in the office of Tahsildar and he has knowledge about the said issue. The version of Accused No.2 was incorporated in Ex.P19-post trap proceedings.

63. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that he called PW.1 to the room of Accused Officer-1 and confronted the version of accused No.2, for which, PW.1 denied the version of Accused No.2 and stuck to her earlier version. Later he called P.Ws 2, 3 and LW.5 and confronted the version of Accused No.2, for which, they stated as that of PW.1. Later he secured the presence of Attendar by name Mohammed Jilani Basha (LW.7) and recorded his brief statement in Ex.P19-post trap proceedings.

At about 04.40 P.M he arrested Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 by informing the grounds of arrest. Then he prepared Ex.P21-rough sketch for the scene of offence. PW.12 typed post-trap proceedings in mediator reports -II on laptop carried from ACB office, Nellore. The post trap proceedings was concluded by 05.20 p.m. Copies of Ex.P19 were furnished to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 and obtained their acknowledgment on it.

64. PW.13 in his evidence further stated that he examined and recorded the statements of PWs. 1 to 3 and 5, LW.5, LW.7. On his instructions, the Inspectors namely M. Krupanandam (PW.10) and

N. Sivakumar Reddy (PW.11) conducted house searches in the houses of

Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 and seized cash balance, bank pass book of Accused Officer-1 from her house for the purpose of investigation. On 23.12.2014 Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 were produced before this court and they were remanded to judicial custody.

44

The oral permission to lay the trap was ratified by the Director General

ACB, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 31.12.2014 (Ex.P22). On 03.01.2015 he filed requisition before the learned IV Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Nellore for recording the statements of PWs 1 to 3

and L.W.5 U/s 164 of Cr.P.C and accordingly, the learned Judicial

Magistrate recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3 and LW.5 on

19.01.2015. Further investigation was conducted by PW.10 as per Memo

dated 02.01.2015 (Ex.P11) issued by the Director General, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. During the course of investigation, he secured the notice (Ex.P23) issued by the Joint Collector, Nellore for attending the enquiry before her on 23.12.2014 by both the parties. On 01.01.2015 he received suspension order of Accused Officer-1 (Ex.P24) and also on 22-01-2015 he received suspension order of Accused No.2 (Ex.P25) from the District Collector, Nellore. Ex.P26 is the search list in respect of house search of Accused Officer-1 Ex.P27 is the search list in respect of house search of Accused No.2.

65. PW.12 who is said to be one of the mediators in this case, supported the aforesaid testimony made by PW.13 with regard to conducting Ex.P4-pre-trap proceedings on 22.12.2014 from 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. in ACB Office, Nellore, wherein she and another mediator namely Kumbagiri Kondaiah (PW.4) ascertained the contents of Ex.P1 from PW.1 and found that the contents of Ex.P1 report are genuine and later noted serial numbers and denominations of currency notes of

Rs.5000/- and Rs.2,000/- produced by PW.1 in two separate covers as proposed bribe amount. Further, supported the testimony of PW.13 with regard to getting the said currency notes tainted with chemical powder and later on the instructions of PW.13, the constable namely Ragababu applied phenolphthalein powder on both sides of currency notes by using cotton swab and put the said amount in the covers and kept the covers in a polythene cover and handed over the said covers to PW.1, PW.13 45 instructed PW.1 not to touch the said currency notes, PW.13 further instructed PW.1 to give the said tainted amount to Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 on their further demand only, but not otherwise and give pre-arranged signal and further PW.13 demonstrated the significance of the chemical tests to the mediators, herself, PW.4 and PWs.1 to 3 and another.

66. PW.12 in her evidence further stated that on 22.12.2014 at about 10.40 a.m. they along with Pws.1 to 3, LW.5, D.S.P.(PW.13) and ACB staff started from ACB Office, Nellore in three vehicles in order to go to

Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi Mandal. At about 11.45 a.m. they reached

Sunnapubattilu center, Dagadarthi Village, where PW.13 got stopped the vehicles. Then PW.13 asked Pws.1 to 3 and LW.5 to get down from the vehicles and proceed to the Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi Mandal and

PW.13 reiterated his earlier instructions to them. Then Pws.1 to 3 and

LW.5 proceeded to the Tahsildar’s Office and then PW.13 instructed

PW.10, one Woman Constable to closely follow Pws.1 to 3 and LW.5 up to the gate of Tahsildar’s Office. Accordingly, they followed Pws.1 to 3 and

LW.5 upto the gate of Tahsildar’s Office and took vantage positions there.

At about 12.20 p.m., they received the signal from PW.10. Then they rushed to the Tahsildar’s Office and reached the chamber of Tahsildar and stepped into the chamber of Tahsildar and found one female officer sitting in the Tahsildar’s Chair. Then PW.13 approached the said female officer and disclosed his identity and the identity other trap party members and ascertained the identity of the said female officer as

Accused Officer-1.

67. PW.12 in her evidence further stated that on hearing the identity of the ACB Officials, Accused Officer-1 became nervous and tried to rub her hands and on seeing the same, PW.13 warned Accused

Officer-1 not to do so. Then PW.13 got prepared Sodium Carbonate

Solution in two glass tumblers and asked Accused Officer-1 to rinse her 46 both hand fingers one after another separately in the said solutions and accordingly Accused Officer-1 rinsed her both hand fingers in the said solutions, they turned into pink in colour. The resultant solutions were transferred into two separate clean glass bottles, got them sealed, labelled and affixed identity slips duly signed by them and PW.13, MOs.3 and 4 are the same. On enquiry, Accused Officer-1 stated that prior to entering into her chamber by the trap party members, Pws.1 to 3 and another came into her chamber and requested her to do in their favour by handing over two covers and she returned the said covers to them.

68. PW.12 in her evidence further stated that then PW.13 called

Pws.1 to 3 and another inside the chamber of the Accused Officer-1 and enquired the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. The version of PW.1 was incorporated in post-trap Proceedings, wherein, she stated that both the covers were handed over to Accused Officer-1. Then the trap party members searched for the covers in the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and found the said two covers under the rack towards left side of

Accused Officer-1. On the instructions of PW.13, PW.4 collected the said two covers under the rack. Then PW.13 enquired Accused Officer-1 about the covers under the rack, but there was no explanation from Accused

Officer-1 and she kept quite. On the instructions of DSP, PW.4 counted the notes which were Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- and PW.4 verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and they were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P4-Pre-trap Proceedings. PW.13 seized cash of Rs.5,000/- (MO.5) from one cover and cash of Rs.2,000/- (MO.6) from another cover.

69. PW.12 in her evidence further stated that then PW.13 subjected the surface under the rack, where the envelop covers contacted, with

Sodium Carbonate Solution, which yielded positive result. The resultant solution was transferred into a clean bottle, got it sealed, labeled and 47 affixed identity slip duly signed by them and PW.13, MO.7 is the same.

The DSP drawn sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in Post-trap

Proceedings, MO.8 is the same. The DSP seized the envelop covers (MO.9) wherein the tainted amounts were kept.

70. PW.12 in her evidence further stated that then PW.13 enquired

Accused Officer-1 with regard to the file of PW.1 and others. Then

Accused Officer-1 secured the said file (Ex.P18) from Deputy Tahsildar (PW.5). PW.13 seized the said file of PW.1 and others. Ex.P.18 is the Made- up file containing Exs.P5, P6, P9 and other relevant documents. Then

PW.13 enquired Accused Officer-1 about Accused No.2. Then Accused

Officer-1 informed PW.13 that Accused No.2 was not available in the office. Then PW.13 called Accused No.2 to the Tahsildar’s Office. Then

PW.13 enquired Accused No.2 about the demand made by him to PW.1 and others, for which, Accused No.2 denied his knowledge. The version of

Accused No.2 was incorporated in Ex.P19-Post-trap Proceedings. She herself typed Ex.P19-Post-trap Proceedings on the Laptop carried from

ACB Office, Nellore and it was concluded by 5.30 p.m. Copies of Ex.P19 were furnished to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 and obtained their signatures on it.

71. PW.4, who is the 1st Mediator said to be participated in pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, in his evidence stated that on 22.12.2014 at about 9.30 a.m. he went to ACB Office, Nellore where he found PW.12 who is 2nd mediator. At about 9.45 a.m. they were taken inside the room of DSP, ACB, Nellore (PW.13) and they both introduced themselves with

PW.13 and vice-versa. PW.13 introduced them with his staff and vice– versa. After mutual introductions, PW.13 called PWs.1 to 3 and LW.5 inside his room and they were introduced with them and vice–versa.

Pws.1 to 3 and another orally informed their grievance to them. On the instructions of PW.13, one Police Constable got prepared Sodium

Carbonate Solution in two glass tumblers. PW.13 enquired Pws.1 to 3 and 48

LW.5 whether they brought the intended bribe amount, for which, PW.1 replied positively and produced cash of amounts. PW.13 himself verified the said currency notes received from PW.1 and verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and incorporated in

Ex.P4-Pre-trap Proceedings. Then PW.13 got dipped the edges of the currency notes in the Sodium Carbonate Solution, the said solution turned into Pink in colour. PW.13 secured two envelop covers and put the amount of Rs.3,000/- in one cover and Rs.2,000/- in another cover through one Police Constable, who handed over both the covers to PW.1 and sent Pws.1 to 3 and another to the Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi

Mandal by an auto. Ex.P4-Pre-trap Proceedings was concluded by 11.00 a.m.

72. PW.4 in his evidence further stated that at about 11.30 a.m.

they started from ACB office, Nellore along with PW.13 and other ACB staff in two vehicles in order to go to Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi

Mandal. At about 12.30 p.m. they reached near Tahsildar’s Office,

Dagadarthi Mandal and they were waiting at the gate of Tahsildar’s

Office. Among the four i.e. PWs.1 to 3 and LW.5, one of them came out of the Tahsildar’s Office and informed them that they handed over both the covers to the Tahsildar, Dagadarthi Mandal. Then they rushed to the room of Accused Officer-1 and searched for the covers, but they did not find the said covers. After thorough search in the room of Accused

Officer-1, they found the said two covers under one Table. He collected both the covers and kept on the table. Then one Police Constable opened both the covers and found the amounts kept in the covers were the same. The denominations and numbers of the said currency notes were tallied. On the instructions of DSP, one constable prepared sodium carbonate solution in a glass tumbler and PW.13 asked Accused Officer-1 to rinse her hand fingers in the said solution, while doing so, both hand fingers of the Accused Officer-1 became rose colour. Then Accused 49

Officer-1 got shivered and became unconscious stage. Then they shifted

Accused Officer-1 in a car to the Government Hospital, Kavali and she was treated in the said hospital. At about 5.30 p.m. they all along with

Accused Officer-1 returned to the Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi.

73. As seen from the aforesaid evidence of PW.4, he did not state the procedure followed by PW.13 in conducting pre-trap proceedings in

ACB office, Nellore and also the post-trap proceedings in the chamber of

Accused Officer-1 in the office of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal and further PW.4 in his evidence deviated certain aspects from the evidence of PWs.12 and 13 and thereby PW.4 did not support the prosecution case.

Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought permission of the

Court to declare PW.4 as hostile subjected to cross examine him. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.4 that the police constable who kept currency notes in the covers rinsed his both hand fingers in the sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink in colour.

74. PW.10, who is said to be conducted preliminary enquiry on

Ex.P1 report and 2nd Investigating officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on 18.12.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PWs.1 to 3 and LW.5 at ACB Office, Nellore, he contacted

PW.13 who was FAC to the post of DSP, ACB, Nellore, over a phone and informed him the contents of the Ex.P1 report, upon that, PW.13 instructed him to verify the contents of Ex.P1-report and also verify the antecedents of Accused Officer-1, Accused No.2, PW.1 and others. He informed PWs.1 to 3, LW.5 to attend the ACB Office, Nellore as and when called by them, in the meantime they would enquire the contents of

Ex.P1 report. Accordingly, he conducted preliminary enquiry on Ex.P1- report and found the contents of Ex.P1-report are genuine and Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2 were enjoying ill reputation while discharging their duties. He endorsed his preliminary enquiry report on Ex.P1 and submitted the same to PW.13 on 22.12.2014 when he attended ACB 50 office, Nellore. On the instructions of PW.13, he secured the presence of mediators namely K. Kondaiah, MEO, Venkatachalam Mandal (PW.4) and

G. Aruna, Typist in the office of DEO, Nellore (PW.12) by addressing a letter to the DEO, Nellore. Subsequently, PW.13 conducted Pre-trap

Proceedings and Post-trap Proceedings wherein, he assisted PW.13.

75. PW.10 in his evidence further stated that he took up investigation in this case as per the memo dated 02.01.2015 (Ex.P11) issued by the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad.

During the course of his investigation, on 17.01.2015 he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.6. On 16.04.2015 he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.5, 9 and Mohammed Jeelani Basha (LW.7). On 11.06.2015 he has examined and recorded the statement of

PW.8. On 02.01.2015 he issued show-cause notices to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 (Exs.P12 and P13) calling their explanations. On receipt of the said notices, Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 submitted their respective Exs.P14 and P15 explanations to him. He received Job Chart and Service Particulars of Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 from Tahsildar’s Office, Dagadarthi Mandal (Ex.P16). On his transfer from ACB Office, Nellore, the Case Diary file was handed over to his successor in office.

76. PW.11, who is said to be filed a charge sheet, in his evidence stated that on 22.12.2014 he assisted PW.13 in conducting Pre-trap

Proceedings and Post-trap Proceedings. On 27.07.2015 he received Case

Diary File from PW.10 and verified the investigation done by him and earlier officer. On 13.03.2017 he received memo dated 06.03.2017 from the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada along with

Prosecution Sanction Order authorized him to file a charge sheet against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2. As seen from the evidence of Pws.10, 11 and 13, who are the Investigating Officers in this 51 case, left no material lacunaes which can create any doubt over the case of the prosecution.

77. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 she categorically stated that on 22.12.2014 after 8.00 a.m. pre-trap proceedings were conducted in

ACB Office, Nellore in the presence of mediators, wherein DSP (PW.13) demonstrated the significance of chemical powder tests and she handed over the intended bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- altogether

Rs.7,000/- to the mediators and then the denominations and numbers of the currency notes were incorporated in Ex.P4 pre-trap proceedings and after applying some white powder, the intended bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- were put in separate brown colour covers and kept the said covers in the polythene cover carried by her, after making it empty and at about 11.00 a.m. they started from ACB office, Nellore and they reached nearby Tahsildar Office, Dagadarthi mandal at about 12.00 noon and she along with PWs.2, 3 and LW.5-Venkaiah met Accused

Officer-1 in her chamber in the office of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal and

Accused Officer-1 enquired them with regard to the demanded remaining bribe amount, for which, she replied positively and handed over a cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- to Accused Officer-1 and the same was received by Accused Officer-1 with her right hand and counted the said amount with her both hands and put the said amount in the cover and later she informed Accused Officer-1 that Accused No.2 was not available in the office. Then Accused Officer-1 received another cover containing tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 from her stating that the said amount would be handed over to Accused No.2 and after receiving the amounts, Accused Officer-1 assured them that their work would be completed soon. After relaying pre-arranged signal, trap party led by PW.13 caught hold of Accused Officer-1 red-handedly and seized two brown colour covers containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively from the bottom of the wooden rack in the 52 chamber of Accused Officer-1 under Ex.P19 post-trap proceedings.

78. The aforesaid testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.12, who is one of the mediators. PW.12 in her evidence further stated that sodium carbonate solution test was conducted to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1, which yielded positive results and surface under wooden rack where the envelop covers contacted, was subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, which yielded positive result. The DSP (PW.13) drawn the sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post-trap proceedings (MO.8). The aforesaid testimony made by PWs.1 to 3 and 12 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.13, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case. The cross examination of PWs.1 to 3 and 13 on behalf of Accused Officer-1 at length could not extract any material for them to speak false against

Accused Officer-1. The cross-examination of PW.12 on behalf of Accused

Officer-1 also could not extract any material for her to speak false against Accused Officer-1 or to speak any undue favour of ACB officials for any extraneous considerations as such. Hence, I am not at all disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13. There are no valid reasons for disbelieving the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13 as nothing substantial was extracted in their cross examination to discredit their testimony.

79. As seen from the evidence of PW.13, who led trap party members and mediators, left no material lacunaes which can create any doubt over the case of the prosecution. It is already stated supra that

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW.1 and others with ACB police, Nellore which is strong piece of corroborative evidence and it corroborates oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3. As seen from the evidence of PWs.12 and 13, the testimony made by PW.13 with regard to the chemical test conducted to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1 which yielded positive results 53 and also seizure of tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- (MO.5) and Rs.2,000/- (MO.6) which were kept in brown colour covers from the bottom of wooden rack near the chair of Accused Officer-1 in her chamber under

Ex.P19-post-trap proceedings is corroborated by the evidence of PW.12, who is one of the mediators.

80. PW.12 in her evidence categorically stated that the chemical test conducted to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1 and surface under the rack, where the envelop covers contacted also yielded positive results. PW.12 has correctly identified Accused Officer-1 as the same person who was caught hold of by the trap party members red-handedly in her chamber in the office of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal and seized tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- (MO.5) and Rs.2,000;/- (MO.6) which were kept in the brown colour covers from the bottom of the wooden rack in the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and the said currency notes denominations and numbers were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P4-pre-trap proceedings.

81. The cross examination of PW.12 on behalf of the Accused

Officer-1 also could not extract any reason for making such a false statement as against Accused Officer-1, so far as the sodium carbonate solution test conducted to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1.

Further, the sodium carbonate solution test conducted to the surface of bottom of the rack where the envelop covers were contacted was also yielded positive result. This part of testimony made by PWs.12 and 13 leaves little scope for any kind of discrepancy or the non corroboration within their testimony. PW.12, who is an independent witness, there is no need for her to speak false against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2, the recovery of tainted amount of Rs.5000/- (MO.5) and Rs.2,000/- (MO.6) from the chamber of Accused Officer-1 is proved to be fact through the testimony of PW.12 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.13 in clear substantiation of the case of the prosecution. I find no valid reasons to 54 disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13 nor any reason could be assigned from any angle on behalf of the Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 that there could be a false case made against them. The contention of Accused Officer-1 with regard to her false implication in this case is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence. Even though suggestions were made to PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13 that Accused

Officer-1 was falsely implicated in this case and the said suggestions were denied by PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13 in their cross examination.

82. There is no enimity in between PW12 and Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2. There is absolutely no reason or chance on the face of the record for Accused Officer-1 for possessing tainted amount till the arrival of the trap party members, unless Accused Officer-1 demanded PWs.1 to 3 to pay the bribe amount and accepted the said amount from PW.1 and others on the date of trap in her chamber at Tahsildar Office, Dagadarthi mandal. At this juncture, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 has further vehemently contended that the prosecution failed to establish the vital ingredients to constitute the offence of receiving illegal gratification by the public servant while discharging his duties and therefore Accused

Officer-1 may be acquitted.

83. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for

Accused Officer-1 has relied upon the following decisions:

i) The decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police and

another reported in 2015 CRI.L.J.4670, wherein it was held that – “Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, if so facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the P.C. Act”.

ii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Ganapathi Sanya Naik Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.4689,wherein it was held that – “The Court had observed that the plea of the defence at the very initial stage was that, PW.6 had serious animosity towards the appellant and that, the currency notes had been put on the table by the former 55 was a plausible explanation. It is in the evidence that the currency notes had not been touched by the appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the prosecution case that the relevant documents had been handed over to Nagaraja immediately after the money had been put on the table. The arguments, therefore, that there was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible.” iii) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in V. Venkata Subba Rao Vs. State Inspector of Police, A.P. reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.754 , wherein it was held that -- “In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 provides for raising of presumption only if a demand is proved” iv) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Som Parkash Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1992 CRI.L.J.490, wherein it was held that- “The witnesses who formed part of raiding party were not independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.”

v) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1973 CRI.L.J.664, wherein it was held that- “In a bribery case the complainant is an interested witness and his evidence must be considered with great caution and it can be accepted when it is corroborated in material particulars by other evidence adduced by the prosecution.” vi)The decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in R.

Srinivasan and anotherVs. State by Police

Inspector, Lokayuktha, Bangalore reported in 2016 CRI.L.J.3066,wherein it was held that – “Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged demand for bribe in terms of Section 7 of the P.C. Act and consequential receipt of money preceded by demand by 2nd accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the very demand made for and receipt of money by 1st accused -Srinivasan”.

vii) The decision of Chhattisgarh High Court rendered in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmiprasad Yadav reported in 2017 CRI.L.J. 1461, wherein it was held that - “Mere recovery of money from the pocket of Pyjama of the respondent/ accused by itself cannot be held to be a cogent evidence to prove the charges of the prosecution. In absence of evidence to prove demand of bribe or its acceptance, the prosecution case becomes weak”.

viii) The decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Mintu 56

Dubey Vs. Union of India through SP, CBI, Jabalpur reported in 2017 CRI.L.J. 1185 wherein it was held that - “Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of P.C. Act 1988”.

84. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has vehemently contended that the prosecution has established that there was official favour vested in

Accused Officer-1 on the date of trap and that the Accused Officer-1 demanded initially PW.1 and others to pay total a sum of Rs.30,000/- as bribe for submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore in their appeal and later Accused Officer-1 received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1 and others in her house at Kavali on 16.12.2014 with a demand to pay further amount of Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- to

Accused No.2 on 22.12.2014 and finally on 22.12.2014 when PW.1 and others met Accused Officer-1 in her chamber in the office of Tahsildar,

Dagadarthi mandal, Accused Officer-1 received the tainted amount of

Rs.5,000/- from PW.1 in her chamber for her and Rs.2,000/- for Accused

No.2 and in that regard, the prosecution produced positive evidence and therefore the prosecution has established the ingredients of the offence of bribery.

85. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both sides and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer-1, I have perused the relevant record. It is already stated supra that Accused Officer-1 was having powers to submit the detailed enquiry report before the Joint Collector,

Nellore in the appeal filed by PW.1 and others. The prosecution has also established that there was a demand from Accused Officer-1 to pay the illegal gratification for submitting favourable report before the Joint

Collector, Nellore in the appeal filed by PW.1 and others and on 57 22.12.2014 at about 12.00 noon PW.1 handed over a cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- to Accused Officer-1 for her in her chamber and another cover containing Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 in the presence of PWs.2 and 3 and the said covers were accepted by Accused

Officer-1 and received the first cover containing tainted amount of

Rs.5,000/- with her right hand, counted the amount inside the cover with her both hands and put the amount in the said cover and also verified the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- in the 2nd cover and assured PWs.1 to 3 that she would submit report in their favour in their appeal filed before the Joint Collector, Nellore. Therefore, the prosecution has established the ingredients to constitute the offence of bribery. The facts in the instant case are different from the facts in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the counsel for the Accused Officer-1 and therefore the aforesaid decisions have no application in the present facts of the case and as such, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1.

86. The learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 has further vehemently contended that Accused Officer-1 did not demand any illegal gratification and accept the said illegal gratification from PW.1 in the presence of PWs.2 and 3 and further, PW.1 and others falsely implicated her in this case. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that the prosecution has established the vital ingredients such as official favour vested in Accused

Officer-1 towards submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector,

Nellore in the appeal filed by PW.1 and others, demand of illegal gratification for submitting the said favourable report in the names of

PWs.1, 3 and another and payment of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- by PW.1 and others to Accused Officer-1 and acceptance of the said illegal gratification at the time of trap by the AccusedOfficer-1 and therefore, Accused Officer-1 is liable to be punished for the charges 58 framed against her.

87. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Vidya Sagar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) ALD (CRL.) 965,wherein it was held that – “The amount was not found in the hands of DW.4 but, underneath the bed and the chemical test conducted to the crucial portion of the bed also yielded positive result. This belies the claim of A.O. and his wife. D.W.4 being the wife of A.O., is an interested witness and her evidence cannot be believed. As per her evidence, when PW.1 tendered some papers to A.O., he angrily returned them saying that, he was not competent to see those papers. If that was the scenario, the question of A.O. writing a letter to Sujatha Reddy requesting her to accept the joining report of PW.1, in that angry mood does not arise. But A.O. is not denying his writing the letter to Sujatha Reddy. The said letter falsifies the happening of the circumstances as spoken by DW.4 on one hand and confirms the prosecution version on the other.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Subbu Singh Vs. State by Public Prosecutor reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3433,wherein it was held that – “So far as the stand that money was kept for the purpose of falsely implicating, the same is without substance. The accused was a police officer who knew the consequences of the bribe. Once it is proved by the prosecution that the money was demanded as bribe and the same was received from PW.2, Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 comes into play. Once there is a presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe.” iii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in S. Dinesh Kumar Vs., State Th. Inspector and anotherreported in2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 606 (SC),wherein it was held that – “The recovery of the bribe amount from the person or possession of the accused having being firmly established, the immediate explanation offered by the appellant is absolutely crucial. Secondly, it is unimaginable that as against 50% of the arrears of taxes which the complainant was supposed to deposit, Rs.1000/- only would be paid and accepted. The aspects of demand and acceptance having been established, in our assessment no two views are possible in the matter and the approach adopted by the Special Judge was perverse, justifying interference by the High Court”.

59 iv) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of A.P. Vs. M. Radha Krishna Murthy reported in 2009 CRI.L.J. 1896,wherein it was held that – “Whenever as part of the case relating to demand and acceptance is not acceptable, the whole case would fail even if the case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by the prosecution is established. When part of the prosecution relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by itself, the ratio of the decision does not apply.”

v)The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3224, wherein it was held that – “The corroboration need not be by direct oral evidence and can be gathered from circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of the complainant, is sufficient to convict a person, if it is reliable, acceptable and trust worthy.” vi)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of A.P. Vs. P. Venkateshwarlu passedinappeal (Crl.)1317 of 2008, dt.6.5.2015,wherein it was held that – “The defence has raised various presumptions to disprove the prosecution case. However, it has not been able to adduce evidence before us, on the basis of which the presumption under section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 could be rebutted.”

Vii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

Narendra Champaklal Trivedi and another Vs. State of

Gujarat reported in (2012)7 Supreme Court cases 80, wherein it was held that – “The currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellants. In the lengthy cross examination nothing has really been elicited to doubt their presence and veracity of the testimony.” viii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in K.L. Bakolia Vs. State Th. Director, C.B.I. passed in Criminal appeal No.797/2015, dt.15.5.2015, wherein it was held that – “Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that, the accused received illegal gratification. Defence plea of the accused that, the currency notes were put under Sofa without his knowledge was rightly rejected by the Courts below.” 60 ix) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Vittalaiah Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 776,wherein it was held that – “The prosecution by cogent evidence could establish that, A.O. demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1 and therefore, statutory presumption under section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 follows.”

x) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Krishna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.2436, wherein it was held that – “The complainant, the investigating officer and other witnesses, who were present when the appellant was caught red-handedly by the Anti Corruption Team have been cross-examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They have been reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.” xi)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inMadhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.175, wherein it was held that – “If a public servant is found in possession of currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein and the prosecution does not have further duty to prove behind the fact that, prosecution witness had paid the demanded money to the appellant, public servant.” xii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in M. Narasinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.515,wherein it was held that – “The court can draw legal presumption that, said gratification was accepted as reward for doing public duty.” xiii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State (C.B.I.) Vs. Dr. Amarjyothi Baruah passed in Special Case No.3/2010, dt.11.12.2012, wherein it was held that – “The amount which was recovered from the accused is not a legal remuneration, but an illegal gratification as ascertained from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.” 61 xiv)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Mahesh Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1974 CRI.L.J.509,wherein it was held that – “To cast on the prosecution the burden of proving that, the amount was accepted by the accused otherwise than by way of legal remuneration is to ask the prosecution to prove that the amount was paid and accepted by way of bribe.” xv) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

D. Velayutham Vs. State reported in 2015 (2) ALD (CRL.) 586 (SC), wherein it was held that – “PW.1 has consistently stated that A.1demanded the bribe and that A.2 received the amount as stated by him. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no corroboration regarding the demand. This is a case where each of the accused tried to throw the blame on the other, but taking the overall circumstances into consideration in the light of evidence of PW.3 and 4 along with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, both courts below have consistently held that the evidence of these witnesses establishes the guilt of the accused and we see no reason to come to a different conclusion.”

88. Keeping in view of aforesaid contentions raised by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned special public prosecutor, I have perused the relevant record. It is stated supra that the prosecution failed to establish that Accused

Officer-1 has vested powers in for submitting her enquiry report before the Joint Collector, Nellore in the appeal filed by PW.1and others and the same may be treated as official favour and also the prosecution has established the vital ingredients of official favour, demand of illegal gratification, payment of amount of Rs.5,000/- towards further illegal gratification to Accused Officer-1 by PW.1 and others on the date of trap besides a sum of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2, acceptance of the said bribe amount from PW.1 and others by the Accused Officer-1 and recovery of the said amount from her chamber underneath the wooden rack by the Investigating Officer (PW.13) in the presence of the mediators under Ex.P19 post-trap proceedings.

89. It is already stated supra that Accused Officer-1 has taken the 62 stand that she never demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from PW.1 and others and even on the date of trap, she did not demand the said illegal gratification and receive the same from PW.1 and others and further her contention is that she was falsely implicated in this case by PW.1 and others. The said contention of Accused Officer-1 is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence and further the prosecution witnesses during their cross examination denied that PW.1 and others falsely implicated Accused Officer-1 in this case. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that Accused Officer-1 demanded PW.1 and others to pay illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- on 13.12.2014 and she received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1 and others on 16.12.2014 in her house at Kavali by demanding them to pay another Rs.5,000/- for submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore in their appeal and also asked to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 and also on the date of trap, Accused Officer-1 received a sum of Rs.5,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 in her chamber in Tahsildar

Office, Dagadarthi mandal and the said amount was accepted by the

Accused Officer-1 by receiving the same from PW.1 with her right hand and counted the amount in the first cover with her both hands and verified the amount in the second cover and after few minutes, she was trapped by the ACB officials concerned and recovered the tainted amount from her chamber in the presence of mediators after testing both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1 with sodium carbonate solution which yielded positive result and so also test conducted to the surface of the floor where the covers containing tainted amounts contacted underneath the wooden rack in the chamber of Accused Officer-1 also yielded positive result.

90. Accused Officer-1 claimed that PW.1 and others handed over two envelop covers to her in her chamber stating that the said covers containing Court orders and she received the said covers and returned 63 back the same immediately without opening stating that to hand over the same in her office and PW.1 and others dropped the said two covers behind the wooden rack in her chamber without her knowledge in order to implicate her in this case. In support of her contention, Accused

Officer-1 has examined one Challa Srihari as DW.1, who stated in his evidence that on 22.12.2014 at about 11.30 a.m he went to Tahsildar office, Dagadarti mandal along with his friend by name Khaja

Rahamathullah. After taking permission from the office subordinate, he along with Khaja Rahamathullah entered into the chamber of Accused

Officer-1 and submitted the application in respect of his land to Accused

Officer-1. At that time, four ladies entered into the chamber of Accused

Officer-1, among them, one of the ladies handed over two covers to

Accused Officer-1 stating that they are Court covers. Accused Officer-1 received the said two covers and return back to the said lady with a request to hand over the same in her office. In the meantime, three ACB officials entered into the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and among the said officers, one of the officers introduced himself as DSP, ACB, Nellore and the remaining two were constables of ACB Department. The said DSP enquired his name and his occupation and he introduced himself as a farmer. Then the DSP asked him to leave the chamber of Accused

Officer-1.

91. As seen from the aforesaid evidence of DW.1, four ladies entered into the chamber of Accused Officer-1, but infact on the date of trap PWs. 1 to 3 and one Venkaiah (LW.5) entered into the chamber of

Accused Officer-1 but not four ladies as stated by DW.1. Further, DW.1 in his evidence stated that the said two covers were returned to one lady with a request to hand over the same in her office and the said ladies left the place. DW.1 in his evidence never stated that the said ladies while leaving the chamber of Accused Officer-1, dropped the said two covers behind the wooden rack in the chamber of Accused Officer-1.

64

92. Apart from the evidence of Dw.1, Accused Officer-1 has also examined Sk. Masthan vali, who is the then Office Subordinate in the office of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal, as DW.2, who stated in his evidence that on 22.12.2014 at about 9.00 a.m. he attended Tahsildar’s office, Dagadarthi mandal and it was happened to be Monday, grievance day to the Tahsildar Office Accused Officer-1 came to the office at about 10.30 a.m. Some of the applicants came to the Tahsildar office along with applications. He was inside the chamber of Accused Officer-1. Two persons were talked with Accused Officer-1 by sitting opposite to her in her chamber, at about 11.00 a.m. four ladies were entered into the chamber of Accused Officer-1, among them, one of the ladies handed over two covers to Accused Officer-1 and then Accused Officer-1 enquired her about the said covers and then she replied that the said covers containing Court papers . Accused Officer-1 did not receive the said covers and asked the said lady to hand over the said covers in the office.

DW.2 in his evidence again stated that Accused Officer-1 received the said covers from the said lady with her right hand and returned the said covers to the said lady with her left hand and the said lady and 3 others left the chamber of Accused Officer-1 by taking both the covers. At that time three ACB officials entered into the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and then he questioned the said three persons about their identification.

Then the said three persons ascertained his identity and they asked him to leave the chamber of Accused Officer-1. The ACB officials also asked two persons who were sitting opposite to Accused Officer-1 to leave the chamber of Accused Officer-1. Then, himself and the said two persons left the chamber of Accused Officer-1.

93. As seen from the evidence of DW.2, he stated two versions in respect of handling over covers and at the first instance he stated that

Accused Officer-1 did not receive the said covers from the said lady and again he stated that Accused Officer-1 received the said covers with her 65 right hand and returned the said covers to the said lady with her left hand and the said lady and three others left the chamber of Accused

Officer-1 by taking both the covers.The entire evidence of DW.2 does not disclose anywhere that while leaving the chamber of Accused Officer-1, the said ladies dropped the said two covers behind the wooden rack in the chamber of the Accused Officer-1. Further, on the date of trap, PWs.1 to 3 and one Venkaiah (LW.5)entered into the chamber of Accused

Officer-1 but not four ladies as stated by Dw.2. Further, DWs.1 and 2 in their evidence stated that the said four ladies left the chamber of

Accused Officer-1along with the said covers in order to hand over the same in the office.

94. Further, DW.1 in his evidence stated that DW.2, who was

Attender at the door steps of the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and after taking permission from him, he entered into the chamber of Accused

Officer-1 along with Khaja Rahamthullah and on the other hand, Dw.2 in his evidence stated that he was inside the chamber of Accused Officer-1 at the time of entering four ladies in the chamber of Accused Officer-1.

The evidence of DWs.1 and 2 are not corroborated with each other and they stated their independent uncorroborated versions.

95. Apart from the evidence of DWs.1 and 2, Accused Officer-1 has also examined four more witnesses in order to establish different aspects. Kappira Adiseshaiah, who is working as Head Master, Mandal

Praja Parishad Primary School, Ulavapalla village was examined as DW.3, who stated in his evidence that one Gochipatala Elezebeth Rani, daughter of G. Paul, resident of Ulavapalla admitted at Mandal Praja

Parishad Primary School, Ulavapalla on 02-11-1993 in 5th class and her father was Railway Kalasi and earlier she studied in Mandal Praja

Parishad Primary School, Renigunta. Ex.D3 is the attested xerox copy of record sheet of Gochipathala Elezebeth Rani. Ex.D4 is the attested xerox copy of record sheet of Gochipathala Elezebeth Rani issued by Head 66

Master, Mandal Praja Parishad Primary School, Renigunta.

96. PW.2 in her cross examination on behalf of Accused Officer-1, she claimed that she is an illiterate and she studied little bit in the night schools and she can put her signature in Telugu language as well as

English language. On the other hand she was suggested onbehalf

Accused Officer-1 in her cross examination that she is educated and the said suggestion was denied by PW.2 in her cross examination. In order to prove that PW.2 is an educated person, Accused No.1 summoned the present Head Master of MPP School, Ulavapalla. But the evidence of DW.3 reveals that one Gochipathala Elezebeth Rani daughter of Paul,

Ulavapalla village studied in their school. Kavali Rani @ Pavani was examined as P.W.2 and she is not Gochipathala Elezebeth Rani.

Therefore, Accused Officer-1 did not establish that PW.2 is an educated person.

97. PW.1 in her cross examination denied that her husband by name Kondaiah is Railway Employee and after the death of her husband, her son by name G. Manohar was appointed as helper in the railway department on compassionate grounds. As seen from the evidence of

Sk. Zameer as DW.4, working as Senior Section Engineer, Works, South

Central Railway, Nellore it reveals that son of PW.1 was appointed as helper in South Central Railway, Nellore on compassionate grounds.

Further,PW.1 in her cross examination on behalf of Accused Officer-1 denied that she is drawing family pension after the death of her husband namely Kondaiah. In order to prove the said aspect, accused officer-1 has examined the then Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank, Alluru by name

Chundi Sridhar as DW.5, who stated in his evidence that Gochipatala

Chinamma is having account with their bank i.e., Syndicate Bank, Alluru bearing Account No.34642030003833 and it is pension account and every month an amount of Rs.10,450/- is to be credited in her account.

Ex.D6 is the certificate issued by their bank stating that Gochipatala 67

Chinamma is having pension account with their bank. Ex.D7 is the statement of account of Gochipatala Chinamma for the period from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017 maintained by their bank. Ex.D8 is the statement of account of G. Chinamma for the period from 01.01.2018 to 15.10.2018 maintained by their bank. Exs.D7 and D8 statements disclose that it is pension account of G. Chinamma and she is drawing pension from Railway Department.

98. As seen from the evidence of DW.5, PW.1 is drawing pension by opening the account in Syndicate bank, Allur. Further, present camp clerk of Joint collector, Nellore by name Ram Chaitanya was examined as

DW.6, who stated in his evidence that Official programmes will be incorporated in the tour dairies of Joint Collectors wherein they will also mention the places of their visiting. The camp clerks will write the tour dairies of the Joint Collectors. The tour dairies will be in the custody of the camp clerk concerned. If the camp clerk concerned is transferred, he has to hand over the tour dairies of the Joint Collectors to his successor in office. After receiving witness summon from this court, he verified the tour diaries, but he did not find the tour diaries of Joint collector. He was asked to bring the tour dairy of the Joint collector namely G. Rekha Rani

dated 16.12.2014. PWs.1 to 3 in their evidence stated that on

16.12.2014 they went to Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal to meet

Accused Officer-1, but she was not available in the office and they were informed that Accused Officer-1 accompanied Joint Collector, Nellore to attend the function of laying foundation stone of the Airport. But the

Accused Officer-1 denied the said aspect. In order to disprove the aforesaid claim of PWs.1 to 3, Accused Officer-1 has examined present camp clerk of Joint Collector, Nellore as Dw.6. But his evidence was not useful to disprove that Accused Officer-1 did not accompany the Joint collector, Nellore to attend the function of laying foundation stone to the

Airport.

68

99. It was suggested to PWs.1 to 3, 12 & 13 in their cross examination on behalf of Accused Officer-1 that at the time of entering

PWs.1 to 3 and another in chamber of Accused officer-1 on the date of trap. Accused Officer-1 was present along with others and the said suggestions were denied by PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13. On the otherhand,

PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13 in their evidence categorically stated that when the trap party led by PW.13 entered into the chamber of Accused

Officer-1, Accused Officer-1 was alone in her chamber by sitting in her chair and no other persons were present in the chamber of Accused

Officer-1. It is already stated supra that Accused Officer-1 claimed that there were other persons in her chamber at the time of entering ACB trap party and to prove the said aspect she has examined DWs.1 and 2. But the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 did not disprove the aspect of Accused

Officer-1 was alone in her chamber at the time of entering ACB trap party in her chamber. Therefore, there is no truth in the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and on the other hand, PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13 in their evidence categorically stated that after receiving pre-arranged signal, trap party led by P.W.13 rushed to the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and found

Accused Officer-1 was alone in her chamber by sitting in her chair.

Therefore, the contention of Accused Officer-1 that four ladies entered into her chamber on the date of trap and handed over two brown colour covers stating that the Court papers were kept in the said covers and after receiving the said covers by the Accused Officer-1, she returned the said covers to PW.1 with instructions to hand over the said covers in the office, but while leaving the chamber of Accused Officer-1, PW.1 dropped the said covers behind the wooden rack without knowledge of the

Accused Officer-1 is not proved.

100. The aforesaid stand taken by Accused Officer-1 was suggested to PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13 in their cross examination and they denied the said suggestion in their cross examination. The aforesaid contention of 69

Accused Officer-1 is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence. On the other hand, the prosecution produced positive evidence that on the date of trap at about 12.00 noon PWs.1 to 3 and another entered into the chamber of Accused Officer-1 in Tahsildar Office,

Dagadarthi mandal and PW.1 handed over a brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- to Accused Officer-1 on her demand and Accused officer-1 received the said cover with her right hand, counted the tainted amount inside the cover with her both hands and put the amount in the said cover and Accused Officer-1 also received another cover containing tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 from PW.1 and after verification of the said cover and after her satisfaction, she assured PWs.1 to 3 and another that she would submit favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore in their appeal and then PWs.1 to 3 and another left the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and relayed the signal to the ACB trap party, and on receipt of the pre arranged signal, the ACB party led by PW.13 rushed to the chamber of

Accused Officer-1 and they conducted chemical test to both hand fingers of the Accused Officer-1 which yielded positive results and searched the room of Accused Officer-1 and found two covers containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively beneath the wooden rack in the chamber of Accused Officer-1. PW.13 seized the tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- (MO.5) and tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- (MO.6) under post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II in the presence of the mediators.

101. It is already stated supra that Accused Officer-1 has taken another stand that she never demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from PW.1 and others and even on the date of trap also, she did not demand the said balance of illegal gratification and receive the same from PW.1 and others and further, her contention that she was falsely implicated in this case by PW.1 and others as they were defeated 70

before the Courts and authorities in respect of the subject land. The said

contention of Accused Officer-1 is not supported and substantiated by any acceptable evidence except suggestions given to prosecution witnesses during their cross examinations and the same were denied by them. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that Accused Officer-1 demanded PW.1 and others to pay balance of illegal gratification of

Rs.5,000/- prior to the date of trap and also on the date of trap for her and Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 and PW.1 and others gave the said amount to Accused Officer-1 in her chamber in the office of Tahsildar,

Dagadarthi mandal and the said amounts which were kept in the covers were accepted by the Accused Officer-1 and after little time of such acceptance, Accused Officer-1 was trapped by the ACB police concerned and seized tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- (MO.5) and Rs.2,000/- (MO.6) from the chamber of Accused Officer-1 underneath wooden rack in the presence of mediators after testing both hand fingers of Accused Officer- 1 with sodium carbonate solution which yielded positive results.

102. POINT NO.IV:-

It is to be next seen whether Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 by abusing their official position and also by resorting to illegal and corrupt practices, obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable security either for themselves or for some other person. The demand of bribe is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P1 report. It is already stated supra that when PW.1 and three others met Accused Officer-1 on 13.12.2014 at the Tahsildar

Office, Dagadarthi mandal, Accused Officer-1 demanded PW.1 and others to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per each acre altogether Rs.30,000/- as illegal gratification for submitting favourable report in the appeal before the

Joint Collector, Nellore and on 16.12.2014 during evening time, she received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1 and others towards part of illegal gratification with a demand to pay balance illegal gratification of 71

Rs.5,000/- on 22.12.2014 either at her office or at her house for submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore and on the date of trap i.e. on 22.12.2014 Accused Officer-1 demanded balance illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- and also accepted the said amount from

PW.1 and others in her chamber and also accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/-

for Accused No.2. The prosecution has established the same through oral

(PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13) as well as documentary evidence.

103. The prosecution has examined Village servant by name

Gampala Seenaiah as P.W.9 through whom Accused Officer-1 summoned

PW.1 and others to her office. But PW.9 in his evidence did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought permission of the Court declared PW.9 as hostile subjected to cross examine him. PW.9, who gave incriminating statement against

Accused officer-1 before the ACB police concerned, when he was examined by the ACB police concerned under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

turned hostile, while he was giving evidence before the Court. At the instance of learned Special Public Prosecutor, PW.9 was declared as hostile and his relevant contradictory portion in Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

statement was marked as Ex.P10. It is already stated supra that the first mediator by name K. Kondaiah who was examined as PW.4 deviated certain aspects incorporated in Ex.P4 pre-trap proceedings and Ex.P19- post trap proceedings and therefore the learned Special Public Prosecutor declared PW.4 as hostile.

104. At this juncture, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 has further vehemently contended that Accused Officer-1 never demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW.1 and others and that PW.1 and others falsely implicated her in this case. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 has relied upon the following decisions:

72

i)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in T. Subramanian Vs. the State of Tamilnadu reported in 2006 CRI.L.J.804, wherein it was held that – “Explanation given by the accused immediately after the incident raises serious doubt about amount having been received by him as illegal gratification.” ii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao reported in 2004 CRI.L.J.1412, wherein it was held that “Evidence of witnesses that, Rs.400/- was recovered from Respondent’s House and on testing respondent’s hand tested positive for having handled tainted money would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that it was received by respondent as bribe money in view of explanation given by him that money in question was kept in advance by the complainant before his arrival in the house and on being asked by I.O. he brought money and because of his handling he came in contact with Phenolphthalein powder. Acquittal of respondent is proper.” iii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1979 CRI.L.J.936, wherein it was held that – “No corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand for money by the appellant. Evidence of complainant on that aspect, therefore, could not be accepted.” iv) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inSom Parkash Vs. State of Punjabreported in 1992CRI.L.J.490, wherein it was held that – “The witnesses who formed part of raiding party were not independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.”

v) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Kerala and another Vs. C.P. Rao reported in (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 450 wherein, it was held that – “When there is no corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand of bribe by accused, it has to be accepted that complainant’s version is not corroborated and, therefore, evidence of complainant cannot be relied on” vi) The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in Trilok Chandra Maurya Vs. State represented by CBI, Hyderabad reported in 2011 (3) ALT (Crl.) 214 (AP), wherein, it was held that— “For drawing presumption under Section 20(1) of the P.C. Act, 1988, the prosecution has to establish demand as well as acceptance of bribe or illegal gratification by the accused. Mere receipt of cash by the 73 accused cannot be equated with acceptance of said amount as bribe”.

vii) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in Yellinedi Sagareswara Rao Vs. The State of AP reported in 2011 Cri.L.J. 3158, wherein, it was held that -- “It is observed that it was highly improbable for any one to cover 60-kms of distance as PW.1 has stated in his evidence that on the previous day of trap, he was in the house of his son-in-law-PW.3 till 3.30 p.m. and as such his reaching Vizianagaram and giving complaint-Ex.P2 on that day at 11.00 a.m. is most improbable, suspicious and doubtful. The contention of the appellant/accused appears to be probable that his left hand fingers turned positive (pink) because the tainted currency and Ex.P9 were handled by PW.1 and since Ex.P9 was handed over to appellant/accused, his left hand fingers turned positive”.

105. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that, corroboration is not required to the evidence of PW.1 as her evidence is reliable, acceptable and trustworthy. But in the instant case, the evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. In support of it, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

reported in 1995 CRI.L.J.3656, wherein it was held that- “The corroboration need not be direct. It can be by way of circumstantial evidence also. Taking into account all the surrounding circumstances, we find sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW.1, regarding the demand and payment of bribe.” ii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P.Th.I.P. reported in 2011 CRI.L.J.975, wherein it was held that – “Law cannot countenance such situation. In our opinion it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessarily to be corroborated by another witness.”

106. Keeping in view of the arguments on both sides and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by them, I have perused the relevant record. PW.1 in her evidence categorically stated that Accused

Officer-1 demanded total sum of Rs.30,000/- towards illegal gratification for submitting favourable report before the Joint Collector, Nellore in their appeal and initially on 16.12.2014 during evening Accused Officer-1 74 received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1 and others with a demand to pay balance illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- on 22.12.2014 and also pay

Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 and later on the date of trap at about 12.00 noon, when PW.1 and others entered into the chamber of Accused

Officer-1 in the Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal and on the demand of

Accused Officer-1, PW.1 handed over a cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- and the same was received by Accused Officer-1 with her right hand and counted the amount with her both hands and also accepted another cover containing tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- for

Accused No.2, from PW.1 and others. Accused Officer-1 was caught hold of by ACB trap party red-handedly. The said version of PW.1 was corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.12 and 13.

107. It is already stated supra that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is reliable, unshaken and consistent to the case of the prosecution and therefore the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that, there is no corroboration to the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 on the date of trap in respect of conversation between Accused Officer-1 and PW.1 and others and also there is no corroboration to the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 with regard to the demand made by the Accused Officer-1 to pay illegal gratification on 13.12.2014 and later on 16.12.2014. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is found trustworthy.

108. Moreover, our apex court laid down the law in Karthik

Malhar Vs. state of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.)73 (SC), wherein it was held that – “Conviction can be based on the evidence of solitary witness provided that, the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye witness, nor can it be insisted that, the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye witnesses.” 75

109. As per the aforesaid decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for Accused

Officer-1. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 12 and 13 go to show that

Accused Officer-1 being a public servant demanded illegal gratification by abusing his official position as public servant and received a sum of

Rs.5,000/- from PW.1 and others on the date of trap for her on the date of trap towards illegal gratification, which is pecuniary advantage.

Therefore it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has established that Accused Officer-1 who was Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal being a public servant by corrupt or illegal means by abusing her position as a public servant obtained a sum of Rs.5,000/- for herself on the date of trap, which is pecuniary advantage from PW.1 and others and therefore she is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under

Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act., 1988.

110. It is to be next seen whether Accused No.2 demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1 and others. As per the prosecution

Accused No.2 also demanded PW.1 and others to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for him for doing official favour besides bribe amount to Accused

Officer-1. In order to prove the demand and acceptance by Accused No.2, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3, who stated in their evidence that on 16.12.2014 Accused No.2 met them at Sunnapubatti centre, while they were waiting for the bus and at that time, Accused No.2 approached and demanded them to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to him for doing official favour. PWs.1 to 3 in their evidence further stated that on 16.12.2014 during evening time, they informed the demand of Accused

No.2 to Accused Officer-1 when they met Accused Officer-1 in her house at Kavali. On 18.12.2014 PWs.1 to 3 and another went to ACB office,

Nellore and lodged Ex.P1 report.

111. A perusal of Ex.P1 report it does not reveal anywhere that 76

Accused No.2 demanded P.W.1 and others to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for him as bribe for doing official favour. PWs.1 to 3 have no grievance against Accused No.2 in their Ex.P1 report. Moreover, PW.13 registered

Ex.P1 report of PW.1 and others against Accused Officer-1 only. On perusal of Ex.P20-original FIR, Accused No.2 was not shown as offender and the crime was registered against Accused Officer-1 only . Further,

PWs.1 to 3 in their earlier statements made to the ACB police concerned under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and to the learned Judicial Magistrate under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C did not state that Accused No.2 met them at

Sunnapubatti centre on 16.12.2014, while they were waiting for the bus and demanded them to pay him a sum of Rs.5,000/- for doing official favour. The said fact was admitted by PW.2 in her cross examination and so also other witnesses.

112. It is also an undisputed fact that on the date of trap PWs.1 to 3 and L.W.5 Venkaiah did not pay any bribe amount to Accused No.2 directly and even on the date of trap, Accused No.2 was not available in

Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal. No tainted amount was seized either from the possession of Accused No.2 or at his instance by the ACB concerned on the date of trap. Further, PWs.1 to 3 in their evidence categorically stated that they did not find Accused No.2 on the date of trap in Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal till completion of post-trap proceedings. But PW.13, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, secured the presence of Accused No.2 through his subordinate staff. The said version of PW.13 is not corroborated by any other acceptable evidence.

113. Further, PWs.1 and 2 in their cross examination categorically stated that there were previous disputes in between them and Accused

No.2. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of

Accused No.2 that one month prior to the date of trap, she made a complaint-petition to the Joint Collector, Nellore against Accused No.2 77 stating that Accused No.2 supported her opponents namely G. Venkata

Rao and G. Rameshin cultivating the subject land. She denied her knowledge that Accused No.2 submitted his explanation to the Joint

Collector, Nellore on her complaint-petition. PW.1 in her cross examination further admitted that herself and PW.2 were ascertained by

Guddeti family members, in that regard a report was lodged by them

before Dagadarthi police station on 08.09.2012 stating that herself,

Pothipogu Venkanna. P. Gangamma and Ruthamma were attacked by

G. Ramanaiah and his two sons namely Venkata Rao and Ramesh and some others and she also alleged in her report that one Polisetti

Srinivasulu, who is husband of Surpanch namely Haritha, Accused No.2 along with 50 to 60 others came and pounced them. P.W.1 in her cross examination further stated that police concerned did not take any action on the report lodged by them. It was denied by P.W.1 in her cross examination that the police Dagadarthi referred their report dated: 08- 09-2012 as false after conducting investigation. It was admitted by PW.1 in her cross examination that in connection with the report dated 08.09.2012, they met DSP, Nellore who also enquired the matter and finally filed a final report stating that they lodged a false report. PW.2 in her cross examination supported the report lodged by PW.1 against

Accused No.2 and others to the Dagadarthi police.

114. Admittedly there was previous enmity in between accused

No.2 and PW.1 and others. Further, Accused No.2 claimed that in the year 2012 Pws.1, 3 and L.W.5 Venkaiah approached him and requested him to mutate their names in adangals , 1-B Namuna for the subject lands by removing the names of G. Venkata Rao and G Ramesh, for which, he refused stating that the matter was subjudiced and he cannot do like that, upon that, Pws.1, 3 and L.W.5 Venkaiah developed grudge against him and gave a false report to the police concerned, false complaint- petition to the Joint Collector, Nellore and also he was falsely implicated 78 in this case. The said stand taken by Accused No.2 was suggested to

PWs.1 to 3 in their cross examination and the said suggestion was denied by PWs.1 to 3.

115. It is already stated supra that there was enmity in between

Accused No.2 and PW.1 and others. PW.1 in her evidence in cross examination categorically admitted that she lodged a report against

Accused No.2 and others in Dagadarthi police station and further she also admitted that she made a complaint-petition to the Joint Collector,

Nellore against Accused No.2 as he supported G. Venkata Rao and G.

Ramesh in cultivating the subject land.

116. At this juncture, the learned counsel for Accused No.2 has relied upon the following decisions :-

i) The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1994 CRI.L.J.1383,wherein it was held that – “There was no motive for demanding and accepting the bribe because no bill was pending before the accused for pre-audit. Acquittal of the accused by trial court justified.” ii) The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Doraswamy Vs. the State reported in 2003 CRI.L.J.4055,wherein it was held that- “Plea of the prosecution is that, the accused is a public servant demanded illegal gratification when the complainant went at his residence belied by fact that, at relevant time the accused was attending conference and was not at home. Neither the demand nor acceptance was proved. Accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere presence of tainted notes within premises of the accused.” iii) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in C. Sivakumar Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 863 (A.P.), wherein it was held that – “Admittedly there was previous enmity between the accused and one Rajagopal Reddy. PW.1 belongs to the group of Rajagopal Reddy and because of that enmity, PW.1 gave a false complaint against him to ACB and the recovery of money from his pocket was not the amount demanded and accepted by him, but it was forcibly thrusted by PW.1 into his pocket in order to implicate him in the case, though he has not demanded and accepted the amount appears to be true and correct. Therefore, it cannot be said that the general presumption available in favour of the prosecution is not rebutted in the instant case. I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.” 79 iv) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in Kothapalle Nageswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 917 (A.P.), wherein it was held that – “From the circumstances of the case, it can be understood that there was enimity between PW.2 and the appellant and that PW.2 had every reason to involve the appellant in the instant case falsely.”

v) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in K. Neelavathamma Vs. State reported in 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 641 (A.P.), wherein it was held that – “It is obligatory on the part of the Court to draw the legal presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, to the effect that unless the contrary is proved the Accused Officer accepted or obtained that gratification as a motive or reward, such as is mentioned in Section 7 of the P.C. Act for rendering official favour. The presumption, however, is rebutable presumption and the Accused Officer can displace the presumption either by leading positive evidence or by showing the circumstances in his favour from the material available on record, such as, from the established facts or from the answers elicited from the prosecution witnesses in the course of cross-examination. The standard of proof required for displacing the presumption is not that of the standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt but is that of the preponderance of probability. It is enough on the part of the Accused Officer to show the circumstances which probabilise the defense version.”

117. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contention raised by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the counsel for Accused No.2, I have perused the relevant record. It is already sated supra that PWs.1 and 2 in their cross examination categorically admitted that prior to the date of trap, PW.1 lodged a report against Accused No.2 and others in Dagadarthi Police station alleging assault and abusing by referring caste name and further PW.1 made a complaint-petition against Accused No.2 to the Joint Collector, Nellore as he supported her opponents in cultivating the subject lands. Further, on perusal of Ex.P1 report, it does not reveal grievance of PW.1 and others against Accused No.2 and their grievance was only against Accused

Officer-1. After conducting preliminary enquiry, the DSP, ACB, Nellore (PW.13) registered the report of PW.1 and others against Accused Officer- 1 only. Further, the earlier statements of PWs.1 to 3 recorded by the ACB 80 police concerned under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement did not reveal that Accused No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 16.12.2014 while

PW.1 and others were waiting at Sunnapubatti centre for the bus in order to go to Kavali to the house of Accused Officer-1.

118. It is also an undisputed fact that on the date and time of trap,

Accused No.2 was not available in Tahsildar’s office, Dagadarthi mandal and he did not receive any tainted amount from PW.1 and others. Even the case of the prosecution also, Accused Officer-1 received tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 for Accused No.2. The prosecution did not put forth any acceptable evidence before the Court that Accused

No.2 asked Accused Officer-1 to collect the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 and others for him. Moreover, it is already stated supra that

PWs.1 to 3 in their evidence categorically stated that they did not find

Accused No.2 in Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal on the date of trap till completion of post-trap proceedings. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Accused No.2 demanded and accepted bribe amount from

PW.1 and others on the date of trap. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that Accused No.2 demanded and accepted bribe amount from

PW.1 and others for doing any official favour.

119.POINT NO.V:-

It is to be next seen whether there was valid sanction to prosecute Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the Government of A.P. being the competent authority to remove

Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 from service, has accorded sanction to prosecute Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 vide G.O.Ms.Nos.52 &53, Revenue (Vigilance-III.2) Department dated 03.07.2017 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government. In support of it, the prosecution has examined Nuthalapati Chandra Sekhar, Section Officer,

A.P. Secretariat, Revenue, Vigilance-III, Velagapudi, Guntur Districtas 81

PW.7, who stated in his evidence that their Office received Final Report, copy of FIR, Mediators Reports, Statements of witnesses and other relevant material documents from the office of the Director General, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad to accord sanction to prosecute Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2. After taking advise from the Vigilance

Commissioner, the file was placed before the concerned Minister and after taking approval of the Minister concerned, the file was circulated and placed before the Special Chief Secretary to the Government,

Revenue, (Vigilance-III) Department by name J.C. Sarma. The said Special

Chief Secretary gone through the entire material and after satisfying himself, he issued G.O.Ms.No.52, Revenue (Vigilance-III.2) Department

dated 03.02.2017 in respect of Accused Officer-1 (Ex.P7) and

G.O.Ms.No.53, Revenue (Vigilance-III.2) Department dated 03.02.2017 in respect of Accused No.2 (Ex.P8) accorded sanction to prosecute Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2.

120. At this juncture, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 have further vehemently contended that the prosecution sanction order under Exs.P7 and P8 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government namely J.C. Sarma without application of mind. In support of it, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 have relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court rendered in Md.

Tafazul Rehman Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1985 CRI.L.J.1971, wherein it was held that – “Documents considered by the sanctioning authority are not mentioned in draft sanction order which was produced in the Court. No evidence showing that, complainant’s statement was placed before sanctioning authority. Evidence on the contrary showing that, sanctioning authority signed the draft sanction order given by Vigilance Department. It was held that, the sanction was granted without application of mind.”

121. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that the Special Chief 82

Secretary to the Government namely J.C. Sarma after verifying the entire record including the statements of witnesses, Pre-trap and Post-trap

Proceedings issued sanction order under Ex.P7 to launch prosecution against the Accused Officer-1 and issued sanction order under Ex.P8 to launch prosecution against Accused No.2 and therefore Exs.P7 and P8 are valid Sanction Orders in the eye of law. In support of it, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3224, wherein it was held that – “It is well settled that, adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by us by sitting as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. Once the order granting sanction shows that, all the available material were placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction order stands proved.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in K.P. Pullaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 586, wherein it was held that – “PW.4 a Section Officer of the Secretariat, mentioned about the sanction order issued by the Principal Secretary of Revenue Department to prosecute the accused in this case. He denied a suggestion that the Principal Secretary did not apply his mind while according sanction to prosecute the accused. The evidence of PW.4 is not relevant to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of the bribe by accused persons.” iii) The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of M.P.Vs. Jiyalal reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 72, wherein it was held that – “It was also not justified for the learned Single Judge to hold that the District Magistrate who had passed the sanction order should have been subsequently examined as a witness by the prosecution in order to prove the same. The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona-fide manner. It was of course open to the respondent to question the genuineness or validity of the sanction order before the Special

Judge, but there was no requirement for the District Magistrate to

be examined as a witness by the prosecution.”

122. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contention raised by both the parties with regard to validity of the sanction orders under Exs.P7 83 and P8 to prosecute the Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record. PW.7, who is the Section Officer, AP

Secretariat, Revenue (Vigilance-III) Velagapudi, Guntur District in his evidence clearly stated that after perusing the entire material like copy of FIR, Mediators Reports, Statements of witnesses etc., and after satisfying himself, the Special Chief Secretary to the Government namely

J.C. Sarma accorded sanction to prosecute Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 under Exs.P7 and P8 respectively and accordingly a Charge Sheet was laid against the Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2. Further, the aforesaid decision rendered by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

M.P. Vs. Jiyalal categorically held that the Sanction Order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona-fide manner. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for

Accused Officer-1 and learned counsel for Accused No.2 in respect of validity of the Sanction Order under Ex.P7 in respect of Accused Officer-1 and Validity of sanction order under Ex.P8 in respect of Accused No.2.

123.POINT NO.VI:-

It is already stated supra that, the prosecution has established that the Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 were public servants at the relevant time within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and Accused Officer-1 accepted a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards bribe from PW.1 and others on the date of trap, which is other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour and the prosecution has also established that Accused Officer-1 being a public servant by corrupt or illegal means by abusing her official position as Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal and obtained a sum of Rs.5,000/- from

PW.1 and others on the date of trap for herself which is pecuniary advantage and therefore, Accused Officer-1 is liable for punishment for 84 the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C.

Act, 1988.

124. It is already stated supra that the prosecution could establish all the vital ingredients touching official favour, demand of illegal gratification, payment of illegal gratification and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- by the Accused Officer-1 from PW.1 and others on the date of trap through cogent evidence. Hence the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988 squarely follows.

Accused Officer-1 has failed to rebut the said presumption by showing the preponderance of probabilities. As already stated supra that the defense story put forth by Accused Officer-1 is unbelievable. Further, it is an undisputed fact that PW.10, who is the second investigating officer in this case, on 20.03.2015 he issued show-cause notice to Accused officer- 1 calling her explanation and on receipt of Ex.P12 show-cause notice,

Accused officer-1 submitted her Ex.P14 explanation dated 13.04.2015 wherein she did not state the said stand taken by her before the Court that on the date of trap i.e. on 22.12.2014 at about 11.45 a.m. PW.1 and three others entered into her chamber and PW.1 handed over brown colour cover containing Court papers and she received the said cover from PW.1 and returned the same to PW.1 with instructions to hand over the same in her office and soon after it, the ACB officials who were at door steps entered into her chamber and falsely implicated her in this case and further three persons were in her chamber at that time and witnessed the incident.

125. It is assumed for a moment for the arguments sake that in order to implicate Accused officer-1 in this case, PW.1 entered into her chamber along with three others on 22.12.2014 at about 11.45 a.m. and handed over brown colour cover to her stating that the said cover containing Court papers, by believingthe words of the PW.1, she received the said cover containing Court papers and returned the same to PW.1 85 with instructions to hand over the same in her office and soon after it, the ACB officials, who were at the door steps, entered into her chamber and implicated her in this case is true and correct, in such a case,

Accused officer-1 would have been mentioned the same in her Ex.P14 explanation to the show-cause notice. But she did not refer the aforesaid stand taken by her in her Ex.P14 explanation. As already stated supra that the defense story putforth by the Accused officer-1 is unbelievable.

Therefore, Accused officer-1 is guilty of the charges under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

126. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, I am holding that Accused officer-1 demanded PW.1 and two others to pay illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- per head altogether Rs.30,000/- for submitting favourable report to the

Joint Collector, Nellore in their appeal and on 16.12.2014 during evening time PW.1 and others handed over a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Accused officer-1 in her house at Kavali and the said amount was received by

Accused officer-1 from PW.1 with a demand to pay balance amount of

Rs.5,000/- for her on 22.12.2014 by keeping in a cover either at her office or at her house and pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2. But

PW.1 and others were not willing to pay further bribe amount to Accused officer-1, they lodged Ex.P1 report in ACB office, Nellore and the same was registered on 22.12.2014 at 9.00 a.m. after following the due procedure. During the course of investigation, pre-trap proceedings were conducted in ACB office, Nellore on 22.12.2014 in between 9.30 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. in the presence of the mediators and on the same day, at about 11.45 a.m. PWs.1 to 3 and another met Accused officer-1 in her chamber in Tahsildar’s office, Dagadarthi mandal and on the demand of illegal gratification made by Accused officer-1, PW.1 handed over the brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- and the same was received by Accused officer-1 with her right hand, counted the 86 amount with her both hands and put the amount in the said cover and she also received another brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- for Accused No.2 from PW.1 and after verification, she assured that she would submit favourable report before the Joint

Collector, Nellore in their appeal and after relaying the pre-arranged signal by PW.1, the trap party members led by PW.13 rushed to the chamber of Accused Officer-1 caught hold of her red-handedly and seized two covers containing tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- from the chamber of Accused Officer-1 underneath the wooden rack and chemical test organized to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1 yielded positive results and therefore the prosecution has established that

Accused Officer-1 was being public servant at the relevant time of offence, she accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing her position as public servant, received a sum of

Rs.5,000/- towards illegal gratification on the date of trap for herself which is pecuniary advantage and therefore Accused Officer-1 is liable to be punished for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

127. From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the Accused Officer-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the Accused Officer-1 is liable to be convicted for the said offences.

In the result, Accused Officer-1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and she is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 r/w 34 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 27th day of December, 2018.

87

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases–cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

ORDER OF SENTENCE: DT. 27.12.2018

It is not the case where to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders

Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. When Accused Officer-1 is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be awarded on her, she represented that she is a widow and she has no relatives and she is residing alone and she is not keeping good health and pleaded mercy of the Court.

Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case, representation of Accused Officer-1 and borne in mind of observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.

V. Vasudeva Rao reported in 2004 Crl.L.J.620, particularly in Para

No.30, I have passed the following sentence:

Thus, Accused Officer-1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo

Simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Officer-1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The remand period of the Accused Officer-1 from 23.12.2014 to 29.01.2015 shall be set of as against the term of imprisonment as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Both the substantial sentences awarded against Accused Officer-1 shall run concurrently.

The bail bonds of Accused No.2 shall be inforce for a period of six months from this day. The case property of MOs.1 to 4 and 7 to 9, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.5,000/- (MO.5) and cash of Rs.2,000/- (MO.6) shall be returned to PW.1 after expiry of appeal time. The total fine amount is

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 27th day of December, 2018.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases–cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

88

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1:Gochipathala Chinnamma,DW.1:Challa Srihari, Defacto complainant.Agriculturer.

PW.2:Kavali Rani @ Pavani,DW.2:Shaik Mastan vali, brought up daughter of PW.1.the then Subordinate Tahsildar office, Dagadarthi mandal.

PW.3:Pothipogu gangamma, DW.3:Kappira AdiSeshaiah, legal heir of beneficiaryHead Master, of assigned land.Mandal praja Parishad Primary School, Ulavapalla, village.

PW.4:Kumbagiri Kondaiah, DW.4:Shaik Zameer, MEO, Venkatachalam mandal,Senior Section Engineer 1stMediator.Works, South Central Railway, Nellore PW.5:Yasam Meena Kumar, DW.5:Chundi Sridhar, the then Deputy Tahsildar,the then Bank Manager, in the office of Tahsildar, Syndicate Bank, Dagadarthi mandal.Allur

PW.6:Pasupuleti Subrahmanyam, DW.6:Ram Chaitanya, the then Camp Clerk ofSenior Assistant, Joint Collector, Nellore.Camp clerk to Joint Collector -I, Nellore PW.7:Nuthalapati Chandra Sekhar, Section Officer, A.P. Secretariat, Revenue Vigilance-III, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

PW.8:Vuddandi Nageswara Rao, Gazetted Superintendent, Land matters section, office of the Collectorate, Nellore

PW.9:Gampala Seenaiah, village servant, Ananthavaram village.

PW.10:M. Krupanandam, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore, who conducted preliminary enquiry on Ex.P1-report and 2nd Investigating Officer.

89

PW.11:N. Siva Kumar Reddy, Inspector of Police, Nellore who assisted P.W.13 in conducting pre-trap and post-trap proceedings.

PW.12:Gandhavalli Aruna, the then Typist, office of DEO, Nellore. 2ndMediator.

PW.13:RVSN Murthy, the then DSP, ACB, Ongole FAC to DSP ACB, Nellore, first Investigating Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1:is the report lodged byEx.D1: Contradictory PW.1 to the ACB policeportion in Sec.161 concerned.of Cr.P. statement of P.W.2 recorded by the ACB police concerned. Ex.P.2:is the representation ofEx.D2:Contradictory PW.1 made to SC and STsportion in Sec.161 Commission.of Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 recorded by the ACB police concerned. Ex.P.3:is the proceedings of DEO,Ex.D3: is the attested Nellore dated 20.12.2014.xerox copy of record sheet of Gochipathala Elezebeth Rani. Ex.P.4:is pre-trap proceedingsEx.D4:is the attested

dated22.12.2014inxerox copy of

Mediators Report –Irecord sheet of Gochipathala ElezebethRani issued by head master,Mandal prajaParishad PrimarySchool, Renigunta.

90

Ex.P.5:isnoticedatedEx.D5:is attested xerox 29.11.2014 issued bycopy of the file inchargeTahsildar,relatingto Dagadarthimandalemployment of namely Jaya Prakash, G. Manohar.

Ex.P.6:is the report of inchargeEx.D6:is the certificate Tahsildar,Dagadarthiissued by Branch Mandal dated 28.11.2014manger, Syndicate addressed to the DistrictBank, Alluru. Collector, Nellore.

Ex.P.7:ProsecutionSanctionEx.D7:is the statement Order in G.O.Ms.No.52,ofaccountof Revenue (Vigilance-III.2)Gochipatala DepartmentdatedChinamma for the 03.02.2017 in respect ofperiodfrom Accused Officer-101.01.2017to 31.12.2017 maintainedby Syndicatebank, Alluru.

Ex.P.8:is Prosecution SanctionEx.D8:is the statement of Order in G.O.Ms.No.53,account of G. Revenue (Vigilance-III.2)Chinamma for the Departmentdatedperiodfrom 03.02.2017 in respect of01.01.2018to Accused No.2.15.10.2018 maintainedby Syndicatebank, Alluru. Ex.P.9:is the Notice dated 25.11.2014 dispatched to both the parties and Tahsildar,Dagadarthi Mandal from Collectorate, Nellore. Ex.P10:is a relevant contradictory portion in Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P11:is the memo dated 02.01.2015 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad.

91

Ex.P12:is show-cause notice

dated 20.03.2015 issued

by PW.10 to Accused Officer-1.

Ex.P13:is show-cause notice

dated 20.03.2015 issued

by PW.10 to Accused No.2.

Ex.P14:is the explanation dated 13.04.2015 submitted by Accused Officer-1.

Ex.P15:is the explanation dated 24.03.2015 submitted by Accused No.2,.

Ex.P16: is the job chart and service particulars of Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 along with covering letter dated 22.05.2015 of Tahsildar, Dagadarthi mandal,

Ex.P17:is copy of FIR in Crime No.13/RCT-NLR/2014of ACB,NelloreRange, Nellore,

Ex.P18:is made up file containing Exs.P5, P6 and P9 and other relevant documents.

Ex.P19:is post-trap proceedings

dated22.12.2014in

Mediators Report-II.

Ex.P20:is the original FIR in Crime NO.13/RCT-NLR-2014of ACB,NelloreRange, Nellore.

Ex.P21:is rough sketch for the scene of offence.

Ex.P22:is the memo dated 31.12.2014 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad.

92

Ex.P23:is the notice dated 09.12.2014 issued by the Joint Collector, Nellore,

Ex.P24:is the suspension order of Accused Officfer-1.

Ex.P25:is the suspension order of Accused No.2. Ex.P26:is the search list in respect of house search of Accused Officer-1. Ex.P27:is the search list in respect of house search of Accused No.2. Ex.P28: is the explanation dated 02.12.2014 given by Accused No.2 to the Joint Collector, Nellore.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

MO.1:is the sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings. MO.2:is the sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings,.

MO.3:is the sealed bottle containing right hand wash of Accused Officer-1

MO.4:is sealed bottle containing left hand wash of Accused Officer-1, MO.5:is cash of Rs.5,000

MO.6:is cash of Rs.2,000/-,.

MO.7:is sealed bottle containing wash of surface of floor from where the envelop covers were contacted,

MO.8:is sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in Post-trap Proceedings.

MO.9:is two envelop covers

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES–CUM-

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : NELLORE.

Wednesday, this the 5 th day of December, 2018.

Present: Sri Mohammed Abdul Rafi,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE NO.7 OF 2017

1. Name of the Complainant:State represented by the InspectorofPolice,Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore.

2.Name of the Accused OfficerMoghal Khadar Basha, s/o Chote Saheb, Aged 52 years, Divisional Administrative Officer O/o RDO, Naidupet town and Mandal, West Guduru, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Crime Number:11/RCT-NLR/2014 of ACB., Nellore Range, Nellore.

4.Section of Law: Charge No.1: Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge No.2: Under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5.Plea of the Accused Officer::Pleaded not guilty

6.Finding of the Court: The Accused Officer is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

7.Result : In the result, the Accused Officer is found guilty for the (Sentence or Order) offencespunishableunder Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Thus, the Accused Officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under 2

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The Accused Officer is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The remand period of the Accused Officer from 23.09.2014 to 20.10.2014 shall be set of as against the term of imprisonment as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Both the substantial sentences awarded against the Accused Officer shall run concurrently. The case property of MOs.1 to 4, 6 to 8, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.25,000/-(MO.5)shall be returned to PW.1 and MO.9 cell phone shall be returned to the Accused Officer, after expiry of appeal time. The total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Venkata Subbaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri K.V. Suresh, counsel for Accused Officer, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore has laid a Charge Sheet against the

Accused Officer in Cr.No.11/RCT-NLR/2014 charged under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the following allegations:

2. That the Accused Officer worked as Divisional Administrative

Officer in the office of RDO, Naidupet from 20.06.2014 to 22.09.2014.

By virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of public 3 servant as defined under Section 2 (c) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The defacto complainant namely Yeddala Pratap Reddy (PW.1) is a resident of

Naidupet and K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) is his grandfather by courtesy.

The said K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) has got 99 cents of the land in

S.No.70/2A of Sullurpet village. The Government decided to acquire the above land to distribute to the weaker sections and served notices to K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and the legal heirs of Veera Swamy Reddy and negotiated with them and both of them agreed to hand over the above land to the Government, for that, RDO, Naidupet decided to give

Rs.23,18,923/- as compensation to K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and legal heirs of Veera Swamy Reddy.

Further, K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) was aged about 94 years and as he was not able to meet officers often and as such he gave Power of

Attorney to PW.1 through notary to look after all the dealings. In view of the General Power of Attorney, PW.1 was authorized to look after his works and in that connection, on 19.09.2014 PW.1 met the Accused

Officer, who was Divisional Administrative Officer in the office of RDO,

Naidupeta, with regard to getting compensation. Upon that he told that his grandfather’s share of Rs.11,59,461/- has to be remitted in his grandfather’s account by way of cheque through on line. To process the work of cheque, compensation work and to remit the compensation amount in the account of his grandfather, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe.

Again on 20.09.2014 he met the Accused Officer and expressed his inability to pay bribe amount of Rs.50,000/-. Upon that, the Accused

Officer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.25,000/- and told him within 2 or 3 days the compensation amount would be remitted in his grandfather’s account. So, he demanded PW.1 to give the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- by 22.09.2014 evening. On 20.09.2014 at about 9.00 p.m Epuru Raja 4

Gopal, VRO of Sullurupet Bit-I (PW.7) obtained the signatures of his grandfather to remit the compensation amount in his grandfather’s account. He and his grandfather were not willing to give the bribe amount to the Accused Officer, who was harassing him to pay the bribe amount to remit the compensation amount in his grandfather’s account.

Hence, PW.1 approached the ACB police, Nellore and lodged a report for taking necessary action against the Accused Officer. After following due procedure. K.S. Nanjundappa, DSP, ACB, Nellore (PW.15) registered the report of PW.1 as case in Crime NO.11/RCT-NLR/2014 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 on 22.09.2014 at 2.30 p.m. and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, PW.15 secured the presence of the mediators namely Aremarati Narasoji Rao (PW.2) and Korra Sudha

Charan (LW.3). PW.15 conducted pre-trap proceedings on 22.09.2014 from 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. in his office. After completion of pre-rap proceedings, the trap party led by PW.15 left ACB office at 4.15 p.m. on 22.09.2014 and reached the Railway flyover bridge, Naidupet and PW.1 made a call to the Accused Officer to know whether he was available in the office. The Accused Officer told that he was at Amaravathi Hotel.

Then PW.1 went infront of Amaravathi Hotel at about 6.00 p.m. and then he gave pre-arranged signal and immediately the trap party reached infront of the Amaravathi Hotel, and noticed the presence of PW.1 along with Accused Officer.

PW.15 organized the chemical test on both hand fingers of the

Accused Officer, they yielded positive results. On questioning about the bribe amount, the Accused Officer voluntarily produced the bribe amount from a brown colour cover which was kept on SBI Life Insurance Polity

Deposit receipt which was on the dash board of his Swift Dzire car bearing Registration No.AP 26 AM 2899. The mediators counted and compared the numbers and denominations of the currency notes already 5 noted in the pre-trap proceedings and found them tallied. PW.15 organized the chemical test on the outer linings of the brown colour cover which tainted amount kept yielded positive result. PW.15 seized the said tainted currency notes of Rs.25,000/- and three sealed bottles containing the chemical washes. The explanations offered by the Accused Officer and the version of PW.1 were recorded in the post-trap proceedings in

Mediators Report-II drafted after conclusion of the post-trap proceedings.

On the request of PW.15 the Accused Officer produced the relevant records pertaining to the official favour pending with him. N. Siva Kumar

Reddy, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore (PW.13) obtained sanction order vide G.O.Ms.No. 469 dated 07.11.2016 from the office of

DSP, ACB, Nellore to prosecute the Accused Officer in the Court of Law.

Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the Accused Officer. On appearance of the

Accused Officer before this Court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to him as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Accused Officer was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein, he denied the commission of offence, whereupon, charges under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 were framed against the Accused Officer read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.31, and MOs.1 to 9. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Korra Sudha Charan (LW.3), K. Subba Rami

Reddy (LW.6), Panabaka Kusumamba (LW.8) and Sangareddy Perumal

Reddy (LW.13).

6

6. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the Accused

Officer was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, he denied the incriminating circumstances, and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf, but got marked Exs.D1 and D2 during the course of cross examination of PW.11.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record including written arguments filed on behalf of the prosecution.

8. Now the points for determination are:-

I) Whether the Accused Officer was a public servant

as on the date of trap as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

II) Whether there was any official favour pending

with the Accused Officer as on the date of trap?

III) Whether the Accused Officer demanded and

accepted bribe amount from PW.1?

IV) Whether the Accused Officer by abusing his official

position and also by resorting illegal and corrupt practices, obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable security either for himself or for some other person?

V) Whether there was valid sanction to prosecute the

Accused Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

VI) Whether the prosecution has proved its case

against the Accused Officer for the ofences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the Accused Officer by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from PW.1 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing an official favour of for processing the work of compensation and to remit the compensation amount of Rs.11,50,861/- in the bank account of grandfather of PW.1 by 7 name K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and as such the Accused Officer is liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. On the other hand, the defence of the

Accused Officer is one of total denial of the prosecution case.

10. In order to prove the guilt of the Accused Officer, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses, out of them, the

Defacto-complainant namely Yeddala Pratap Reddy was examined as

PW.1, one of the mediators namely Aremarati Narasoji Rao, Assistant

Director of Agriculture, Naidupet, said to be present at the time of ACB trap was examined as PW.2, V. Ragini Devi, the then Deputy Tahsildar in the office of RDO, Naidupet was examined as PW.4, Punabaka Bhaskar

Reddy, who is grand son of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) by courtesy was examined as PW.4, Chiguruvada Bhagyasekhar, who is son-in-law of

Sridevamma was examined as PW.5,Chenji Hari Krishna, the then Deputy

Tahsildar in the office of RDO, Naidupet was examined as PW.6, Epuru

Raja Gopal, the then VRO, Sullurpet Bit-I was examined as PW.7,

Chennuru Subba Rami Reddy, who is younger brother of Amaravathi

Hotel owner namely Sudhakar Reddy was examined as PW.8, Sushan

Olivia, who is the then Deputy Tahsildar in the office of RDO, Naidupet was examined as PW.9, V. Ippi Naidu, Section Officer, Vigilance-III, AP

Secretariat, Velagalpudi, Guntur District was examined as PW.10, Melam

Babaiah, the then RDO, Naidupet was examined as PW.11, K.

Venkateswarlu, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore, who is said to be assisted PW.15 in conducting pre-trap and Post-trap proceedings was examined as PW.12, N. Siva Kumar Reddy, Inspector of

Police, ACB, Nellore, who is the second Investigating Officer in this case was examined as PW.13, M. Krupanandam, the then Inspector of Police,

ACB, Nellore, who is said to be conducted preliminary enquiry on Ex.P2 report was examined as PW.14, K. S. Nanjundappa, the then DSP, ACB, 8

Nellore Range, Nellore, who is the 1st Investigating Officer in this case, was examined as PW.15.

11. In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents and material objects:

Ex.P1 is the GPA dated 10.09.2014 executed by K. Subbarami

Reddy (LW.6) in favour of PW.1, Ex.P2 is the report dated 21.09.2014 lodged by PW.1 to the ACB police concerned, Ex.P3 is the proceedings of

Joint Director of Agriculture dated 22.09.2014 wherein PW.2 and K.

Sudha Charan were deputed to act as mediators, Ex.P4 is copy of FIR in

Crime No.11/RCT-NLR/2014 of ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore, Ex.P5 is Pre- trap Proceedings dated 22.09.2014 in Mediators Report–I, Ex.P6 is rough sketch for the scene of offence, Ex.P7 is Post-trap proceedings dated 22.09.2014 in Mediators Report-II, Ex.P8 is Mediators Report-III, Ex.P9 is agreement executed in between V. Sridevamma and RDO, Naidupet,

Ex.P10 is agreement executed in between K. Subba Ramireddy (LW.6) and RDO, Naidupeta, Ex.P11 is Draft consent Award vide

R.C.No.A1.No.299/2005, Award No.1/14-15 of the office of RDO,

Naidupeta dated 25.08.2014, Ex.P12 is acknowledgements of the land owners showing receiving of compensation amount by V. Sridevamma and K. Subbaramireddy, Ex.P13 is Acquittance of the claimants, Ex.P14 is payment of compensation in favour of the claimants, Ex.P15 is office notes, Ex.P16 is entire file relating to Survey No.70/2 it contains 799 pages in two bundles. Ex.P17 is Attendance Register of RDO Office,

Naidupeta for the year, 2014, Ex.P18 is cash accounts budget register relating to Social Welfare land acquisition of RDO Office, Naidupeta,

Ex.P19 is the authorization letter dated 27.03.2018 issued by the Joint

Secretary to the Government in favor of PW.10, Ex.P20 is the prosecution sanction order in G.O.Ms.No.469 Revenue, (Vigilance-III) Department

dated 07.11.2016, Ex.P21 is application dated 26.07.2014 which is in

9

Ex.P16 file at page No.693, Ex.P22 is application dated 16.12.2012 addressed to the RDO, Gudur contains in Ex.P16 file, Ex.P23 is the memo

dated 01.10.2014 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad,

Ex.P24 is the show cause notice dated 27.12.2014 issued by PW.13 to the Accused Officer, Ex.P25 is the explanation dated 02.01.2015 submitted by the Accused Officer, Ex.P26 is the memo dated 01.12.2016 issued by the Director General, ACB, Vijayawada, Ex.P27 is the FIR in

Cr.No.11/RCT-NLR/2014 of ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore, Ex.P28 is the memo dated 30.09.2014 issued by the Director General, ACB,

Hyderabad, Ex.P29 is the suspension order of the Accused Officer dated 29.09.2014 issued by the District Collector, Nellore, Ex.P30 is the job chart and service particulars of the Accused Officer along with covering letter dated 01.10.2014 issued by the RDO, Naidupeta, Ex.P31 is the call data of the cell phone of the Accused Officer for the period from 19.09.2014 to 22.09.2014.

MO.1 is the sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate

Powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings, MO.2 is the sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder used in Pre-trap

Proceedings, MO.3 is sealed bottle containing right hand wash of the

Accused Officer, MO.4 is sealed bottle containing left hand wash of the

Accused Officer, MO.5 is cash of Rs.25,000/-, MO.6 is empty brown colour envelop cover, MO.7 is the sealed bottle containing wash of inner portion of the envelop cover, MO.8 is the sealed cover containing sample of

Sodium Carbonate Powder used in Post-trap Proceedings, MO.9 is Cell

Phone of the Accused Officer.

12. In order to establish the charges leveled against the Accused

Officer, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15, among them, Pws.1, 2 and 15 are the main witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 10 15, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence.

The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 15 and the documentary evidence is to be appreciated by the Court. No material discrepancies going to the root of the case have been elicited in the cross examination of material witnesses. There is no reason for these witnesses is comingforth to speak falsehood as against the Accused Officer. Thus, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of these material witnesses and their evidence is consistent through-out and inspires the confidence of the court.

Therefore, these witnesses can be believed and can be depended upon in adjudicating the matter.

13. PO INT NO.I:-

It is to be first seen whether the Accused Officer was a public servant as on the date of trap as defined under Section 2 (c) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the Accused Officer worked as Divisional Administrative

Officer in the office of RDO, Naidupet from 20.06.2014 to 22.09.2014. By virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. There is no dispute from the side of the Accused Officer with regard to his designation as on the date of trap, and he discharged his duties by receiving salary from the State Government Funds. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Accused Officer was a public servant as on the date of trap as defined under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

14. POINT NO.II:-

It is to be next seen whether there was any official favour pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of trap. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the Deceased K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) has got 99 cents of the land in S.No.70/2A situated at Sullurpet village. The Government decided to acquire the said land belonging to K.

11

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) to distribute it to the weaker sections and served notices to K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and the legal heirs of Veera

Swamy Reddy and negotiated with them and both of them agreed to hand over the above lands to the Government, for that, RDO, Naidupet decided to give Rs.23,18,923/- as compensation to K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and the legal heirs of Veera Swamy Reddy. K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) was aged about 94 years and as he was not able to meet officers often and as such he gave Power of Attorney to Yeddala Pratap Reddy (PW.1) through Notary to look after all the dealings in respect of compensation. In view of General Power of Attorney executed by K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) infavour of PW.1, who was authorized to look after his works and in that connection, on 19.09.2014 PW.1 met the

Accused Officer, who was Divisional Administrative Officer in the office of

RDO, Naidupet with regard to getting compensation. Upon that, the

Accused Officer told him that his grandfather’s bank share of

Rs.11,59,461/- has to be remitted in his grandfather’s account by way of cheque through on line.

15. Further, to process the work of cheque, compensation work and to remit the compensation amount in the account of his grandfather namely K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6), the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe. Again on 20.09.2014 PW.1 met the

Accused Officer and expressed his inability to pay that much amount of

Rs.50,000/-. Upon that, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount to

Rs.25,000/- saying that within 2 or 3 days the compensation amount would be remitted in his grandfather’s account. So, he demanded him to give the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- by 22.09.2014 evening. On 20.09.2014 at about 9.00 p.m Epuru Raja Gopal, VRO of Sullurupet Bit-I (PW.7) obtained signatures of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) to remit the compensation amount in the account of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6).

12

PW.1 and his grandfather K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) were not willing to give the bribe amount to the Accused Officer, and as such PW.1 approached the ACB office, Nellore and lodged a report for taking necessary action against the Accused Officer.

16. In order to prove the official favor was pending with the

Accused Officer as on the date of trap, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant by name Yeddala Pratap Reddy as PW.1, who stated in his evidence that K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) is his grandfather by courtesy i.e. Junior paternal uncle of his mother by name Sridevamma and he got land in an extent of 99 cents in Survey No.70/2A situated at

Nagarajupuram (Sulluru Village) of Sullurpeta Mandal. The Revenue

Divisional Officer on behalf of the Government had acquired the land of

K. Subbaramireddy to distribute the same to the landless poor persons for the purpose of House sites. On 07.08.2014 an Award was passed by the RDO. and also Joint Collector, wherein the Government fixed the compensation for the aforesaid land to the tune of Rs.23,18,923/- along with K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6), the legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy are eligible for the compensation. Out of the said compensation amount, K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6) is entitled half of the amount in the compensation to the tune of Rs.11,59,461/-. K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) has died in the month of January, 2015 at the age of 94 years.

17. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that during the life time of

K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6), due to his advanced age at the age of 94 years as he could not go around offices and meet the Officers, he executed Ex.P1- Power of Attorney on 10.09.2014 in his name to look after all the dealings in respect of the said compensation amount and the said document was Notarized. After passing of the award, he met the

Accused Officer in RDO Office, Naidupeta and submitted the passport size photographs of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) for the purpose of affixing 13 the said photographs in the relevant form as informed by the Accused

Officer.On 19.09.2014 he met the Accused Officer in RDO office,

Naidupet and enquired him with regard to the half of the compensation amount of Rs.11,59,461/-eligible by K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and there was delay by that time. Then the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe for completing his work.

18. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that again on 20.09.2014 he met the Accused Officer at about 12.30 p.m. in RDO office, Naidupeta and expressed his inability to pay that much amount towards bribe, as his grandfather by courtesy namely K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) was not keeping good health. Considered his request, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and told him that he has to pay the said bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- till the evening of 22.09.2014 and assured him to complete his work within two days and compensation amount would be remitted to the Bank account of K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6). On 20.09.2014 during night at about 9.00 p.m.

the Deputy Tahsildar by name Sushan Olivia (PW.9) and Village Revenue

Officer of Sullurpeta by name E. Rajagopal (PW.3) came to the house of

K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) at Sulluru Village, they obtained signatures of

K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) on the relevant forms in his presence. After discussing with K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6), he approached ACB office,

Nellore and lodged Ex.P2 report on 21.09.2014 during evening in between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. for taking necessary action against the

Accused Officer.

19. PW3, who is the then Deputy Tahsildar in the office of RDO,

Naidupeta, stated in her evidence that there are three posts of Deputy

Tahsildars in RDO Office, Naidupeta. In the month of September, 2014, herself, Ch. Harikrishna (PW.6) and P. Sushan Olivia (PW.9) were working as Deputy Tahsildars in RDO Office, Naidupeta. Prior to the trap, on one 14 day PW.1 came to their office. Another Deputy Tahsildar namely Sushan

Olivia(PW.9) was looking after land acquisition compensation files and she was on leave on that day. Then PW.1 approached her and informed her that PW.9 asking him to hand over the passport size Photographs of

K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and so saying, he handed over a cover containing passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6). She received the said cover containing passport size photographs of K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) from PW.1 and handed over the said cover to

PW.9 on the next day, when PW.9 attended the duty.

20. PW.4, who is said to be attestor of Ex.P1-GPA, in his evidence stated that K. Punabaka Kusumamba (LW.8) is his mother. K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6) is his grandfather by courtesy i.e., maternal uncle of his mother. K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) had agricultural land in an extent of 99 cents in S.No.70/2A of Sullur Village of Sullurupeta Mandal.

The said land was occupied by weaker sections people unauthorizedly.

The Government acquired the said land from K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and fixed the compensation in order to distribute the said land among weaker sections people. K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) during his life time made round the offices concerned for getting compensation, as he was in advanced age, he could not move around the offices concerned and as such he executed a General Power of Attorney on 10.09.2014 in favour of PW.1 in his presence and in the presence of his mother namely

Kusumamba and they attested the said GPA (Ex.P1) as witnesses. On 20.09.2014 during evening time at about 6.00 p.m. Village Revenue

Officer by name Rajagopal (PW.7) came to the house of K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and obtained signatures of K. Subbarami Reddy on the relevant forms for releasing of compensation amount.

21. PW.5, who is said to be son-in-law of Sridevamma, in his evidence stated that K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) has got land in an extent 15 of 99 cents in S.No.70/2A of Sullur village of Sullurupeta Mandal. The said K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) is the son of the elder brother of

Veeraswamy Reddy by name Audinarayana Reddy. The weaker section people occupied the aforesaid land belonging to K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and constructed houses therein. Veeraswamy Reddy asked K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6), who is no other than son of his elder brother, to lookafter the aforesaid dispute. Then K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) made around the Revenue Offices for getting compensation in respect of the aforesaid land. But the Government did not give any compensation to

K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and as such he approached the Hon'ble High

Court questioning in action of the Government, wherein, the Hon'ble

High Court passed favourable order directing the Government to fix and pay the compensation in respect of the said land.

22. PW.5 in his evidence further stated that in pursuance of the

Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the Revenue Department fixed the compensation in the year, 2014.K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy were summoned to the Joint Collector camp at Naidupeta. Sridevamma, who is the 2nd daughter of Veeraswami

Reddy, is his mother-in-law. A consent Award was passed wherein, K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6) agreed to take half share in the total compensation amount and the remaining compensation amount will be taken by the legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy. His mother-in-law agreed to receive half of the share in the compensation amount on behalf of legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy and other legal heirs of Veeraswamy

Reddy gave no objection to receive the compensation amount by

Sridevamma on their behalf.

23. PW.5 in his evidence further stated that by that time

K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) was at advanced age at 90 years and

Sridevamma was aged about 85 years. He came to know through PW.1 16 that K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) has executed a General Power of Attorney (Ex.P1) in favour of PW.1 authorized him to look after to get compensation amount on the ground that the said K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) reached advanced age and he could not move around the offices in respect of receiving of compensation amount. He accompanied his mother-in-law namely Sridevamma to the RDO Office, Naidupeta, where the signatures of his mother-in-law namely Sridevamma were obtained by the Deputy Tahsildar namely Olivia in acquittance Register. PW.7, who is the then VRO of Sullurpet Bit-I, stated in his evidence that on 20.09.2014, the Accused Officer sent the acquitance papers through

Messenger to get the signatures of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) as he was in advanced age. Accordingly, on the same day at about 3.30 p.m. he went to the house of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) situated at Sulluru village and obtained his signatures on the acquittance papers (Ex.P13).

Thereafter, he handed over Ex.P13 acquittance papers to the Accused

Officer in RDO Office, Naidupeta.

24. PW.9, who is the then Deputy Tahsildar in RDO Office,

Naidupeta stated in her evidence that in the month of September, 2014, herself, Ch. Harikrishna(PW.3) and PW.3 were working as Deputy

Tahsildars in RDO Office, Naidupeta. Her duties were looking after land acquisition proposals, correspondence and Indiramma programme etc.,

In the year, 2014 their office received compensation file of the present case from RDO Office, Gudur on point of jurisdiction, which was originally received from Tahsildar’s Office, Sullurupeta. A consent Award was passed in respect of the said land in an extent of 99 cents situated at

Sullur village of Sullurupeta Mandal. There were two beneficiaries in respect of the compensation amount and they have equal share in the said compensation amount. The compensation amount of the said land was fixed for Rs.23,18,923/-, wherein, K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) has got 17 half share to the tune of Rs.11,59,461/-. The said K. Subbarami reddy (LW.6) executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of PW.1 authorized him to receive the compensation amount on his behalf.

25. PW.9 in her evidence stated that as per the directions of their

RDO, they have to obtain the signatures of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and Sridevamma in acquittance forms. On 20.09.2014, Sridevamma came to RDO Office, Naidupeta and she put her signatures in

Acquittance Register. But K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) did not attend RDO

Office, Naidupet due to his old age. A phone call was received from PW.1 by their office, stating that his grandfather namely K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) by courtesy could not attend the RDO Office, Naidupeta for putting his signatures in the Acquittance Papers on the ground that, he was in the advanced age of about 94 years. The Accused Officer, who was working as Divisional Administrative Officer in RDO office,

Naidupeta, sent the Acquittance papers through Village Revenue Officer by name Raja Gopal (PW.7) for getting signatures of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) on acquittance papers. Accordingly, PW.7 went to the house of K.

Subbaramireddy, and obtained his signatures on the Acquittance papers and handed over the said Acquittance papers to the Accused Officer on the next day.

26. It is an undisputed fact that Audinarayana Reddy and

Veeraswamy Reddy are the brothers. K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) is the son of Audinarayana Reddy. K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) during his lifetime, had land in an extent of 99 cents in S.No.70/2A situated at

Sulluru village of Sullurupeta mandal. As per the Revenue records,

Veeraswamy Reddy was the pattadar of the said land, while K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) was enjoyer of the said land. The weaker sections people occupied the aforesaid land belonging to K. Subbarami

Reddy (LW.6). The Government decided to distribute the said land to the 18 weaker sections people, without acquiring the said land from K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6). At that juncture, K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) had approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed a writ petition vide W.P.

No.626/1996 against the Government questioning the inaction of the

Government and the said Writ Petition was allowed directing the

Revenue authorities that if the land is acquired for any public purpose it is open for the Government to acquire the land as per the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

27. It is also undisputed that on the basis of orders passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.626/1996, the Revenue authorities

summoned K.Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and legal heirs of Veeraswamy

Reddy for fixing the compensation. On 07.08.2014 a consent Award (Ex.P12) was passed by the Revenue authorities by fixing the compensation amount in respect of the aforesaid land to the tune of

Rs.23,18,923/-, out of which K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) is entitled half of the share in the compensation upto Rs.11,59,461/- and the legal heirs of

Veeraswamy Reddy are entitled for the remaining compensation amount of Rs.11,59,462/-.

28. It is also an undisputed fact that at the first instance K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) claimed that he is entitled for the entire compensation amount by making an application dated 10.08.2012 on the ground that he was enjoyer of the aforesaid land. In that regard, the

Tahsildar, Sullurupeta conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 29.09.2012 stating that K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and legal heirs of

Veeraswamy Reddy have equal right over the subject land and K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) is entitled half of the share in the compensation amount and the legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy are entitled for the remaining half share of the compensation amount. It is also an undisputed fact that K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) has died in the month of 19

January, 2015 at the age of 94 years. Prior to his death, due to his old age as he reached 94 years as he could not go around the offices and meet the officers, he executed the Power of Attorney (Ex.P1) in favor of

PW.1 wherein PW.1 was authorized to look after all the dealings for getting compensation amount in respect of his share. On 10.09.2014

PW.4 along with his mother were present at the time of executing Power of Attorney by K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) in favour of PW.1 and they attested Ex.P1 Power of Attorney.

29. PW.1 in his evidence stated that on 19.09.2014 he met the

Accused Officer in RDO office, Naidupeta and requested him to process the compensation amount of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6), and to see that the said amount would be credited to the bank account of K. Subbarami

Reddy, for which, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of

Rs.50,000/- as bribe for completing his work. He came to know through the employees of RDO Office, Naidupet that the then RDO was under the orders of transfer and the staff of the RDO office, Naidupeta were busy for preparation of giving send off to the said RDO including the Accused

Officer and as such he left the RDO Office, Naidupeta. Again on 20.09.2014 he met the Accused Officer at about 12.30 p.m. and expressed his inability to pay that much amount towards bribe and considered his request, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The Accused Officer told him that he has to pay the said bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- till the evening of 22.09.2014 and assured him to complete his work within two days and compensation amount would be remitted to the Bank account of K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6).

30. It is also an undisputed fact that one of the Deputy Tahsildars among three, namely Sushan Olivia (PW.9) was looking after land acquisition proposals besides her other work in RDO office, Naidupeta.

20

She has obtained the signatures of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and

Sridevamma, who is representing the legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy, on acquittance forms. It is also an undisputed fact that on 20.09.2014 the said Sridevamma came to RDO office, Naidupeta along with PW.5 and she put her signatures in acquittance forms. But K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) did not attend RDO office, Naidupeta due to his advanced age of 94 years. In this regard, the acquittance forms were sent to the house of

K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) through the Messenger namely E. Raja Gopal, the then VRO of Sullurpet Bit-I and obtained the signatures of K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6) on acquittance forms. In this regard, the evidence of PWs.1, 7 and 9 are crucial.

31. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on 20.09.2014 during night VRO of Sullurpet by name E. Rajagopal (PW.7) came to the house of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) at Sulluru village and obtained the signatures of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) on the acquittance papers. PW.7 in his evidence supported the aforesaid testimony made by PW.1 that on 20.09.2014 he obtained the signatures of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) on acquittance papers (Ex.P13). The aforesaid aspect is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.9 that the Accused Officer sent the acquittance papers through PW.7 to the house of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) for getting his signatures and accordingly PW.7 went to the house of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and obtained his signatures on Ex.P13, acquittance papers and handed over the said acquittance papers to the

Accused Officer on 21.09.2014.

31. Further, PW.1 in his evidence stated that after passing of the

Award, he submitted passport size photographs of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) in RDO office, Naidupeta for affixing on the relevant form as informed by the Accused Officer. In this regard, the evidence of PW.3 is crucial and she stated in her evidence that prior to the trap, on one day 21

PW.1 came to their office. On that day PW.9, who was looking after the land acquisition compensation files, was on leave and PW.1 approached her stating that PW.9 asking him to hand over passport size photographs of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and accordingly, she received a cover containing passport size photographs of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) from

PW.1 and handed over the said cover to PW.9 on the next day when she attended the duty.

32. As per the aforesaid testimony made by PWs.1 and 3, passport size photographs of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) were handed over in the

RDO office, Naidupeta prior to the date of trap and affixed the said photographs on the relevant forms of the compensation file. But the

Accused Officer claimed that on the date of trap, he received a phone call from PW.1 informing him that he was bringing the passport size photographs of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) along with Photostat copiesof bank pass books of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and Sridevamma and he wanted to hand over the same to him. Then he told PW.1 to hand over the same in the office, for which, PW.1 replied him that as it was already late to office hours and then he asked PW.1 to hand over the same on the next day in the office and then PW.1 replied him that as he has urgent work and not available in Naidupeta on the next day and requested him to receive the same. Then he informed PW.1 that he was at Amaravathi Hotel, opposite to RTC bus stand, Naidupeta to have Tiffen asked him to come there within two minutes to hand over the photographs and passbooks and accordingly, the Accused Officer received the cover from PW.1. The said version of the Accused Officer was suggested to PW.1 in his cross examination and the same was denied by PW.1. However, the aforesaid version of the Accused Officer in the cross examination of PW.1 reveals that the official favour pertaining to PW.1 was pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of trap.

22

33. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has vehemently contended that the prosecution failed to establish any official favor was pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of trap and the Accused Officer is nothing to do with the relevant compensation file and it was lookafter of PW.9, who was dealing with the compensation files. The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has further vehemently contended that from the beginning, K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) wanted to receive the total compensation amount of Rs.23,18,923/- stating that he is the sole owner of the aforesaid land, acquired by the Government and except himself, no others have any right over the said land. But the

Accused Officer from the beginning denied the exclusive right of K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6) over the aforesaid land and he informed to K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6) that he is eligible for getting half of the compensation amount on the ground that his name was recorded as enjoyer in the Revenue records while Veeraswamy Reddy’s name was recorded as pattadar of the said land and as the Accused Officer denied his exclusive right over the aforesaid land and as such K.

Subbaramireddy (LW.6) and PW.1, who is sharer in the compensation amount of K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6), developed grudge against him and falsely implicated him in this case by lodging a false report in ACB office,

Nellore.

34. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

Gulam Mahmood A.Malek Vs. the State of Gujarat

reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1558, wherein it was held that – “where the complainant in a Prosecution for acceptance of bribe was an accused in 4 cases and had stated without compunction that he used to give money to the accused, a Bench Clerk in Court, on several occasions and had launched complaint about demand of bribe after 10 days after allege demand and, though the payment of bribe was made in Court hall the money was 23 recovered in another room after about 20 minutes and no independent witness from the hall was examined, the accused could not be convicted for accepting the bribe on the corroborating testimony of the panch witness as to recovery of money. In appreciating the evidence in such case, the back ground should not be forgotten.” ii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State Vs. K. Narasimhachary reported in 2006 CRI.L.J.518,wherein it was held that – “The accused merely a recommending authority and not the valuation or the final authority. The accused also not a outward Clerk for issuance of property Valuation Certificate. The said Certificate was already forwarded and signed by final authority before alleged demand of bribe by the accused. Aforesaid circumstances create suspicion about demand of bribe. The acquittal of the accused was proper.” iii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andrha Pradesh Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao reported in 2004 CRI.L.J. 1412,wherein it was held that – “We think the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the contract for which PW.1 had offered his bid was only under consideration and was not finally accepted, therefore, the question of respondent agreeing to given work order on payment of bribe did not arise.” iv)The decision of Orissa High Court rendered in Khyamasagar Baina Vs. State reported in 2004 CRI.L.J.2225 wherein it was held that - “Accused was admittedly a peon and had no authority to issue any certificate. Plea of accused that he received amount for paper publication to the effect that original transfer certificate was eaten by white-ants or lost which is supported by detection report, evidence of independent witness and fact that paper publication was mandatory pre-requisite. Statement of complainant that he presumed that money was demanded as bribe and not for paper publication. In these circumstances unless the prosecution proves that the money paid was not towards any other purpose, but towards gratification, to show favour, the Court cannot take recourse of any presumption.

v)The decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.1150, wherein it was held that – “Taking into consideration the rivalry between the parties, the improbability admitted by the complainant, the fact that Surath Singh, the complainant was not working on Ganganagar Sector at the relevant time creates reasonable doubt that what has been stated by the witness is not truth, that being the position. Taking into consideration the attending circumstances, it is unsafe to convict the accused in the present case.” vi) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court 24 rendered inGanapathi Sanya naik Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.4689,wherein it was held that – “The Court had observed that the plea of the defence at the very initial stage was that, PW.6 had serious animosity towards the appellant and that, the currency notes had been put on the table by the former was a plausible explanation. It is in the evidence that the currency notes had not been touched by the appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the prosecution case that the relevant documents had been handed over to Nagaraja immediately after the money had been put on the table. The arguments, therefore, that there was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible.”

x) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in vii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court K. Neelavathamma Vs. State reported in 2013 (1) ALD rendered in Ganga kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar (Crl.)641 (A.P.), wherein it was held that – reported in 2005 CRI.L.J.3454,wherein it was held that – “It is obligatory on the part of the Court to draw “Fact that, criminal case was initiated by the appellant the legal presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, against the complainant for theft of electricity and to the effect that unless the contrary is proved the therefore, appellant was put in trouble, also probable.” Accused Officer accepted or obtained that gratification as a motive or reward, such as is mentioned in Section viii) The decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in 7 of the P.C. Act for rendering official favour. The Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 presumption, however, is rebutable presumption and Crl.L.J. 3155, wherein it was held that – the Accused Officer can displace the presumption either by leading positive evidence or by showing the “From the prosecution witnesses it is proved that there circumstances in his favour from the material available was no work of Radhey Shyam pending with the accused, on record, such as, from the established facts or from therefore he could not have given even any money as the answers elicited from the prosecution witnesses in bribery. Demand of the money by the Accused is not proved. the course of cross-examination. The standard of proof Accused is entitled for acquittal”. required for displacing the presumption is not that of the standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt but ix) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court is that of the preponderance of probability. It is enough rendered in Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. on the part of the Accused Officer to show the reported in 1994 CRI.L.J.1383,wherein it was circumstances which probabilise the defense version.” held that – “There was no motive for demanding and accepting the bribe because no bill was pending before the accused for pre-audit. Acquittal of the accused by trial court justified.” 25

35. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has vehemently contended that it is clear in the evidence of Pw.1 that on 19.09.2014 when he met the Accused

Officer in RDO office, Naidupet and enquired with regard to the compensation amount of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6), for which, the

Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe for completing his work and again on 20.09.2014 when he met the Accused

Officer at about 12.30 p.m. at RDO office, Naidupeta and expressed his inability to pay that much amount towards bribe and considering his request, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and told him that he has to pay the said amount till the evening of 22.09.2014 and after discussing with K. Subbarami Reddy, as they have no interest to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer, he lodged Ex.P2 report in ACB Office, Nellore against the Accused Officer.

36. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that it is also clear in the evidence of PW.15, who is the first Investigating

Officer in this case that on the date of trap the compensation file of K.

Subbarami Reddy (Ex.P16) was seized from the possession of the

Accused Officer at RDO office, Naidupeta and the said part of the evidence of PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, who is one of the mediators said to be present at the time of seizure of Ex.P16 from 26 the possession of the Accused Officer at RDO office, Naidupeta and further PW.9, who is one of the Deputy Tahsildars and other employees of the RDO office, Naidpeta in their evidence stated that the relevant compensation file was in the custody of the Accused Officer and the same was seized by the ACB police concerned at RDO office, Naidupeta after the trap.

37. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in K.P. Pullaiah Vs. state of A.P. reported in 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 586 (AP), wherein it was held that – “A.1 reiterated his demand of Rs.3,000/- and stated unless the said amount is paid to him towards bribe, he will not give the Stock Register and threatened to file a case against him. The prosecution amply established that, PW.1 was compelled to prefer complaint to PW.7 on account of the demand of bribe by Accused No.1 for return of the Stock Register, acceptance of the amount through A.2 and returning the Stock Register. As the appellants failed to probablise their defence as to the amount recovered from A.2, which was received by him at the instance of A.1, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Special Judge was right in finding the appellants guilty of the charges”.

ii)The decision of Bombay High Court rendered in Prakash Sankarrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2110,wherein it was held that – “As rightly observed by the trial court, for succeeding in the case under P.C. Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that the accused made demand of bribe and accepted amount pursuant to that demand. It may be that accused could not directly do any favours to the person from whom he was accepting the demand. However, if the accused is capable of doing certain work and he holds a post or position which can ordinarily be taken to be capable of giving him necessary powers then nothing more is required to be proved by the prosecution that the fact of demand , the representation made by the accused, of doing favours and the fact of acceptance of bribe.” iii) The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat

reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1497, wherein it was held that – “If the accused used his official position to extract illegal gratification, the requirement of the law is satisfied. It 27 is not necessary in such a case for the court to consider whether the public servant was capable of doing or intended to do any official act or favour or disfavor.” iv) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Vittalaiah Vs. state of A.P. reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 776, wherein it was held that – “It is the case of prosecution that abusing official position of the accused-officer i.e., his supervisory power over other staff, he induced PW.1 to pay bribe to him to get his work done. Incapacity of accused-officer to do official favour by himself, therefore, no ground to discard prosecution case.”

v)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs., R. Jeevaratnam reported in 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 486 (SC), wherein it was held that – “The High Court concludes, on the basis of evidence, that by 23.11.1991 the file had already been cleared to the knowledge of the complainant. The High Court concludes that as the file was already cleared, the question of doing favour of not, doing favour did not arise.”

38. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both the parties in respect of official favour pending with the Accused Officer pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record. From the beginning, PW.1 in his Ex.P2 report lodged to ACB police, Nellore and his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

stated that on 19.09.2014 when he met the Accused Officer in RDO office, Naidupeta and enquired with regard to the compensation amount of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6), for which, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe for completing the said work and on 20.09.2014 again when he met the Accused Officer in RDO office,

Naidupeta at about 12.30 p.m. and expressed his inability to pay that much amount. Considering his request the accused Officer reduced the brie amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and he has to pay the said demanded bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- till the evening of 22.09.2014 and after discussing with K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and they were not 28 willing to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer and as such on 21.09.2014 during evening he lodged Ex.P2-report in ACB office, Nellore for taking necessary action against the Accused Officer. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW.1 in ACB Office, Nellore, which is strong piece of corroborative evidence and it corroborates oral testimony of PW.1.

39. Further, PW.15, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on 22.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m.

the Accused Officer was trapped by them opposite to Amaravathi Hotel,

Naidupeta after receiving bribe amount from PW.1. After organizing chemical test to both hand fingers of the Accused Officer and after seizure of the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the

Accused Officer at his instance, he asked the Accused Officer to produce the documents pertaining to the compensation amount of K. Subbarami

Reddy (LW.6), for which, the Accused Officer replied that the said documents were available in his room in the office of RDO, Naidupeta.

The post-trap proceedings was concluded infront of Amaravathi Hotel,

Naidupeta by 9.00 p.m. and later they proceeded to RDO office,

Naidupeta along with the Accused Officer and reached there at about 9.40 p.m. After meeting with RDO, informed about the trap, wherein the

Accused Officer was caught hold of red-handedly after receiving bribe amount from PW.1, they entered into the room of Divisional

Administrative Officer i.e. room of the Accused Officer. Further, the

Accused Officer produced the record pertaining to the land of S.No.70/2-

A for the compensation amount of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6). He seized the relevant records from the possession of the Accused Officer under Mediators Report-III (Ex.P8). He seized the agreement executed in between Sridevamma and RDO, Naidupeta (Ex.P9), agreement executed in between K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and RDO, Naidupeta (Ex.P10) draft consent Award vide R.C.No.A.No.299/2015, Award No.1/14-15 of the 29 office of RDO, Naidupeta dated 25.08.2014 (Ex.P11), acknowledgment of the land owners showing receiving of compensation amount by V.

Sridevamma and K. Subbarami Reddy (Ex.P12), acquittance of the claimants (Ex.P13), payment of compensation in favor of the claimants (Ex.P14), office note (Ex.P15) and entire file relating to S.No.70/2 containing 799 pages in 2 bundles (Ex.P16).

40. The aforesaid version of PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, who is one of the mediators said to be present at the time of seizure of compensation file pertaining to K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance at RDO Office,

Naidupeta under Ex.P8 Mediators Report-III. PW.9, who is said to be looking after land acquisition proposals in RDO office, Naidupeta, in her evidence stated that on 20.09.2014 the Accused Officer sent the acquittance papers to the house of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) through

PW.7, who was VRO, Sullurupeta Bit-I for getting signatures of K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) on acquittance papers, accordingly PW.7 went to the house of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and obtained his signatures on the acquittance papers and handed over the said acquittance papers to the Accused Officer on 21.09.2014. This part of testimony made by

PW.9 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.7. It is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.1 and 4.

41. PW.9 in her evidence further stated that on 22.09.2014 she attended RDO office, Naidupeta and after completion of her work at about 5.30 p.m. she left the office. At about 7.45 p.m. while she was in her house, at that time, she received a phone call from RDO, Naidupeta asking her to attend the office immediately. She reached the office and found the Accused Officer in the custody of the ACB officials and at that time, RDO and other employees were also present in the office, she was enquired by the ACB police concerned with regard to the compensation 30 file in this case. By that time, she came to the RDO office, the file was in the hands of ACB police concerned secured from other employees.

Ex.P16 is the same file seized by the ACB police concerned.

42. As per the aforesaid evidence of PWs.1, 2, 7, 9 and 15, the

Accused Officer was handled the compensation file of K. Subbarami

Reddy (Ex.P16) as on the date of trap. It is an undisputed fact that PW.9, who was one of the Deputy Tahsildar’s among 3 Deputy Tahsildars in

RDO office, Naidupeta, she was looking after the land acquisition proposals. But the Accused Officer being Divisional Administrative Officer in RDO office, Naidupeta he has supervisory power over the staff of RDO office, Naidupeta. There is no dispute from the side of the Accused

Officer on this aspect.

43. It is contended on behalf of the Accused Officer that no official favour was pending with him pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap and PW.9 was the incharge of land acquisition proposals and she was looking after Ex.P16 file and he is nothing to do with the compensation file of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6). But the Accused Officer during the course of cross examination of PWs.1, 2 and 15 claimed that on 22.09.2014 he received phone call from PW.1 prior to the trap stating that he was bringing passport size photographs, Photostat copies of bank pass books of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and Sridevamma and wanted to hand over the same to him, then the Accused Officer told him to handover the same in the office and on the request of PW.1, to hand over the passport size photographs and Photostat copies of bank pass books of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and Sridevamma to him in front of

Amaravathi Hotel, opposite to RTC bus stand, Naidupeta, PW.1 came to the scene of offence. The said version of the Accused Officer was suggested to PW.1 in his cross examination and the same was denied by

PW.1 and so also Investigating Officer (PW.15). The aforesaid contention 31 of the Accused Officer reveals that he is authority to receive passport size photographs, copies of bank passbooks of the claimants and after receiving necessary documents the accused Officer being Divisional

Administrative Officer in the office of RDO, Naidupeta processed the complensation file and see that compensation amount would be credited to the bank account of Sridevamma and K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6), who is having half share in the said compensation amount.

44. Further, the Accused Officer claimed that K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) wanted to receive total compensation amount from his office pertaining to the aforesaid land under acquisition, from the beginning, for which, he objected stating that he is not entitled to receive total compensation amount and the legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy are also eligible half of the share amount from the compensation amount as

Veeraswamy Reddy being the pattadar of the said land under acquisition and as such K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and PW.1, who is sharer in the compensation amount of K. Subbarami Reddy (PW.1), developed grudge against him and falsely implicated him in this case. This said claim of the

Accused Officer clearly reveals that from the beginning, the Accused

Officer handled the compensation file of K. Subbarami Reddy (Ex.P16) and therefore, it cannot be said that the Accused Officer is nothing to do with the compensation file of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6).

45. Further, when the dispute arose in respect of the title of the land under acquisition, the revenue authorities appointed Tahsildar,

Sullurpet mandal to conduct enquiry and submit the report and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Sullurpet mandal conducted enquiry and submitted his report stating that K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and the legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy are eligible to receive the compensation in respect of the land under acquisition and K. Subbarami

Reddy (LW.6) is entitled to receive half of the compensation amount and 32 legal heirs of Veeraswamy Reddy are entitled to receive the remaining half share of the compensation amount. Therefore, the Accused Officer neither conducted any enquiry in respect of the title dispute of the land or submitted any report stating that K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) is eligible only for half share in the compensation amount. Therefore, the contention of the Accused Officer that K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and

PW.1 developed grudge against him as he objected to claim total compensation amount is not believable.

46. It is assumed for a moment for the arguments sake that the claim of the Accused Officer that the revenue officials are responsible for not getting full amount of compensation by K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) from the Government is true and correct, in such a case K. Subbarami

Reddy (LW.6) and PW.1 would have been implicated the Tahsildar concerned, who conducted enquiry and submitted his report and RDO concerned, who passed consent Award, but not the Accused Officer. The

Accused Officer is nothing to do with the title dispute of the land under acquisition and it is the duty of the Accused Officer to process the said compensation file and place before the RDO, Naidupeta for taking necessary orders.

47. Having considered material available on record, it can be safely concluded that the power of processing compensation file and see that the compensation amount would be credited to the bank account of

K. Subbarami Reddy is vested with the Accused Officer, being Divisional

Administrative Officer, of the RDO office, Naidupeta and therefore the

Accused Officer is capable of doing certain work being a Divisional

Administrative Officer in the office of RDO, Naidupeta which can ordinarily be taken to be capable of giving to him necessary powers, then nothing more is required to be proved by the prosecution as per the decision of Bombay High Court rendered in Prakash Sankarrao 33

Kamble Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2110 and also the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Chaturdas

Bhagwandas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1976

Supreme Court 1497. Further as per the aforesaid decision of our

Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs., R.

Jeevaratnam reported in 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 486 (SC), wherein it was observed that it is not required that the official favour should be pending as on the date of trap.

48. POINT NO.III:-

It is to be next seen whether the Accused Officer demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1. As per the prosecution, on 19.09.2014 PW.1 met the Accused Officer with regard to getting compensation of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6), upon that, the Accused

Officer informed that the share of his grand father namely K. Subbarami

Reddy (LW.6) to the tune of Rs.11,59,461/- has to be remitted in his grandfather’s account by way of cheque through on-line and to process the work of the cheque, compensation work and to remit the compensation in the account of his grandfather, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- . Again on 20.09.2014 PW.1 met the Accused Officer and expressed his inability to pay that much amount as bribe, upon that, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.25,000/- and told him to pay the said amount within 2 or 3 days and then only the compensation amount would be remitted in his grandfather’s account. So the Accused Officer demanded him to give the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- by 22.09.2014 evening. PW.1 and his grandfather were not willing to give the bribe amount to the Accused

Officer and as such on 21.09.2014 during evening, PW.1 approached ACB office, Nellore and lodged Ex.P2-report for taking necessary action against the Accused Officer.

34

49. Further, after following due procedure the DSP, ACB, Nellore by name K.S. Nanjundappa (PW.15) registered Ex.P2 report of PW.1 a case in Crime No.11/RCT-NLR/2014 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 on 22.09.2014 at 2.30 p.m. and investigated into. During the course of investigation, PW.15 secured the presence of mediators and conducted pre-trap proceedings on 22.09.2014 from 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. at ACB office, Nellore. After completion of the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party led by PW.15 left the ACB office, Nellore at 4.15 p.m. on 22.09.2014 and reached Railway fly over of Naidupeta at about 5.30 p.m. and PW.1 made a call to the Accused Officer, who told him that he was at Amaravathi Hotel, Naidupeta. PW.1 went infront of Amaravathi

Hotel, Naidupeta at about 6.00 p.m. and on demand, PW1 gave brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- and the same was received by the Accused Officer with his right hand and counted the amount in the brown colour cover with his both hands and put the amount in the cover and kept the said cover on dash board of his car.

50. Further, on receipt of pre-arranged signal from PW.1, immediately the trap party led by PW.15 reached infront of Amaravathi hotel, Naidupeta and noticed the presence of PW.1 standing infront of

Amaravathi Hotel along with the Accused Officer. PW.15 organized the chemical test to both hand fingers of the Accused Officer, which yielded positive results. On questioning about the bribe amount, the Accused

Officer voluntarily produced the bribe amount from brown colour cover which was on the dash board of his swift Dzire car bearing Registration

NO. AP 26 AM 2899. The bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- was recovered from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance under post- trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II. Later PW.15 seized the compensation file of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) from the RDO office,

Naidupeta on production by the Accused Officer connected to the official 35 favour.

51. In order to prove the demand and acceptance, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant namely Yeddala Pratap Reddy as

PW.1, who reiterated the contents in his Ex.P2 report. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on 19.09.2014 he met the Accused Officer in RDO office, Naidupeta and enquired with regard to half of the compensation amount of Rs.11,59,461/- get by K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6), for which, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of

Rs.50,000/- as bribe for attending the said compensation work. Again on 20.09.2014 he met the Accused Officer at RDO office, Naidupeta at about 12.30 p.m. and expressed his inability to pay that much amount towards bribe as his grandfather by courtesy namely K. Subbarami

Reddy (LW.6) was not keeping the good health. Considering his request, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.50,000/- to

Rs.25,000/-.

52. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that the Accused Officer told him that he has to pay the said bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- till the evening of 22.09.2014 and assured him to complete his work within two days and the compensation amount would be remitted to the bank account of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6). He informed his grandfather by courtesy namely K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) with regard to the demand of the Accused Officer to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as bribe till the evening of 22.09.2014 for attending the compensation work. But the said K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) refused to pay the bribe amount to the

Accused Officer and he has also no interest to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer and then they both decided to lodge a report in ACB office concerned for taking necessary action against the Accused Officer.

53. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that accordingly, on 21.09.2014 during evening in between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. he went 36 to ACB office, Nellore and lodged Ex.P2 report for taking necessary action against the Accused Officer. On receipt of the Ex.P2-report from him, PW.15 gone through the said report and informed him that he has to attend ACB Office as and when called by them along with intended bribe amount. In the mean time, they would verify contents of the report. As directed on 22.9.2014 at about 1.00 p.m. he went to ACB

Office, Nellore along with intended bribe amount and he was asked to wait outside of the said office. At about 2.45 p.m., he was called inside the room of D.S.P. (PW.15), who introduced him to the two mediators and also Inspectors and other staff and vice versa. PW.15 furnished copy of

FIR to the mediators and asked them to ascertain the contents of the report with him and accordingly, the mediators read over the contents of the report to him and he affirmed that the contents of the said report true and correct.

54. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that PW.15 enquired him whether he brought the intended bribe amount, for which, he replied positively and produced cash of Rs.25,000/- consisting of twenty five

Rs.1000/- currency notes and on the instructions of D.S.P. (PW.15), the mediators received cash of Rs.25,000/- from him and they verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and the same were incorporated in Ex.P5-Pre-trap Proceedings. On the instructions of D.S.P.

(PW.15), one of the Constables prepared some solution in two glass tumblers by mixing water and mixed some white powder in the water.

The said Constable handled the currency notes received from the mediators and rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions, it remained unchanged. Thereafter, on the instructions of PW.15, the said

Constable applied some different white powder on both sides of currency notes by using a cotton swab and put the said amount in brown colour envelop cover and kept the said cover in his left side upper shirt pocket 37 after making it empty.

55. PW.1 in his evidence stated that on the instructions of PW.15 the said Police Constable rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions, they turned into Pink in colour. PW.15 instructed him not to touch the said tainted currency notes and he has to tender the same to the Accused Officer in case of his further demand, but not otherwise. In case, the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the tainted amount from him, he should come out and give a signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief thrice. The Mediators scribed Ex.P5- Pre-trap Proceedings and it was concluded by 4.00 p.m.

56. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on 22.09.2014 in between 4.15 p.m. and 4.30 p.m., himself, D.S.P., Mediators, Inspectors and other ACB Staff started from ACB Office, Nellore in order to go to the

R.D.O. Office, Naidupeta in three vehicles and at about 5.30 p.m. they reached Fly over in Naidupeta, which is nearer to R.T.C. Bus-stand and so also R.D.O. Office, Naidupeta, where the D.S.P. got stopped the vehicles and he contacted the Accused Officer over a phone and on receipt of the phone call, the Accused Officer asked him to come to Amaravathi Hotel opposite to RTC Bus-stand, Naidupeta. Thereafter, they traveled about half kilometer and got stopped the vehicles at the Circle of three roads junction and asked him to get down from the vehicle and PW.15 reiterated his earlier instructions to him. PW.15 asked him to proceed to the said Amaravathi Hotel. Then he proceeded to the Amaravathi Hotel and when he reached near by one Sweet Stall, the Accused Officer himself identified him from his place and he contacted him over a phone and asked him to turn towards right side, he would be visible as he was standing nearby his car, which is parked in front of Amaravathi Hotel.

Accordingly, he turned towards right side and found the Accused Officer in some distance by smoking nearby his car.

38

57. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that, then, he proceeded towards the Accused Officer and wished him. When he reached nearby the Accused Officer, who enquired him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount, for which, he replied positively. On the demand of the Accused Officer, he picked out brown colour cover from his left side upper shirt pocket and handed over the cover to the Accused

Officer, who received the said cover with his right hand and verified the amount kept in the cover with his both hands and put the amount in the said cover and kept the said cover inside the car on the Dash board.

After receiving the amount from him, the Accused Officer assured him that the compensation amount would be remitted to the Bank account of

K. Subbaramireddy (LW.6) within two or three days. Then he left the said place and walked towards backside of the car and relayed the signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief thrice. On attracting his signal, the trap party rushed to the said place and met him and then he shown the

Accused Officer as the same person received the tainted amount from him. Then the D.S.P. asked him to wait at the sweet stall and the trap party approached the Accused Officer.

58. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that after half an hour, he was called in-front of Amaravathi Hotel, and the D.S.P. (PW.15) enquired him things that were happened from the time of alighting the vehicle till relaying of the signal, his version was incorporated in Ex.P7-Post-trap

Proceedings. Then the D.S.P. confronted the version of Accused Officer to him and he denied the said version of the Accused Officer and stuck to his earlier version. The Post-trap Proceedings was concluded by 9.00 p.m. One of the mediators scribed Ex.P7-Post-trap Proceedings.

Thereafter, they started from in-front of Amaravathi Hotel, Naidupeta and proceeded to the RDO Office, Naidupeta and reached within 10 minutes as it was located within 2 kilometers from Amaravathi Hotel.

39

PW.15 seized necessary records and documents from RDO office,

Naidupeta and scribed Ex.P8- Mediators Report –III to that affect.

59. PW.15, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on 21.09.2014 at about 05.00 PM on receipt of Ex.P2 report from PW.1 he endorsed Ex.P2 report to the Inspector of

Police, ACB, Nellore by name M. Krupanandam (PW.14) asking him to verify the genuiness of the contents of the report and also verify the antecedents of the Accused Officer and PW.1. Accordingly, PW.14 caused discreet enquiry and found that the contents of the report are genuine and the Accused Officer was enjoying bad reputation while discharging his duties and PW.14 endorsed his preliminary enquiry report on Ex.P2 and submitted to him on 22.09.2014 at 01.30 PM. After obtaining necessary permission from the head office, he registered Ex.P2-report as case in Cr.No.11/RCT-NLR/2014 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and issued Ex.P27-FIR.

60. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that as directed PW.1 came to ACB office, Nellore on 22.09.2014 at about 2.30 p.m. along with intended bribe amount. He secured the presence of mediators namely

Aremarati Narasoji Rao (PW.2) and Korra Sudha Charan (LW.3), himself, mediators, PW.1, Inspectors and other ACB staff assembled in his room at 3.00 p.m. and commenced Ex.P5-pre-trap proceedings. He introduced

PW.1 to the mediators and vice versa. He handed over copy of FIR (Ex.P4) to the mediators and asked them to verify the contents of the report with PW.1. Accordingly, the mediators confirmed the contents of the report with PW.1, who stated that the contents of the report are true and correct. Then the mediators endorsed on the copy of FIR (Ex.P4) as seen and put their signatures under the said endorsement on the copy of FIR. Then he asked PW.1 whether he brought the intended bribe amount, for which, PW.1 replied positively and produced cash of 40

Rs.25,000/- consisting of twenty five Rs.1000/- currency notes and on his instructions, second mediator namely Korra Sudha Charan (LW.3) received the said amount from PW.1 and verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and noted down the same in Ex.P5-pre- trap proceedings.

61. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that on his instructions,

PC 2245 by name Ragababu prepared Sodium Carbonate Solution in two glass tumblers and the said constable handled the currency notes and rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions, they remained unchanged. On his further instructions, the said Constable applied thin layer of Phenolphthalein Powder on both sides of currency notes and put the amount in a brown colour cover and kept the said amount in the left side upper shirt pocket of PW.1 after making it empty. He instructed

PW.1 not to touch the said currency notes and he has to tender the same to the Accused Officer in case of his further demand, but not otherwise.

In case the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the tainted amount, then he should come out and give a signal to PW.14 who would follow him closely by way of wiping his face thrice with hand kerchief.

62. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that he instructed PW.14 to receive the pre-arranged signal from PW.1 and relay the signal to the trap party members by raising up his both hands. On his instructions P.C.

No.2245 rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions and they turned into Pink in colour. Then he drawn samples of Sodium Carbonate

Powder and Phenolphthalein Powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings,

MOs.1 and 2 are the same. The Pre-trap Proceedings was scribed by 2nd mediator by name Sudha Charan (L.W.3) and it was concluded by 04-00 pm.

63. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that after completion of

Pre-trap Proceedings, at about 04.50 p.m himself, Mediators, PW.1, 41

Inspectors and other ACB staff left ACB Office, Nellore in three vehicles in order to go to the office of RDO, Naidupeta and at about 05.30 pm they reached near Railway fly over bridge, Naidupeta, there he got stopped the vehicles and asked PW.1 to get down from the vehicle. At about 05.30 p.m P.W.1 made a call to the Accused Officer and know his whereabouts and the Accused Officer asked PW.1 to come to Amaravathi hotel near RTC bus stand, Naidupeta. Upon that the trap party proceeded near to the Amaravathi hotel and got stopped the vehicles near Amaravathi hotel and asked P.W.1 to get down from the vehicle and proceed to in front of Amaravathi hotel. He reiterated his earlier instructions to PW.1 and asked P.W.1 to proceed to the Amaravathi hotel and PW.14 followed PW.1 closely near in front of Amaravathi hotel. At about 06.00 p.m they received the signal from PW.14 and then they rushed to the in front of Amaravathi hotel and on their way, they found

PW.1 at Padmavthi sweet stall and he asked P.W.1 to wait near the

Padmavathi sweet stall till he was called in front of Amaravathi hotel.

64. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that then they rushed to in front of Amaravathi hotel and found one person was standing at his car and then he approached the said person and disclosed his identity and the identity of other trap party members and he ascertained the identity of said person as the Accused Officer. On hearing their identity, the Accused Officer tried to leave the said place and proceed towards

RTC bus stand. Then he requested the Accused Officer not to move further and keep his hands apart. Then he got prepared fresh Sodium

Carbonate Solution in two glass tumblers through Police Constable

No.315 and he asked the Accused Officer to rinse his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately and while doing so, the solutions turned in to Pink in colour. The resultant solutions were transferred into two separate clean bottles, got them sealed, labeled and affixed identity 42 slips duly signed by him and Mediators, Mos. 3 and 4 are the same. Then he enquired the Accused Officer with regard the things that were happened just prior to their arrival to the said place. The explanation of the Accused Officer was incorporated in Ex.P7-post trap proceedings.

Then he asked the Accused Officer with regard to the bribe amount and then the Accused Officer voluntarily produced brown colour cover picked up from dash board of the swift Dzire car bearing registration No. AP 26

AM 2899 and the said cover was kept on SBI Life Insurance Policy deposit report.

65. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that on his instructions

PW.1 received the said cover from the possession of the Accused Officer and opened the cover and took out wad of currency notes from the cover and counted the said amount, it was Rs.25,000/- and verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes which were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P5-pre trap proceedings. Then, he seized the said amount of Rs.25,000/-(MO5) from the possession of the

Accused Officer at his instance. The inner linings of the brown colour cover was subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, which yielded positive result. The resultant solution was transferred into a clean bottle, got it sealed, labeled and affixed identity slip duly signed by him and mediators, MO7 is the same. He seized brown colour cover (MO.6) in which the tainted amount was kept. He has drawn the sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post trap proceedings, MO8 is the same. He seized cell phone of the Accused Officer i.e., BSNL duel SIM bearing No.

9440665859 from the possession of the Accused Officer, MO9 is the same. He seized SBI Life Insurance policy deposit receipt, which was found on the dash board of the car and it was contacted with the brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.25,000/-.

66. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that then he called P.W.1 43 to in front of Amaravathi hotel and he enquired PW.1 with regard to the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. The version of PW.1 was incorporated in Ex.P7-post trap proceedings. He confronted the version of the Accused

Officer to PW.1, who denied the said version of the Accused Officer and stuck to his earlier version. Then he asked the Accused Officer to produce the documents pertaining to this case and the Accused Officer replied that the said documents were available in his room in the office of RDO, Naidupeta. He prepared Ex.P6-Rough Sketch for the scene of offence. PW.2 scribed Ex.P7 post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II with his own hand writing. Ex.P7 - post trap proceedings was concluded by 09.00 p.m and copy of Ex.P7 was furnished to the Accused Officer and obtained his acknowledgment on it.

67. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that then they left

Amaravathi hotel and proceed to RDO office, Naidupeta along with

Accused Officer and reached there at about 09.40 pm, by that time the employees of RDO office were present along with the RDO. Prior to leaving Amaravathi hotel, he contacted RDO, Naidupeta and asked him to call the employees of RDO office to the RDO office, Naidupeta. Then the trap party members entered into the chamber of RDO, Naidupeta along with him and he disclosed his identity and the identity of other trap party members to the RDO, Naidupeta and he explained the things that were happened and the purpose of their visit to the said RDO office.

Then they entered into the room of the Accused Officer i.e. the room of

Divisional Administrative Officer and the Accused Officer produced the record pertaining to the land in S.No.70/2A and compensation of K.

Subba Rami Reddy. He seized the said record (Ex.P16) containing 799 pages in two bundles from the possession of the Accused Officer. He along with mediators attested Ex.P16 record.

44

68. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that he also seized the agreement executed in between V. Sridevamma and RDO Naidupet (Ex.P9), agreement executed in between K. Subbarami Reddy and RDO,

Naidupeta (Ex.P10), draft consent Award vide R.C. No.A1.No.299/2005,

Award No.1/14-15 of the office of RDO, Naidupet dated 25.08.2014 (Ex.P11), acknowledgment of the land owners showing receiving of compensation amount by V. Sridevamma and K. Subba Rami Reddy (Ex.P12), Acquittance of the claimants (Ex.P13), Payment of compensation in favour of the claimants (Ex.P14), Office notes (Ex.P15),

Attendance register of RDO office, Naidupeta for the year 2014 (Ex.P17), cash accounts budget register relating to Social Welfare land acquisition of RDO office, Naidupet (Ex.P18). He seized the aforesaid records/ documents from the RDO office, Naidupet and he attested the said records/documents along with the mediators in that regard the

Mediators Report-III was scribed by PW.2 and Ex.P8 is the same. The copy of Ex.P8 was furnished to the Accused Officer and obtained his acknowledgement on it.

69. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that he secured the presence of RDO and his staff and enquired with regard to the things relating to this case in their knowledge and he incorporated the names of RDO and other employees to whom he enquired in Ex.P8-Mediators

Report – III. At about 11.25 p.m he arrested the Accused Officer by informing the grounds of arrest. He instructed the Inspector of Police,

ACB, Nellore by name M. Krupanandam (PW.14) to search the house of the Accused Officer and accordingly, PW.14 searched the house of the

Accused Officer, but he did not find any incriminating material in the house of Accused Officer. On the following day, the Accused Officer was produced before this Court and he was remanded to judicial custody.

70. PW.15 in his evidence further stated that he received memo 45

dated 30.09.2014 (Ex.P28) from the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad

wherein laying the trap was ratified. He also received suspension order of the Accused Officer from the District Collector, Nellore dated 29.09.2014 (Ex.P29). On 23.09.2014 he summoned PW.1 to ACB office,

Nellore, where his detailed statement was recorded. He filed a requisition before the Judicial Magistrate seeking to record the statement of PW.1 U/s 161 of Cr.P.C and accordingly the learned IV Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore recorded the statement of PW.1

U/s 164 of Cr.P.C on 27.09.2014. He handed over the CD file to N. Siva

Kumar Reddy, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore (PW.13) for conducting further investigation in this case. On his requisition, the service particulars and job chart of the Accused Officer (Ex.P30) was furnished by the RDO, Naidupeta along with covering letter dated 01.10.2014. He addressed a letter to the head office with a request to secure the call data of the Accused Officer and inturn the head office addressed a letter to the BSNL office concerned and secured the call data of the Accused

Officer from 19.09.2014 to 22.09.2014 (Ex.P31).

71. PW.2, who is one of the mediators, said to be present at the time of pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, in his evidence supported the testimony of PW.15 with regard to conducting of Ex.P5 pre-trap proceedings on 22.09.2014 in between 3.00p.m. and 4.00 p.m. in ACB

Office, Nellore, wherein he and another mediator namely K. Sudhacharan (LW.3) ascertained the contents in Ex.P2 report from PW.1 and confirmed the contents of Ex.P2-report as genuine and later noted denominations and numbers of the currency notes of Rs.25,000/- produced by PW.1 as proposed bribe amount. Further supported the testimony of PW.15 with regard to getting the said currency notes tainted with chemical powder and later entrustment of the said currency notes to PW.1 and further meet the Accused Officer and tender the tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- 46 to the Accused Officer on his further demand only and also informed to give pre-arranged signal to the trap party members, in case Accused

Officer accepted tainted amount from him and further demonstrated the chemical test and explained its significance to himself, another mediator and PW.1.

72. PW.2 in his evidence further stated that after completion of

Ex.P5-pre-trap proceedings, on the same day at about 4.30 p.m. he, another mediator namely Sudha Charan (LW.3), PW.15, Inspectors, PW. 1 and other ACB staff started from ACB Office, Nellore in three vehicles in order to go to Naidupeta. At about 05.30 p.m., they reached fly over bridge of the Naidupeta, where the DSP (PW.15) got stopped the vehicles asked PW.1 to contact the Accused Officer and enquired his whereabouts and accordingly PW.1 contacted the Accused Officer over a phone and the Accused Officer asked PW.1 to come to infront of

Amaravathi Hotel opposite to RTC bus stand. Then, they proceeded towards Amaravathi hotel and the DSP got stopped the vehicles other side of the road, which is opposite to Amaravathi hotel and the DSP asked PW.1 to proceed towards Amaravathi hotel and the DSP reiterated his earlier instructions to PW.1 and instructed the Inspector namely M.

Krupanandam (PW.14) and one constable followed PW.1 closely upto some distance of Amaravathi hotel. At about 6.00 p.m., they received the signal from Inspector namely Krupanandam (PW.14) and PC by raising up their both hands. Then, the trap party members rushed towards Amaravathi hotel and found one person standing at the car infront of the Amaravathi hotel.

73. PW.2 in his evidence further stated that the DSP approached the said person and disclosed his identity and further the DSP asked

PW.1 to go away and wait near sweet stall. The DSP ascertained the identity of the said person as the Accused Officer, then the DSP got 47 prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked the

Accused Officer to rinse his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately and accordingly the Accused Officer rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately, both the solutions turned into pink in colour. The resultant solutions were transferred into two clean glass bottles, got them sealed, labeled and affixed identity slips duly signed by them and DSP, MOs.3 and 4 are the same. Then the DSP enquired the Accused Officer with regard to the things that were happened prior to approaching him by the trap party members. The version of the Accused Officer was incorporated in Ex.P7-post-trap proceedings, wherein the Accused Officer stated that he received envelop cover from PW.1 thinking that the said cover containing photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and kept the said cover inside his car on dash board.

74. PW.2 in his evidence further stated that the Accused Officer produced the envelop cover from the dash board of the said car and on the instructions of the DSP he received the said cover from the Accused

Officer and verified the wad of currency notes inside the cover and found it was Rs.25,000/- and verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes which were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P5 pre-trap proceedings. Then , the DSP seized cash of Rs.25,000/- (MO.5) and also envelop cover (MO6). The inner portion of the brown colour cover was subject to sodium carbonate solution test which yielded positive result. The resultant solution was transferred into clean bottle, got it sealed , labeled and affixed identity slip duly signed by him, another mediator and DSP, MO.7 is the same. The DSP drawn the sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post-trap proceedings, MO.8 is the same.

75. PW.2 in his evidence further stated that the DSP seized cell 48 phone (MO.9) from the possession of the Accused Officer. Then the DSP called PW.1 to the said place and DSP enquired PW.1 with regard to the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. The version of PW.1 was incorporated in Ex.P7-post trap proceedings. Then the DSP confronted the version of the Accused Officer and PW.1 and vice versa and both of them denied their opposite versions and stuck to their own versions. He scribed Ex.P7 post trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II.

76. PW.2 in his evidence further stated that then the DSP enquired the Accused Officer with regard to the relevant files pertaining to this case, for which, the Accused Officer informed to the DSP the said files were available in RDO Office, Naidupeta. The DSP prepared Ex.P6-Rough

Sketch for the scene of offence. The DSP contacted the RDO, Naidupeta over a phone and asked him to come to RDO Office, as they trapped his

Divisional Administrative Officer. Then they left the Amaravathi Hotel and proceeded to RDO office, Naidupeta and reached at about 9.30 p.m.

The DSP met the RDO, Naidupeta and requested him to produce the relevant records of the said case. At that time the employees of the

RDO Office eight in number were also present along with RDO. The employees of the RDO Office, Naidupeta produced the relevant records and the same were seized by the DSP. The mediators Report-III (Ex.P8) was scribed by him to that effect. The DSP seized Exs.P9 to P18 documents/Registers from the RDO office, Naidupeta. Copies of Exs.P7 and P8 were furnished to the Accused Officer and obtained his acknowledgment on them.

77. PW.8, who is said to be witnessed the trap, in his evidence stated that his younger brother namely Sudhakar Reddy has got

Amaravathi Hotel situated opposite to R.T.C. Bus-stand, Naidupeta. On 22.09.2014, at about 7.00 p.m. while he was at Cash Counter in 49

Amaravathi Hotel, Naidupeta, he found one car was parked in-front of the said Hotel and also found there was a gathering around the said car.

The said place was visible to him from the place of cash counter. The

Accused Officer was present in the said gathering. He came to know that the Accused Officer was trapped by the ACB Police concerned while he was taking money from PW.1.

78. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 8 and 15, the prosecution has examined the then RDO, Naidupeta as PW.11, who stated in his evidence that on 22.09.2014 at about 4.00 p.m., while he was in his chamber in RDO. Office, Naidupeta at that time the Accused Officer came to him with a request to permit him to leave the office one hour

before to the working hours and he considered the request of the

Accused Officer and permitted him to leave the office one hour before.

At about 6.30 p.m. on the same day one of the ACB Constables came to his office and informed him that his DSP and other ACB staff were coming to RDO Office, Naidupeta for verification of the records, as the

Accused Officer was trapped by the ACB police infront of the Amaravathi

Hotel, Naidupeta. He and his available staff were waiting at RDO office,

Naidupeta as per the request the ACB Police concerned. After 15 minutes, the ACB Officials came to the office along with Accused Officer and the DSP, ACB, Nellore seized the relevant records including Ex.P16- file from RDO office, Naidupeta. The D.S.P. seized Ex.P16-file from the possession of the Accused Officer, as it was in his custody. A Mediators

Report-III (Ex.P8) was prepared to that effect in the presence of mediators and obtained his signature on Ex.P8, wherein incorporated the description of the documents seized from the RDO Office, Naidupeta.

79. PW.14, who is said to be conducted preliminary enquiry on

Ex.P2 report, stated in his evidence that on 21.09.2014 at about 06.30 p.m the DSP, ACB, Nellore by name K.S. Nanjundappa (PW.15) endorsed 50

Ex.P2 report to him with instructions to verify the contents of the report and also verify the antecedents of the Accused Officer and PW.1. He conducted preliminary enquiry and found the contents of Ex.P2 report are genuine and there was no animosity in between PW.1 and the

Accused Officer and that the Accused Officer was enjoying bad reputation while discharging his duties and he endorsed preliminary enquiry report on Ex.P2 and submitted the same to PW.15 on 22.09.2014 at about 01.00 PM. He assisted PW.15 in conducting pre trap and post trap proceedings.

80. PW.13 who is the second Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on 22.09.2014 he assisted PW.15 in conducting post- trap proceedings. On 15.10.2014 he received a memo

dated 01.10.2014 (Ex.P23) from the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad

authorizing him to conduct further investigation in this case.

Accordingly, he received the C.D file from PW.15 and perused the investigation done by him till that date. During the course of his investigation, on 21.10.2014 he has examined and recorded the statements of K. Subbaramireddy (L.W.6), P.W.4, P. Kusumamba (L.W.8).

On 27.12.2014 he issued a show cause notice (Ex.P24) to the Accused

Officer calling his explanation. On receipt of EX.P2- show cause notice, theAccusedOfficersubmittedhisexplanationdated 02.01.2015( Ex.P25). On 14.03.2015 he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.5. On 16.03.2015 he has examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws 3, 6 to 9 and 11, Sangareddy Perumal Reddy (L.W.13). On 12.06.2015 he prepared draft final report and forwarded the same to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad. On 18.05.2016 he has re-examined and recorded the statement of PW.1. On 07.12.2016 he received a memo dated 01.12.2016 (Ex.P26) from the Director General,

ACB, Vijayawada along with prosecution sanction order authorizing him 51 to file a charge sheet against the Accused Officer. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the Accused

Officer.

81. PW.12, who is said to be assisted PW.15, in the investigation in his evidence stated that on 22.09.2014 he assisted PW.15 in conducting Pre-trap Proceedings and Post-trap Proceedings As seen from the evidence of PWs.12 to 15 they left no material lacunaes which can create any doubt over the case of the prosecution.

82. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he categorically stated that on 22.09.2014 in between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. pre-trap proceedings (Ex.P5) was conducted in ACB office, Nellore in the presence of mediators, wherein DSP (PW.15) demonstrated the significance of the chemical test. He handed over the intended bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- to the mediators and the denominations and numbers of the currency notes were incorporated in Ex.P5-pre-trap proceedings and after applying phenolphthalein powder on both sides of currency notes, the tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- was put in the brown colour cover and kept the said cover in the left side upper shirt pocket of PW.1 after making it empty and after completion of pre-trap proceedings, they started from ACB office, Nellore.

83. Further, in between 4.00 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. he met the

Accused Officer in front of Amaravathi Hotel, opposite to RTC bus stand,

Naidupeta and on seeing him the Accused Officer enquired him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- , for which, he replied positively and handed over brown colour cover containing cash of Rs.25,000/- to the Accused Officer, who received the said cover with his right hand and verified the amount inside the cover by using his both hands and later he put the amount in the said cover and kept the cover inside the car on dash board and after receiving the amount from him, 52 the Accused Officer assured him that the compensation amount would be remitted to the bank account of K. Subbarami Reddy within 2 or 3 days and after relaying the pre-arranged signal from him, the trap party led by PW.15 reached infront of Amaravathi hotel and caught hold of the

Accused Officer red-handedly and recovered tainted amount of

Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the Accused Officer. This part of testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, who is one of the mediators.

84.PW.2,who is one of the mediators,in his evidence further stated that the chemical test was organized to both hand fingers of the Accused

Officer which yielded positive result and so also the chemical test conducted to the inner portion of the brown colour cover also yielded positive result.The DSP seized tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- (MO.5), empty brown colour cover (MO.6),cell phone of the Accused Officer (MO.9), SBI Life Insurance Policy receipt which was found on the dash board of the car, which was contacted to the brown colour cover containing Rs.25,000/- under Ex.P7-post trap proceedings in Mediators

Report-II.

85. The aforesaid testimony made by PWs.1 and 2 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.15, who led the trap party members and 1st Investigating Officer in this case. The cross-examination of PWs.1 and 15 on behalf of the Accused Officer at length could not extract any material for them to speak false against the Accused Officer. The cross- examination of PW.2 also could not extract any material for him to speak false against the Accused Officer or to speak any undue favour of ACB police concerned for any extraneous considerations as such. Hence, I am not at all disbelieving the testimony of PWs.1, 2 and 15. There are no valid reasons for disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1, 2 and 15 as nothing substantial was extracted in their cross-examination to discredit their 53 testimony.

86. As seen from the evidence of PW.15, who led the trap party members and mediators, left no material lacunaes which can create any doubt over the case of the prosecution. It is already stated supra that

Ex.P2 is the report lodged by PW.1 with the ACB Police, Nellore, which is a strong piece of corroborative evidence and it corroborates oral testimony of PW.1. As seen from the evidence of PWs.2 and 15, the testimony made by Pw.15 with regard to chemical tests conducted to both hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inner portion of the brown colour cover wherein the tainted amount was kept yielded positive results and also seizure of tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- (MO.5) from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance under Ex.P7-Post-trap

Proceedings in Mediators Report-II is corroborated by the evidence of

PW.2, who is one of the mediators. PW.2 in his evidence categorically stated that the colour test conducted to both hand fingers of the

Accused Officer and also inner portion of the brown colour cover yielded positive results. PW.2 has correctly identified the Accused Officer as the same person who was caught hold of the trap party red-handedly infront of Amaravathi hotel, Naidupeta and also seized tainted amount of

Rs.25,000/- from the dash board of the car at his instance and the denominations and numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P5-Pre-trap Proceedings.

87. The cross-examination of PW.2 on behalf of the Accused Officer at length also could not extract any reason for making such a false statement as against the Accused Officer, so far as Sodium Carbonate

Solution test conducted to the both hand fingers of the Accused Officer, and inner portion of the brown colour cover wherein the tainted amount was kept and contacted and also recovery of tainted amount of

Rs.25,000/- from the dash board of the car at the instance of the 54

Accused Officer. This part of testimony made by PWs.2 and 15 leaves little scope for any kind of discrepancy or non corroboration within their testimony. PW.2, who is an independent witness, there is no need for him to speak false against the Accused Officer. The recovery of tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- (MO.5) from the dash board of inside the car at the instance of the Accused Officer is proved to be a fact through the testimony of PW.2 is supported by the testimony of PW.15 in clear substantiation of the case of the prosecution. I find no valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1, 2 and 15 nor any reason could be assigned from any angle on behalf of the Accused Officer that there could be a false case made against the Accused Officer.

88. The contention of the Accused Officer with regard to his false implication in this case is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence. Even though, suggestions were made to PWs.1 and 15 that the Accused Officer was falsely implicated in this case and the said suggestions were denied by PWs.1 and 15 in their cross- examination. There is no enmity in between PW.2 and the Accused

Officer. There is absolutely no reason or chance on the face of the record

for the Accused Officer for possessing tainted amount of Rs.25,000/-

unless he demanded and accepted the said amount from PW.1 on the date and time of trap.

89. On the other hand, the Accused Officer has taken a stand during the course of trial particularly in the cross examination of PW.1 that from the beginning K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) wanted to receive total compensation amount of the land in an extent of 99 cents situated in S.No.70/2A of Sulluru village from the Government, for which, the

Accused Officer objected stating that K. Subbarami Reddy is eligible only half of the compensation amount and the legal heirs of Veeraswamy

Reddy is eligible for the remaining half of the compensation amount. As 55 such the said K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and PW.1 developed grudge against him and falsely implicated him in this case. The aforesaid version of the Accused Officer was suggested to PW.1 in his cross examination and the same was denied by PW.1 in his cross examination.

90. Further, during the course of cross examination of PW.1 Ex.D1 document was marked and it is attested zerox copy of application dated 24.10.2014 made by PW.1 and K. Subbarami Reddy to the RDO,

Naidupeta to pay half of the compensation amount to K. Subbarami

Reddy and to keep the remaining half of the compensation amount payable to Sridevamma in pending. In Ex.D1 application, PW.1 signed along with K. Subbarami Reddy. Ex.D2 is the letter addressed to the

Government pleader. Ex.D1 application was made after the trap.

Moreover, the Accused Officer is not the authority to decide real beneficiary of the compensation in respect of the land acquired by the

Government. The aforesaid contention of the Accused Officer that he was falsely implicated in this case as he restrained K. Subbarami Reddy and PW.1 to get the entire compensation amount, is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence.

91. It is further claimed by the Accused Officer that on the request of PW.1, who contacted him over a phone, asked him to come to

Amaravathi Hotel and handed over the photographs of K. Subbarami

Reddy to affix on the relevant forms. There is no necessity to the

Accused Officer to call PW.1 to the Amaravathi hotel for receiving passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy. The Accused Officer further claimed that he received brown colour cover from PW.1, by believing his words that the said cover containing passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and Sridevamma to affix on relevant forms and also Photostat copies of Bank passbooks of K. Subbarami

Reddy and Sridevamma to get credit the compensation amount in their 56 respective accounts and after receiving the said cover, he kept the cover on the dash board of his car.

92. Keeping inview of the aforesaid contention raised by the

Accused Officer, I have perused the relevant record. PW.1 in his evidence categorically stated that after passing of the consent award he submitted passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy in RDO office, Naidupeta for the purpose of affixing in the relevant form as informed by the Accused Officer. Further, PW.5 in his evidence stated that he took Sridevamma to the RDO office, Naidupeta where the signature of Sridevamma were obtained by PW.9 in the acquittance papers. As seen from the material available on record prior to the trap the pass port size photographs of Sridevamma and K. Subbarami Reddy were handed over to the Accused Officer and further the said

Sridevamma came to RDO office, Naidupeta and signed in the acquittance forms. Further, PWs.7and 9 in their evidence categorically stated that PW.7 went to the house of the K. Subbarami Reddy and obtained his signatures on acquittance papers and on the night of 20.09.2014 the said papers were handed over to the Accused Officer on 21.09.2014 through PW.7. Therefore, the contention of the Accused

Officer that he received brown colour cover from PW.1 infront of

Amaravathi hotel on22.09.2014 at 6.00 p.m. believing the words of PW.1 that the said cover containing passport size photographs of K.

Subbarami Reddy and Sridevamma and Photostat copies of their Bank pass books is not believable.

93. Further, the aforesaid contention of the Accused Officer is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable material. Further, the stand taken by the Accused Officer that on the request of PW.1 over a phone, he received brown colour cover from PW.1 infront of Amaravathi hotel, Naidupeta on 22.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. believing that the 57 said cover containing passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and Sridevamma and Photostat copies of their bank pass books is not believable which is far from the truth. Moreover, PW.11, who is the then

RDO, Naidupeta, in his evidence clearly stated that the Accused Officer left the office on 22.09.2014 at about 4.00 p.m. before duty timing by taking one hour permission. This circumstance clearly reveals that the

Accused Officer left the office on 22.09.2014 at about 4.00 p.m. in order to receive bribe amount from PW.1 at Amaravathi Hotel, Naidupeta for doing official favour i.e. processing of compensation of K. Subbarami

Reddy. Further, the Accused Officer did not explain anywhere as to why he obtained one hour permission on 22.09.2014 to leave the office.

94. It is an undisputed fact that on 27.12.2014 PW.13, who is the second Investigating Officer in this case, issued a show-cause notice (Ex.P24) to the Accused Officer calling his explanation in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe amount on the date of trap and on receipt of Ex.P24-show-cause notice, the Accused Officer submitted his

Ex.P25-explanation, wherein he simply denied his demand and acceptance of bribe amount from PW.1 and even the Accused Officer in his Ex.P25 explanation denied his acquaintance with PW.1.

95. Further, it is assumed for a moment for the arguments sake that the claim of the Accused Officer that in order to implicate him in this case PW.1 handed over brown colour cover stating that it contains passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and Sridevamma and

Photostat copies of their bank pass books and he believed the words of

PW.1 and received the said cover and kept on the dash board of the car is true and correct. In such a case, the Accused Officer would have been stated the same in his Ex.P25 explanation. But the explanation of the

Accused Officer is silent on the said stand taken by him during the course of cross examination of PW1. Further, the Accused Officer in his 58

Ex.P25 explanation did not refer any enimity in between him and K.

Subbarami Reddy in respect of compensation amount.

96. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has further vehemently contended that the prosecution failed to establish the vital ingredients to constitute the offence of receiving illegal gratification by the public servant while discharging his duties and therefore, the Accused Officer may be acquitted. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the following decisions.

i)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Ganapathi Sanya n in 2007 CRI.L.J.4689,wherein it was held that – “The evidence of PWs.4 and 6 with regard to the recovery of the cash from th and the defence version that the money had been put on the table surreptitiou accused appeared to be more plausible and worthy of acceptance .” ii)The decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in Kanhaiyalal Vs. Sta CRI.L.J.3155,wherein it was held that – “The most important and salient feature of the case is that, it was because of i accused was got trapped. When there is no motive for demanding or accep complainant was pending with the accused, the acquittal of accused by the trial co iii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in V. Venkata by Inspector of Police, A.P. reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.754,wherein it was h “In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption 1988 provides for raising of presumption only if a demand is proved.” iv) The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Doraswamy Vs. the wherein it was held that – “Plea of the prosecution is that, the accused is a public servant demanded illeg went at his residence belied by fact that, at relevant time the accused was atten Neither the demand nor acceptance was proved. Accused cannot be convicted on notes within premises of the accused.”

v)In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in T.S. Laxman Ra Inspector of Police, ACB., reported in 2012 (3) ALT (CRL.) 61 (A.P.),wherei “Even though the complainant vaguely stated that, there was a demand in Dec examination that, he did not mention the date either in Ex.P.1 complaint or in h Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. On the other hand, he admitted that, he m 7.2.1994. Therefore, it can safely be said that there was no demand by the accu 1993.

59 vi) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in P. Satyanara of Police and another reported in 2015 CRI.L.J.4670,wherein it was held th “Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or r demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under t vii) The decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in R. Srinivasan and ano Lokayuktha, Bangalore reported in 2016 CRI.L.J.3066,wherein it was held t “Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged demand for bribe in terms of Sectio receipt of money preceded by demand by 2nd accused and the prosecution has fail and receipt of money by 1st accused -Srinivasan”.

viii) The decision of Chhattisgarh High Court rendered in State of Madhya reported in 2017 CRI.L.J. 1461, wherein it was held that “Mere recovery of money from the pocket of Pyjama of the respondent/ accused evidence to prove the charges of the prosecution. In absence of evidence to pro the prosecution case becomes weak”.

ix) The decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Mintu Dubey V Jabalpur reported in 2017 CRI.L.J. 1185 wherein it was held that – “Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge un 1988”.

x) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in C.M. Girish of Kerala, reported in (2009)3 Supreme Court Cases 779,wherein it was he “Mere recovery of tainted money by itself is not enough, in the absence of to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be brib either through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing reli the accused under section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 is not the same as the burden pl beyond reasonable doubt.” xi) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1589,wherein it was held that – “It is difficult for the court to hold that, the prosecution has established the offence against the accused that, he accepted the money voluntarily as illegal gratification.” xii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Bhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1977 CRI.L.J.439,wherein it was held that – “Infirmities in prosecution case casting legitimate doubt on truth of the prosecution story”.

60 xiii) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in State: Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB., Nellore Vs. Goli Madhusudhana Rao reported in 2012 (1) ALT (CRL.) 10 (A.P.),wherein it was held that – “It cannot be said that the trial Court was wrong in observing that prosecution case suffers from Lacunae since there are infirmities and variations in the evidence of all prosecution witnesses in general and PW.1 in particular.” xiv) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inSuraj Mal Vs. the state (Delhi administration) reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1408, wherein it was held that – “Where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. Mere recovery of money from accused is not sufficient.

xv) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in C. Sivakumar Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 863 (A.P.), wherein it was held that – “Admittedly there was previous enmity between the accused and one Rajagopal Reddy. PW.1 belongs to the group of Rajagopal Reddy and because of that enmity, PW.1 gave a false complaint against him to ACB and the recovery of money from his pocket was not the amount demanded and accepted by him, but it was forcibly thrusted by PW.1 into his pocket in order to implicate him in the case, though he has not demanded and accepted the amount appears to be true and correct. Therefore, it cannot be said that the general presumption available in favour of the prosecution is not rebutted in the instant case. I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.” xvi) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Smt Meena Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2273, wherein it was held that – “It is an obligation of judicial conscience to correct 61 errors, where the same are manifest. The judgments of the Courts below suffers from serious infirmities and manifest errors on account of unwarranted inferences liberally drawn by the Courts below against the appellant, overlooking the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence of an accused till the charge leveled and her guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant cannot be, on the basis of available evidence, held to have tacitly accepted the illegal gratification as alleged”.

xvii) The decision of Jharkhand High Court rendered in

Diwesh Narayan Raizada Vs. The State of Bihar

reported in 2007 CRI.L.J. 453, wherein it was held that- “The prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant actually received the tainted currency notes by way of illegal demands before countersigning the fitness certificates in favour of complainants Badlu Harijan and Mangru Sonar.” xviii) The decision of Culcutta High Court rendered in

Kailash Chandra Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal

reported in 2003 CRI.L.J. 4286, wherein it was held that- “In view of the discrepancies noted above in the evidence adduced from the prosecution side and taking into consideration the defense version as has been pushed forward by way of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and viewing the same from the point of preponderance of probabilities. Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and this accused- appellant is, therefore, entitled to get an order of acquittal from this case upon benefit of doubt.”

97. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has vehemently contended that the prosecution has established that there was official favour vested in the

Accused Officer on the date of trap and that, the Accused Officer demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as bribe for processing the compensation amount and credited the share to the bank account of K.

Subbarami Reddy in the compensation amount and the said demand was made by the Accused Officer on 19.09.2014, 20.09.2014 and finally on 22.09.2014, when PW.1 met the Accused Officer infront of Amaravathi 62

Hotel, Naidupeta and the Accused Officer received tainted amount of

Rs.25,000/- from PW.1 infront of Amaravathi Hotel, Naidupeta in that regard the prosecution produced the positive evidence and therefore the prosecution has established the ingredients of the offence of bribery.

98. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both sides and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer, I have perused the relevant record. It is already stated supra that the Accused Officer was having power to process the compensation amount in respect of share of K.

Subbarami Reddy being Divisional Administrative Officer in RDO office,

Naidupeta. The prosecution has also established that there was a demand from the Accused Officer to pay illegal gratification after processing the compensation amount in respect of K. Subbarami Reddy and on 22.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. PW.1 handed over the tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Accused Officer in front of Amaravathi

Hotel, Naidupeta on his demand and the same was accepted by the

Accused Officer and received brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- with his right hand and verified the said cover by counting the said amount with his both hands and kept the cover inside his car on the dash board. Therefore, the prosecution has established the ingredients to constitute the offence of bribery. The facts in the instant case are different from the facts in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the counsel for the Accused Officer and therefore the aforesaid decisions have no application in the present facts of the case and as such I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

Accused Officer.

99. The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has further vehemently contended that the Accused Officer did not demand any illegal gratification and acceptance of the said illegal gratification from 63

PW.1 and on the other hand, on 22.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. on the request of PW.1 over a phone, the Accused Officer allowed PW.1 to meet infront of Amaravathi hotel, Naidupeta for receiving passport size photographs of K. Subbarami and Sridevamma, Photostat copies of their bank passbooks and he received brown colour cover from PW.1, by believing the words of PW.1 that the said cover containing passport size photographs of the aforesaid two persons and their Photostat copies of bank pass books and he received the said cover with his right hand and kept the said cover in dash board of his car without verifying and at that time, the ACB police concerned came to him and falsely implicated him in this case. The counsel for the Accused Officer further contended that the constable, who put the amount in the brown colour cover and also kept the said cover in the left side upper shirt pocket of PW.1 and there is every possibility for getting positive result to the test on the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer.

100. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the following decision:

i)The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Prem Singh Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2011(3) Crimes 426 (Del.),wherein it was held that “The defence has created some doubt in the prosecution case. It is more so, in view of specific suggestion to the complainant in cross-examination that, he had placed the invitation card along with the tainted money cleverly under the Cushion of the Sofa where he was sitting and that the accused did not demand or accept any money from him.”

101. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that the prosecution has established all the vital ingredients such as, official favour vested in the

Accused Officer towards processing of compensation amount in respect of half share payable to K.Subbarami Reddy, demand of illegal gratification for doing the said official favour, payment of illegal 64 gratification of Rs.25,000/-and acceptance of the said illegal gratification on the date of trap by the Accused Officer and thereby the Accused

Officer is liable to be punished for the charges framed against him.

102. In support of the said contention, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Vidya Sagar Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) ALD (CRL.) 965,wherein it was held that- “The amount was not found in the hands of DW.4 but, underneath the bed and the chemical test conducted to the crucial portion of the bed also yielded positive result. This belies the claim of A.O. and his wife. DW.4 being the wife of A.O., is an interested witness and her evidence cannot be believed. AS per her evidence, when PW.1 tendered some papers to A.O., he angrily returned them saying that, he was not competent to see those papers. If that was the scenario, the question of A.O. writing a letter to Sujatha Reddy requesting her to accept the joining report of PW.1, in that angry mood does not arise. But A.O. is not denying his writing the letter to Sujatha Reddy. The said letter falsifies the happening of the circumstances as spoken by DW.4 on one hand and confirms the prosecution version on the other.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Subbu Singh Vs. State by Public Prosecutor reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3433,wherein it was held that – “So far as the stand that money was kept for the purpose of falsely implicating, the same is without substance. The accused was a police officer who knew the consequences of the bribe. Once it is proved by the prosecution that the money was demanded as bribe and the same was received from PW.2, Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 comes into play. Once there is a presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe.” iii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in S. Dinesh Kumar Vs., State Th. Inspector and another reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 606 (SC), wherein it was held that – “The recovery of the bribe amount from the person or possession of the accused having being firmly established, the immediate explanation offered by the appellant is absolutely crucial. Secondly, it is unimaginable that as against 50% of the arrears of taxes which the complainant was supposed to deposit, Rs.1000/- only would be paid and accepted. The aspects of demand and acceptance having been established, in our assessment no two views are possible in the matter and the approach adopted by the Special Judge was perverse, justifying 65 interference by the High Court.

iv)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of A.P. Vs. M. Radha Krishna Murthy reported in 2009 CRI.L.J. 1896,wherein it was held that – “Whenever as part of the case relating to demand and acceptance is not acceptable, the whole case would fail even if the case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by the prosecution is established. When part of the prosecution relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by itself, the ratio of the decision does not apply.”

v)The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3224,wherein it was held that – “The corroboration need not be by direct oral evidence and can be gathered from circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of the complainant, is sufficient to convict a person, if it is reliable, acceptable and trust worthy.” vi)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of A.P. Vs. P. Venkateshwarlu passed in appeal (Crl.)1317 of 2008, dt.6.5.2015, wherein it was held that – “The defence has raised various presumptions to disprove the prosecution case. However, it has not been able to adduce evidence before us, on the basis of which the presumption under section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 could be rebutted.” vii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inNarendra Champaklal Trivedi and another Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2012)7 Supreme Court cases 80,wherein it was held that – “The currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellants. In the lengthy cross examination nothing has really been elicited to doubt their presence and veracity of the testimony.” viii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in K.L. Bakolia Vs. State Th. Director, C.B.I. passedinCriminal appeal No.797/2015, dt.15.5.2015,wherein it was held that – “Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that, the accused received illegal gratification. Defence plea of the accused that, the currency notes were put under Sofa without his knowledge was rightly rejected by the Courts below.” ix)In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Vittalaiah Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 776,wherein it was held that – 66 “The prosecution by cogent evidence could establish that, A.O. demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1 and therefore, statutory presumption under section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 follows.”

x)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Krishna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.2436,wherein it was held that – “The complainant, the investigating officer and other witnesses, who were present when the appellant was caught red-handedly by the Anti Corruption Team have been cross- examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They have been reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.” xi)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inMadhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.175,wherein it was held that – “If a public servant is found in possession of currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein and the prosecution does not have further duty to prove behind the fact that, prosecution witness had paid the demanded money to the appellant, public servant.” xii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in M. Narasinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.515,wherein it was held that “The court can draw legal presumption that, said gratification was accepted as reward for doing public duty.” xiii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State (C.B.I.) Vs. Dr. Amarjyothi Baruah passed in Special Case No.3/2010, dt.11.12.2012, wherein it was held that – “The amount which was recovered from the accused is not a legal remuneration, but an illegal gratification as ascertained from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.” xiv)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Mahesh Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1974 CRI.L.J.509,wherein it was held that – “To cast on the prosecution the burden of proving that, the amount was accepted by the accused otherwise than by way of legal remuneration is to ask the prosecution to prove that the amount was paid and accepted by way of bribe.”

103. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by 67 them, I have perused the relevant record. It is already stated supra that, the prosecution has established that, the Accused Officer has vested the powers in him for processing compensatioin amount payable to K.

Subbarami Reddy and the same may be treated as official favour and also the prosecution has established the vital ingredients of official favour, demand of illegal gratification, payment of amount of Rs.25,000/- towards illegal gratification to the Accused Officer by PW.1 on the date of trap, acceptance of the said bribe amount and recovery of the said amount from the Accused Officer by the Investigating Officer (PW.15) in the presence of two mediators under Ex.P7-Post-trap Proceedings.

104. It is already stated supra that, the Accused Officer has taken the stand that he never demanded and accepted illegal gratification from PW.1 and further his contention is that he was falsely implicated in this case by PW.1 as he developed grudge against him on the ground that the Accused Officer refused to do his favour for getting entire compensation amount in respect of the land under acquisition. The said contention of the Accused Officer is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence and further, the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination denied that PW1 falsely implicated the Accused

Officer in this case.

105. Further, it is already stated supra that PW.1 in his evidence sated that he handed over passport size photographs of K. Subbarami

Reddy in RDO office, Naidupeta prior to 19.09.2014. Further, PW.5 in his evidence stated that he accompanied his mother-in-law namely

Sridevamma to the RDO office, where his mother-in-law put her signatures on acquitance papers and further she handed over passport size photographs. Further, PW.3 in her evidence stated that he received passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy from PW.1 in the absence of PW.9, who was looking after compensation files, and she 68 handed over the said passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy to PW.9 on the next day. The said fact was elicited during the course of cross examination of PW.9 on behalf of the Accused Officer that PW.9 received passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy from PW.3.

106. PW.9 in her cross examination further stated that the passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and Sridevamma were affixed on Form-IV in Ex.P16 file. Further, she clarified the doubt raised on behalf of the Accused Officer that the said photographs were affixed in RDO office, Gudur prior to establishing the RDO office, Naidupeta, as

RDO, Naidupeta Division was newly established bifurcating some area from RDO office, Gudur and the relevant forms in respect of Awards and compensation were not available in their newly established Naidupeta

Division and as such she went to RDO office, Gudur for preparing Form IV and prepared form-IV by obtaining relevant forms from the RDO office,

Gudur and as such the said Form-IV papers in the bottom mentioned as

RDO office, Gudur, but actually she affixed photographs of K. Subbarami

Reddy and Sridevamma in form–IV and after receiving the said compensation file (Ex.P16) from RDO office, Gudur to newly established

RDO office, Naidupeta, but the forms used relating to the office of RDO,

Gudur. Therefore, the passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and Sridevamma were received by the RDO office, Naidupeta prior to the date of trap and therefore, the question of PW.1 giving the cover containing passport size photographs of the K. Subbarami Reddy and

Sridevamma does not arise and further the stand taken by the Accused

Officer that he believed the words of the PW.1 and received brown colour cover from PW.1 believing that the said cover containing passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and Sridevamma is not believable.

107. Further, it was suggested to PW.1 in his cross examination on behalf of the Accused Officer that on the date of trap at about 6.00 p.m., 69 he received a brown colour cover from PW.1 in front of Amaravathi

Hotel , Naidupet by believing the words of PW.1 that the said cover containing passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and

Sridevamma and their Photostat copies of passbooks and the said suggestion was denied by PW.1 and so also suggested the said version of the Accused Officer in the cross examination of PW.15 and the same was denied by PW.15 in his cross examination. Further, the aforesaid contention of the Accused Officer is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence. The Accused Officer did not putforth any acceptable evidence before the Court to prove the aforesaid stand taken by him. Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Accused Officer is not believable and appeared to be false.

108. On the other hand, the prosecution produced positive evidence and established that on the date of trap i.e. on 22.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. the Accused Officer demanded and accepted tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- from PW.1 infront of Amaravarthi Hotel, Naidupeta and the said amount kept in the cover was received by the Accused

Officer with his right hand and counted the amount with his both hands and kept the said cover containing tainted amount inside his car on the dash board and after few minutes, the ACB police concerned caught hold of the Accused Officer and recovered the tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance after conducted chemical test to both hand fingers of the Accused Officer. The chemical test conducting to the both hand fingers of the Accused Officer yielded positive results and so also chemical test conducted to the inner side portion of the brown colour cover also yielded positive results.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has established that on 22.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. the Accused Officer demanded PW.1 infront of Amaravathi Hotel, Naidupeta to pay illegal 70 gratification for processing the compensation amount in respect of share of K. Subbarami Reddy and to credit the said amount to the bank account of K. Subbarami Reddy and accepted the bribe amount of

Rs.25,000/- from PW.1 for doing official favour.

109. POINT NO.IV:-

It is to be next seen whether the Accused Officer by abusing his official position and also by resorting to illegal and corrupt practices, obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable security either for himself or for some other person. The demand of bribe is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P2 report. It is already stated supra that PW.1 met the Accused Officer in

RDO office, Naidupeta on 19.09.2014 and requested to process the compensation amount in respect of K. Subbarami Reddy, for which, the

Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe for doing official favour. Again on 20.09.2014 PW.1 met the Accused Officer in RDO office, Naidupeta and expressed his inability to pay that much amount as bribe and after considering the request of PW.1, the Accused

Officer redused the bribe amount to Rs.25,000/- and he has to pay the said amount by the evening of 22.09.2014.

110. Accordingly, on the date of trap i.e. on 22.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. PW.1 met the Accused Officer infront of Amaravathi Hotel,

Naidupeta and on his demand, handed over a cover containing tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- and the same was received by the Accused

Officer with his right hand and verified the amount inside the cover with his both hands and put the amount in the said brown colour cover and kept the said cover inside the car on the dash board. The prosecution has established the same through oral (PWs.1, 2 and 15) as well as documentary evidence .

111. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer 71 has vehemently contended that the Accused Officer never demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW.1 and the said amount was kept in the cover and handed over to him stating that the said cover containing passport size photographs of K. Subbarami Reddy and

Sridevamma and Photostat copies of their bank passbooks in order to implicate him in this case. In support of the said contention the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied the following decisions.

i) The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in T. Subramanian Vs. the State of Tamilnadu reported in 2006 CRI.L.J.804, wherein it was held that – “Explanation given by the accused immediately after the incident raises serious doubt about amount having been received by him as illegal gratification.” ii) The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao

reported in 2004 CRI.L.J.1412, wherein it was held that “Evidence of witnesses that, Rs.400/- was recovered from Respondent’s House and on testing respondent’s hand tested positive for having handled tainted money would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that it was received by respondent as bribe money in view of explanation given by him that money in question was kept in advance by the complainant before his arrival in the house and on being asked by I.O. he brought money and because of his handling he came in contact with Phenolphthalein powder. Acquittal of respondent is proper.” iii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1973 CRI.L.J.664, wherein it was held that- “In a bribery case the complainant is an interested witness and his evidence must be considered with great caution and it can be accepted when it is corroborated in material particulars by other evidence adduced by the prosecution.” iv)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1979 CRI.L.J.936, wherein it was held that – “No corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand for money by the appellant. Evidence of complainant on that aspect, therefore, could not be accepted.”

v) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Som Parkash Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1992 72

CRI.L.J.490, wherein it was held that – “The witnesses who formed part of raiding party were not independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.”

112. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that, corroboration is not required to the evidence of PW.1 as his evidence is reliable, acceptable and trustworthy. In support of it, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

reported in 1995 CRI.L.J.3656, wherein it was held that- “The corroboration need not be direct. It can be by way of circumstantial evidence also. Taking into account all the surrounding circumstances, we find sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW.1, regarding the demand and payment of bribe.” ii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P., The Inspector of Police reported in 2011 CRI.L.J.975, wherein it was held that – “Law cannot countenance such situation. In our opinion it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessarily to be corroborated by another witness.” iii)The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3224,wherein it was held that – “The corroboration need not be by direct oral evidence and can be gathered from circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of the complainant, is sufficient to convict a person, if it is reliable, acceptable and trust worthy.”

113. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contention raised by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record. PW.1 in his evidence categorically stated that, on 19.09.2014 when he met the Accused

Officer in RDO office, Naidupeta and requested him to process the 73 compensation amount of K. Subbarami Reddy and credit the compensation amount to the bank account of the K. Subbarami Reddy, for which, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay Rs.50,000/- as bribe for doing official favour. On 20.09.2014 at about 12.30 p.m. again he met the Accused Officer in RDO office, Naidupeta and expressed his inability to pay that much amount as bribe and considered the request of

PW.1, the Accused Officer reduced bribe amount to Rs.25,000/- and asked him to pay the said amount till the evening of 22.09.2014 by giving assurance that the compensation amount will be credited to the bank account of K. Subbarami Reddy within 2 or 3 days .

114. Further, on the date of trap i.e. on 22.09.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. PW.1 met the Accused Officer infront of Amaravathi hotel,

Naidupeta and on the demand of the Accused Officer, PW.1 handed over a cover containing tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- and the Accused

Officer received the said cover with his right hand, verified the amount inside the cover with his both hands and after putting the amount in the cover, kept the said cover inside his car on the dash board and after few minutes, the Accused Officer was caught hold of the ACB police concerned and recovered tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance and chemical test conducted to both hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inside portion of the brown colour cover which came into contact with on the tainted amount yielded positive result. The said version of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 15.

115. In the instance case, it is already stated supra that the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 15 is reliable, unshaken and consistent to the case of the prosecution and therefore the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that, there is no corroboration to the testimony of PW.1 on the date of trap in respect of conversation between 74 the Accused Officer and PW.1 and also there is no corroboration to the testimony of PW.1 with regard to the demand made by the Accused

Officer to pay illegal gratification prior to the date of trap and also on the date of trap. The evidence of PW.1 is found trustworthy.

116. Moreover, our apex court laid down the law in Karthik

Malhar Vs. state of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.)73 (SC), wherein it was held that – “Conviction can be based on the evidence of solitary witness provided that, the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye witness, nor can it be insisted that, the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye witnesses.”

117. As per the above said decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court,

I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

Accused Officer. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 15 go to show that the

Accused Officer being a public servant demanded illegal gratification by abusing his official position as public servant and received a sum of

Rs.25,000/- from PW.1 on the date of trap towards illegal gratification which is pecuniary advantage. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has established that the Accused Officer, who was

Divisional Administrative Officer in the office of RDO, Naidupeta, being a public servant by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position received a sum of Rs.25,000/- from PW.1 on the date of trap, which is pecuniary advantage, and therefore, the Accused Officer is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C.

Act, 1988.

118. POINT NO.V:-

It is to be next seen whether there was any valid sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 75 1988. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the Government of AP being competent authority to remove the Accused Officer from the service, has accorded sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer vide

G.O.Ms. No.469 Revenue (Vigilance-III) Department dated 07.11.2016 (Ex.P20) issued by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government. In support of it, the prosecution has examined V. Ipi Naidu, Section Officer,

Revenue Department, Vigilance-III, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur

District as PW.10, who stated in his evidence that their office received

Final Report, copy of FIR, Mediators Reports, Statements of witnesses and other relevant material documents from the office of the Director

General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad to accord sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer. After taking advise from the Vigilance

Commissioner, the file was placed before the concerned Minister and after taking approval of the Minister concerned, the file was circulated and placed before the Special Chief Secretary to the Government,

Revenue, (Vigilance-III) Department by name J.C. Sarma. The said

Special Chief Secretary gone through the entire material and after satisfying himself he issued G.O.Ms.No.469, Revenue (Vigilance-III)

Department, dated 07.11.2016 accorded sanction to prosecute the

Accused Officer. Ex.P20 bears the signature of the Special Chief

Secretary to the Government by name J.C. Sarma.

119. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has vehemently contended that the prosecution sanction order under

Ex.P20 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government by name J.C. Sarma without application of mind. In support of it, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the decision of Orissa

High Court rendered in Md. Tafazul Rehman Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1985 CRI.L.J.1971, wherein it was held that – “Documents considered by the sanctioning authority are not mentioned in draft sanction order which 76 was produced in the Court. No evidence showing that, complainant’s statement was placed before sanctioning authority. Evidence on the contrary showing that, sanctioning authority signed the draft sanction order given by Vigilance Department. It was held that, the sanction was granted without application of mind.”

120. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that the Special Chief

Secretary to the Government by name J.C. Sarma after verifying the entire record including the statements of witnesses, Ex.P5-Pre-trap and

Ex.P7-Post-trap Proceedings and Ex.P8-Mediators Report-III issued prosecution sanction order under Ex.P20 to launch prosecution against the Accused Officer and therefore Ex.P20 is valid Sanction Order in the eye of law. In support of it, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3224, wherein it was held that – “It is well settled that, adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by us by sitting as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. Once the order granting sanction shows that, all the available material were placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction order stands proved.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in K.P. Pullaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 586, wherein it was held that – “PW.4 a Section Officer of the Secretariat, mentioned about the sanction order issued by the Principal Secretary of Revenue Department to prosecute the accused in this case. He denied a suggestion that the Principal Secretary did not apply his mind while according sanction to prosecute the accused. The evidence of PW.4 is not relevant to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of the bribe by accused persons.” iii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of M.P. Vs. Jiyalal reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 72, wherein it was held that – “It was also not justified for the learned Single Judge to hold that the District Magistrate who had passed the sanction order should have been subsequently examined as a witness by the 77 prosecution in order to prove the same. The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona-fide manner. It was of course open to the respondent to question the genuineness or validity of the sanction order before the Special

Judge, but there was no requirement for the District Magistrate to

be examined as a witness by the prosecution.”

121. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contention raised by both the parties with regard to validity of the sanction order under Ex.P20 to prosecute the Accused Officer and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record.

PW.10, who is the Section Officer in Revenue Department, AP

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, in his evidence clearly stated that, after perusing the entire material like copy of FIR, Mediators

Reports, Statements of witnesses etc., and after satisfying himself, the

Special Chief Secretary to the Government by name J.C. Sarma accorded sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer under Ex.P20 and accordingly, a Charge Sheet was laid against the Accused Officer. Further, the aforesaid decision rendered by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

M.P. Vs. Jiyalal categorically held that the Sanction Order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona-fide manner. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for

Accused Officer in respect of validity of the Sanction Order under Ex.P20.

122. POINT NO.VI:-

It is already stated supra that, the prosecution has established that the Accused Officer was a public servant at the relevant time within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and he accepted a sum of Rs.25,000/- from PW.1 towards bribe on the date of trap, which is other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour and the prosecution has also established that the Accused Officer being a public servant by 78 corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as Divisional

Administrative Officer in the office of RDO, Naidupeta and obtained a sum of Rs.25,000/- from PW.1 on the date of trap for himself which is pecuniary advantage and therefore, the Accused Officer is liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

123. The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has further vehemently contended that when the possession of tainted amount is proved, then the Accused Officer has to rebut the presumption under

Section 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and the Accused Officer is able to rebut presumption for possession of the amount inside his car on the dash board situated infront of Amaravathi Hotel, Naidupeta. In support of it, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in V.

Venkata Subba Rao Vs. State represented by

Inspector of Police, A.P. reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.754, wherein it was held that – “The presumption that the money was accepted as motive or reward cannot be raised when demand by the accused has not been proved.” ii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779, wherein it was held that – “Accused can rebut charge either through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable evidence. It was held that, burden of proof on the accused under Section 20 of P.C. Act is not the same as the burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.” iii) The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in T. Ramesh Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 342 (AP), wherein it was held that – “Except the solitary testimony of PW.1, there is no other evidence to probabilise his version, that, the tainted amount was not seized from the person of the accused, but it was allegedly seized from the Dash board of the Scooter. When a case rests 79 upon the evidence of solitary witness, the Law is well settled that it must be true, trustworthy, free from doubt and wholly reliable. When the evidence of a witness is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar to base conviction on the solitary testimony of the witness. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously so as to place any reliance on his evidence.” iv) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in

Trilok Chandra Maurya Vs. State rep. by C.B.I., Hydrabad

reported in 2011 (3) A.L.T. (Crl.) 214 (AP), wherein it was held that – “For drawing of presumption under section 20 (1) of P.C. Act, 1988, prosecution has to establish demand as well as acceptance of bribe or illegal gratification by the accused.”

v) The decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in P. Appala Raju Vs. State reported in 2012(2) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP), wherein it was held that – “Two views are possible from evidence, one favourable to the prosecution and the other infavour of the accused. View favourable to the accused shall be taken into consideration.”

124. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by him, I have perused the relevant record. It is already stated supra that the prosecution could establish all the vital ingredients touching official favour with the Accused Officer, demand of illegal gratification, payment of illegal gratification and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- by the Accused Officer through cogent evidence. Hence the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.

Act, 1988 squarely follows. The Accused Officer failed to rebut the said presumption by showing the preponderance of probabilities. As already stated supra that the defence story put-forth by the Accused Officer is unbelievable. Therefore, the Accused Officer is guilty of the charges under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

125. As per the evidence of PW.14, on 21.09.2014 at about 6.30 p.m. the DSP, ACB, Nellore by name K.S. Nanjundappa (PW.15) endorsed 80

Ex.P2 report asking him verify the contents of the report and also verify the antecedents of the Accused Officer and PW.1. Accordingly, he conducted preliminary enquiry and found the contents of Ex.P2 report are genuine and there was no animosity in between PW.1 and Accused

Officer and that the Accused Officer was enjoying bad reputation while discharging his duties and he endorsed preliminary enquiry report on

Ex.P2 and submitted the same to PW.15 on 22.09.2014 at about 01.00

PM. As per the evidence of PW.15, on receipt of preliminary report endorsed on Ex.P2 from PW.14, after obtaining oral permission from the head office, he registered Ex.P2 report as case in Crime No.11/RCT-NLR/ 2014 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The aforesaid testimony made by PW.14 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.15 with regard to conducting preliminary enquiry in respect of Ex.P2-report. In these circumstances the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in P.

Sirajuddin etc., Vs. the State of Madras etc., reported in 1971

Crl.L.J. 523 has no application in the present facts of the case.

126. Further, PW.1 made Ex.P21 application on 26.07.2014 to the

RDO, Naidupeta with regard to the compensation payable to K.

Subbarami Reddy and the said application contained in page No.693 of

Ex.P16 file. On 19.09.2014 PW.1 met the Accused Officer in RDO office,

Naidupeta with request to process the compensation amount of K.

Subbarami Reddy as soon as possible , for which, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe for doing official favour. On 20.09.2014 again PW.1 met the Accused Officer in RDO office,

Naidupeta at 12.30 p.m. expressed his inability to pay that much amount as bribe for processing the compensation amount of K.

Subbarami Reddy and to credit the said amount to the bank account of

K. Subbarami Reddy and considered the request of PW.1, the Accused

Officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and 81

PW.1 has to pay the same by 22.09.2014 evening, though PW.1 agreed to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer, but he has no interest to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer and after discussing with K.

Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) on 21.09.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. he lodged

Ex.P2-report in ACB office, Nellore. There is no considerable delay in lodging of Ex.P2 report. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel

for the Accused Officer passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a rape

case i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gian Chand reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. 2548 has no application in the present facts of the case with regard to the delay of lodging FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

127. Further, the counsel for the Accused Officer has vehemently contended that the Investigating Officer(PW.15) after registering the FIR, a trap was decided to be laid in hurried manner and there is no explanation from the prosecution on the said aspect and therefore the

Accused Officer may be acquitted. In support of it, learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the decision of Jarkhand High

Court rendered in Diwesh Narayan Raizada Vs. The State of

Bihar reported in 2007 CRILJ 453.

128.Keeping in view of the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer and in the light of the aforesaid decision relied upon by him, I have perused the relevant record PW.15, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on 21.09.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. on receipt of Ex.P2- report from PW.1 he endorsed to PW.14 with instructions to conduct preliminary enquiry, to verify the genuiness of contents of Ex.P2- report and also verify the antecedents of the Accused Officer and PW.1.

Accordingly, PW.14 conducted preliminary enquiry and found that the contents of the report are genuine and the Accused Officer was enjoying 82 bad reputation while discharging his duties and PW.14 endorsed his preliminary enquiry report on Ex.P2 and submitted Ex.P2 along with his endorsement to PW.15 on 22.09.2014 at about 1.30 p.m. On receipt of

Ex.P2 containing endorsement of PW.14 with regard to preliminary enquiry report on the same day i.e. on 22.09.2014 at about 2.00 p.m.

PW.15 registered Ex.P2 report as case in Crime No. 11/RCT-NLR/2014 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and issued

Ex.P27-FIR. Thereafter he conducted pre-trap proceedings in ACB office,

Nellore on the same day in between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. and thereafter the Accused Officer was trapped on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. infront of Amaravathi Hotel, Naidupeta. As seen from the evidence of PWs14 and 15, they followed due procedure for registering the case and thereafter for laying the trap and therefore, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

Accused Officer. The facts in the aforesaid decision of Jarkhand High

Court are different from the facts in the instant case.

129. The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has further vehemently contended that the solution contained in MO.3 bottle is colourless and there is no explanation from the prosecution on this aspect and therefore, the Accused Officer may be acquitted. In support of it, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the decision of our Honourable Supreme Court rendered in C. Sukumaran

Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2015 CRI.L.J. 1715, wherein it was held that-- “The phenolphthalein test cannot be said to be a conclusive proof against the appellant, as the colour of the solution with regard to the other samples were pink and had remained so throughout. However, the lime solution in which the appellant's hands were dipped in, did not show the same pink colour. The reason assigned by the Trial court is that the colour could have faded by the lapse of time. The said explanation of the Trial Court cannot be accepted by us in view the fact that the colour of the other samples taken by the Investigation Officer 83 after the completion of the trap laid against the appellant had continued to retain the pink colour. Moreover, the sample of the shirt worn by the appellant which was produced before the Trial Court did not show any colour change on the shirt's pocket section, where the bribe money was allegedly kept by him after the complainant had allegedly given him the bribe money”.

130. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer and in the light of the aforesaid decision relied upon by him, I have perused the relevant record. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.2, who is one of the mediators, that MO.3 bottle of right hand wash of the Accused Officer is colourless and so also from the cross examination of PW.15. It is mentioned in

Ex.P7 post-trap proceedings that MO.3 bottle containing right hand wash of Accused Officer is pink colour solution and MO.4 bottle containing left hand wash of Accused Officer is pink colour solution. As per the evidence of PWs.2 and 15, during the post trap proceedings PW.15 got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked the Accused

Officer to rinse his both hand fingers separately in the said solutions and accordingly the Accused Officer rinsed his both hand fingers separately in the said solutions and the said solutions turned into pink in colour. The resultant solutions were transferred into two separate clean bottles got them sealed, labeled and affixed identity slips duly signed by the mediators and PW.15. MO.3 bottle containing pink colour right hand wash of the Accused Officer, MO.4 bottle containing pink colour left hand wash of the Accused Officer.

131. PWs.2 and 15 in their evidence further stated that the colour test conducted to the inner portion of the brown colour cover also yielded positive result. The resultant solution was transferred into a clean bottle, got it sealed, labeled and affixed identity slip duly signed by the mediators and PW.15. MO.7 bottle containing pink colour wash of 84 inner portion of the envelop cover. PWs.2 and 15 in their evidence admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.P7-post-trap proceedings that MOs.3 and 4 bottles containing pink colour solution. But PWs.2 and 15 in their cross examination admitted that MO.3 bottle containing right hand wash of the Accused Officer is colourless, after perusal of the MO.3-bottle. It is no doubt true that there is no explanation from the prosecution with regard to colourless solution in MO.3 bottle containing right hand wash of the Accused Officer. However, the colour test conducted to the both hand fingers of the Accused Officer yielded positive results and the solutions were transferred into MOs.3 and 4 bottles. The colour test conducted to the inner portion of the envelop cover was yielded positive result and the resultant solution was transferred into MO.7 bottle.

132. Further, the claim of the Accused Officer that PW.1 handed over brown colour cover and the same was received by him. So, the

Accused Officer admitted the possession of the brown colour cover.

Therefore, the aforesaid decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the counsel for the Accused Officer wherein the Accused Officer was acquitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court not only on the sole ground of colourless solution in one of the container and apart from that in that decision there are other grounds like prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount and further the complainant, who lodged a report, turned hostile. Therefore, I do not find much force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

Accused Officer.

133. At this stage, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Raj Kumar Vs.

State of Delhi passed on 26.03.2015, wherein it was held that – “The FSL report pertaining to the hand wash, in any event, is not of much significance in the present case since the appellant himself admits to have accepted the money from the complainant in his hands. As noticed above, his defence is that it was not conscious acceptance of 85 bribe money”.

With regard to the purpose of hand wash, the Supreme Court in

Zakaullah case State of UP Vs. Zakaullah (1998) 1 SCC 557 held that – “The phenolphthalein powder test is conducted for the conscientious satisfaction of the Raid officer that he was proceeding against the real bribe taker, and that an officer with integrity should not be harassed unnecessarily.” “In Mahavir Singh case, the Supreme Court held that mere phenolphthalein powder test being positive does not lead to inference of guilt, as such, it is only used as to corroborate the primary evidence. In the present case, sufficient primary evidence is on record to convict the accused. Thus, even if there is no positive evidence with regard to the hand wash, the accused could be convicted if there is sufficient primary evidence led before the Court with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused”.

134. It is already stated supra that the prosecution putforth positive evidence that the Accused Officer demanded and accepted bribe amount. Further, in the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High

Court referred the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.

Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala that the phenolphthalein powder test cannot be said to be a conclusive proof against the appellant.

135. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, I am holding that the Accused Officer is authority to process the compensation amount of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) and credit the compensation amount to the bank account of K.

Subbarami Reddy and that on 19.09.2014 when PW.1 met the Accused

Officer with a request to process the work of compensation amount of K.

Subbarami Reddy, for which, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe for attending the said work and again on 20.09.2014 when PW.1 met the Accused Officer in RDO office, Naidupeta and expressed his inability to pay that much amount as bribe, for which, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.25,000/- and he has to pay the said amount till 22.09.2014 evening and having vexed with 86 the attitude of the Accused Officer , PW.1 lodged Ex.P2 report in ACB office, Nellore on 21.09.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. and the same was registered after following the due procedure and investigated into.

136. Further, during the course of investigation, pre-trap proceedings were conducted in ACB office, Nellore on 22.09.2014 in between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. and on the same day, PW.1 met the

Accused Officer at about 6.00 p.m. infront of Amaravathi Hotel, near RTC bus stand, Naidupeta and on the demand to pay bribe amount by the

Accused Officer, PW.1 handed over brown colour cover containing tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Accused Officer and the same was received by the Accused Officer with his right hand and verified the amount contained in the cover with his both hands and kept the said cover containing tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- inside his car on the dash board and after few minutes, the trap party members led by PW.15 caught hold of the Accused Officer red-handedly and chemical test conducted on both hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inside portion of the brown colour cover contacted with tainted amount yielded positive results and recovered the tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance under Ex.P7-post- trap proceedings and therefore, the prosecution has established that the

Accused Officer was a public servant at the relevant time of the offence and that the Accused Officer accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by abusing his position as public servant, received a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards illegal gratification on the date of trap for himself which is pecuniary advantage and therefore, the Accused Officer is liable to be punished for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

137. From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the Accused Officer for the 87 offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C.

Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the Accused Officer is liable to be convicted for the said offences.

In the result, the Accused Officer is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 5th day of December, 2018.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases–cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

ORDER OF SENTENCE: DT. 05.12.2018

It is not the case where to invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. When the Accused Officer is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be awarded on him, he represented that he got wife and two children and he is the only bread earner of his entire family, and he is suffering from B.P. and

Diabetics and pleaded mercy of the Court.

Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case, representation of the Accused Officer and borne in mind of observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh

Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao reported in 2004 Crl.L.J.620, particularly in Para

No.30, I have passed the following sentence:

Thus, the Accused Officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo

Simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Accused Officer is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The remand period of the Accused Officer from 23.09.2014 to 20.10.2014 shall be set of as against the term 88 of imprisonment as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Both the substantial sentences awarded against the Accused Officer shall run concurrently.

The case property of MOs.1 to 4, 6 to 8, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of

Rs.25,000/- (MO.5) shall be returned to PW.1 and MO.9 cell phone shall be returned to the Accused Officer, after expiry of appeal time.

The total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 5th day of December, 2018.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases–cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1:Yeddala Pratap Reddy,-NONE - Defacto-complainant.

PW.2:Aremarati Narasoji Rao, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Naidupet. Mediator.

PW.3V. Ragini Devi, the then Deputy Tahsildar, RDO office, Naidupet.

PW.4:Punabaka Bhaskar Reddy, Grandson of K. Subbarami Reddy (LW.6) by courtesy. PW.5: Chiguruvada Bhagyasekhar, Son-in-law of Sridevama.

PW.6:Chenji Hari Krishna, the then Deputy Tahsildar, office of RDO, Naidupet.

PW.7:Epuru Raja Gopal, the then VRO, Sullurpet Bit-I.

PW.8:Chennuru Subba Rami Reddy, younger brother of Amaravathi Hotel owner namely Sudhakar Reddy.

89

PW.9:Sushan Olivia, Deputy Tahsildar in RDO Office, Naidupet.

PW.10:V. Ippi Naidu, Section Officer (Vigilance.III.), Revenue Department, AP Secretariat, Velagalpudi, Guntur District.

PW.11:Melam Babaiah, the then RDO, Naidupet.

PW.12:K. Venkateswarlu, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore, who is said to be assisted PW.15 in conducting pre- trap and Post-trap proceedings.

PW.13:N. Siva Kumar Reddy, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore, second Investigating Officer.

PW.14:M. Krupanandam, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore, who is said to be conducted preliminary enquiry on Ex.P2 report. PW.15:K. S. Nanjundappa, the then DSP, ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore 1st Investigating Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1:istheGPAdatedEx.D1:is the attested 10.09.2014 executed byxerox copy of K.SubbaramiReddyapplication, dated (LW.6) in favour of PW.124.10.2014 made by PW.1 and K.Subbaramireddy to the R.D.O., Naidupeta

Ex.P.2:is the report datedEx.D2:is the attested 21.09.2014 lodged byxerox copy of the PW.1 to the ACB policeletterdated concerned,13.12.2014 sent by PW.11tothe Government Pleader at High Court.

90

Ex.P.3:is the proceedings of Joint Director of Agriculture

dated 22.09.2014 wherein

PW.2 and K. Sudha Charan were deputed to act as mediators. Ex.P.4:is copy of FIR in Crime No.11/RCT-NLR/2014of ACB,NelloreRange, Nellore.

Ex.P.5:is Pre-trap Proceedings

dated22.09.2014in

Mediators Report–I.

Ex.P.6:is rough sketch for the scene of offence.

Ex.P.7:is Post-trap proceedings

dated22.09.2014in

Mediators Report-II.

Ex.P.8:is Mediators Report-III.

Ex.P.9:is agreement executed in between V. Sridevamma and RDO, Naidupeta.

Ex.P10: is agreement executed in betweenK.Subba Ramireddy (LW.6) and RDO, Naidupeta,

Ex.P11:is Draft consent Award videR.C.No.A1.No. 299/2005, Award No. 1/14-15 of the office of RDO, Naidupeta dated 25.08.2014.

Ex.P12:is acknowledgements of the land owners showing receiving of compensation amount by V. SridevammaandK. Subbaramireddy.

Ex.P13:is acquainttance of the claimants.

Ex.P14:ispaymentof compensation in favour of the claimants.

Ex.P15:is office notes.

91

Ex.P16: is entire file relating to Survey No.70/2 it contains 799 pages in two bundles.

Ex.P17:is Attendance Register of RDO Office, Naidupeta for the year, 2014.

Ex.P18:is cash accounts budget register relating to Social Welfare land acquisition of RDO Office, Naidupeta.

Ex.P19:is the authorization letter

dated 27.03.2018 issued

by the Joint Secretary to the Government.

Ex.P20:istheprosecution sanction order in G.O.Ms. No.469Revenue, (Vigilance-III)Department

dated 07.11.2016.

Ex.P21:isapplicationdated 26.07.2014 which is in Ex.P16 file at page No.693.

Ex.P22:isapplicationdated 16.12.2012 made by PW.1 to RDO, Gudur in Ex.P16 file at page No.336.

Ex.P23:is the memo dated 01.10.2014 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad.

Ex.P24:is the show cause notice

dated 27.12.2014 issued

by PW.13 to the Accused Officer.

Ex.P25:is the explanation dated 02.01.2015 submitted by the Accused Officer,

Ex.P26:is the memo dated 01.12.2016 issued by the Director General, ACB, Vijayawada.

Ex.P27:is the FIR in Cr.No.11/ RCT- NLR/2014 of ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore.

92

Ex.P28: is the memo dated 30.09.2014 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad.

Ex.P29:is the suspension order of the Accused Officer dated 29.09.2014 issued by the District Collector, Nellore.

Ex.P30:is the job chart and service particulars of the Accused Officer along with covering letter dated 01.10.2014 issued by the RDO, Naidupeta.

Ex.P31:is the call data of the cell phone of the Accused Officer for the period from 19.09.2014 to 22.09.2014.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

MO.1:is the sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings.

MO.2:is the sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings.

MO.3:is sealed bottle containing right hand wash of the Accused Officer.

MO.4:is sealed bottle containing left hand wash of the Accused Officer .

MO.5:is cash of Rs.25,000/-.

MO.6:is empty brown colour envelop cover.

MO.7:is the sealed bottle containing wash of inner portion of the envelop cover.

is the sealed cover containing MO.8: sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in Post-trap Proceedings.

MO.9:is Cell Phone of the Accused Officer.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES–CUM – II

ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : NELLORE.

Thursday, this the 13 th day of December, 2018.

Present: Sri Mohammed Abdul Rafi,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE NO.22 OF 2017

1.Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Tirupati Range, Tirupati.

2.Name of the Accused :Nellepalle Giri Babu, OfficerS/o N. Kalaiah, Aged 37 years, Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Yerrvaripalem Section and Mandal, Chittoor District. R/o D.No.1-241,Vinayaka Nagar, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District.

3.Crime Number: 20/RCT-TCT/2015 of ACB., Tirupati Range, Tirupati

4.Section of Law: Charge No.1: Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge No.2: Under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

5.Plea of the Accused Officer: Pleaded not guilty.

6.Finding of the Court: The Accused Officer is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

7.Result: In the result, the Accused Officer is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the Accused Officer shall be in force for a period of six months from this day. The case property of M.Os.1 to 3, 5 to 7, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.15,000/- (MO.4) shall be returned to PW.1 after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence 2 of Sri P. Venkata Subbaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri P. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, counsel for the Accused Officer and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Tirupati Range, Tirupati has laid a Charge Sheet against the

Accused Officer in Cr.No.20/RCT-TCT/2013 charged under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the following allegations:

2. That the Accused Officer worked as Assistant Executive

Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Yerrvaripalem Section and Mandal, Chittoor

District from 27.11.2014 to 22.12.2015. By virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant as defined under

Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The defacto-complainant namely

Badaganapalle Murali Mohan (PW.1) is a native of Chintakunta village,

Yerravaripalem mandal, Chittoor District and he was one of the members of Janma Bhoomi Committee in Chinthakunta village along with four nominated members. The work has been allotted by the District

Collector to Janma Bhoomi Committee to de-silting of feeder channels feeding from Sankranthigutta to Pakeervani Cheruvu of Chintakunta village of Yerravaripalem mandal, executed by PW.1 for Rs.1,07,000/- in the month of July, 2015. After that, the recommended work has been sent to the Accused Officer, who was Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor

Irrigation, Yerravaripalem Section through MPDO, Yerravaripalem mandal by name Nallapu Reddy Murali (PW.3).

Further, on 02.08.2015 Executive Engineer (FAC), Irrigation

Division, Tirupati by name Nagabushanam (PW.8) called PW.1 to his office regarding the work to be done, and entered into an agreement on

Rs.100/- Non-Judicial stamp paper and given work order. According to the work order given to the Accused Officer, the work was started in the 3 month of August, 2015 and it was completed in the month of September, 2015. After that, PW.1 intimated to the Accused Officer, who demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as bribe for measuring the work and for sending the M-Book for Rs.1,07,000/- to his higher officials. But PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount. After one week, PW.1 met the

Accused Officer regarding his bill, upon that, Accused Officer said that he would reject his work as it was not done properly if he turn down to give the bribe amount. Then PW.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount, as he was in loss. Then the Accused Officer demanded him to pay atleast a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe for sanctioning of bill amount.

Having no other go, PW.1 agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount, unwilling to pay the bribe amount, he approached DSP, ACB, Tirupati

Range, Tirupati by name A. Sankar Reddy (PW.11) on 21.12.2015 at 11.00 a.m. and lodged a report for taking necessary action against the

Accused Officer.

On 22.12.2015 after due verification, PW.11 registered the report of PW.1 as case in Crime No.20/RCT-TCT/2015 under Section 7 of the P.C.

Act, 1988 and investigated into. During the course of investigation,

PW.11 conducted pre-trap proceedings on 22.12.2015 from 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in the presence of two mediators, other Inspectors, staff and

PW.1.All the required formalities to be observed were complied with.

While so, on 22.12.2015 at about 11.20 a.m. the Accused Officer was trapped infront of the main gate of SV Music College, near Balaji colony junction, Tirupati, wherein PW.1 met the Accused Officer infront of the main gate of S.V. Music college and gave an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Accused Officer on his demand and the Accused Officer accepted the bribe amount with his right hand and kept the same in his trousers right side front pant pocket. After that, the Accused Officer assured him that he would take care of his works to be done in future.

4 Further, the chemical test conducted on the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inner linings of his trousers right front pocket yielded positive results. The bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the Accused Officer at his instance. The Principal Secretary to the

Government, Water Resources (Vigilance-I) Department, AP has issued sanction proceedings to prosecute the Accused Officer and to take cognizance of the offence by the competent Court after having satisfied vide proceedings G.O.Ms.No.33 Water Resources (Vigilance-I)

Department dated 09.05.2017. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)

(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against the Accused Officer. On appearance of the

Accused Officer before this Court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to him as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Accused Officer was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein, he denied the commission of offence. Whereupon, charges U/Secs. 7, 13(2) r/w 13 (1)

(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 were framed against the Accused Officer read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19, and MOs.1 to 7. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Kanchana Vasanthi (LW.7), Ramayapu Venkata

Ramana (LW.9), B. Raja Kumari (LW.10) and Nagineni Ratnamma (LW.11).

6. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the Accused

Officer was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, he denied the incriminating 5 circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record including the written arguments filed on behalf of the prosecution.

8. Now the points for determination are:-

Whether the Accused Officer by abusing his official

I) Whether the Accused Officer was a public servant

position and also by resorting illegal and corrupt

as on the date of trap as defined under Section 2(c)

practices, obtained pecuniary advantage or

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

valuable security either for himself or for some

other person? II) Whether there was any official favour pending with

the Accused Officer pertaining to PW.1 as on the

date of trap?

III) Whether the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW.1?

IV) V) Whether there was valid sanction to prosecute the

Accused Officer under the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988?

VI) Whether the prosecution has proved its case

against the Accused Officer for the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all

reasonable doubts?

9. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from PW.1 on 22.12.2015 at about 11.20 a.m. as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing an reward for check measuring work of de-silting of feeder channels feeding from Sankranthigutta to Pakeervani Cheruvu of Chintakunta village of Yerravaripalem mandal executed by PW.1 for

Rs.1,07,000/- and also not to harass PW.1 in check measuring future works to be done and as such the Accused Officer is liable for punishment for the offences punishable U/Secs.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

P.C. Act, 1988. On the other hand, the defence of the Accused Officer is one of total denial of the prosecution case.

10. In order to prove the guilt of the Accused Officer, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses, among them, the 6 Defacto-complainant namely Badaganapalle Murali Mohan was examined as PW.1, Kuppam Nalla Rama Rathnam Setty, who is Security

Guard in S.V. Music College, Tirupati was examined as PW.2, Nallapu

Reddy Murali, who is the then MPDO, Yerravaripalem Mandal was examined as PW.3, Pallapandala Ramachandra, who was incharge of

Panchayat Secretary, Chintakunta village was examined as PW.4, K.

Babu Rao, Section Officer, Water Resource Department, Vigilance-I, AP

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District was examined as PW.5,

Kanchana Lokeshwara, who is the then Sarpaqnch of Chintakunta Gram

Panchayat was examined as PW.6, G. Suresh Babu, Executive Engineer, I & CAD, Irrigation Division, Madanapalli was examined as PW.7, S.V.

Nagabhushanam, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tirupati was examined as PW.8, K. Sudhakara Rao, the then MPDO of Vadamalapet mandal, who is one of the mediators said to be present at the time of

ACB trap was examined as PW.9, Syed Ehtesham Hussain Khan, the then

Senior Assistant, in the office of MPDO, Tirupati rural, who is another mediator said to be present at the time of ACB trap was examined as

PW.10, A. Sankar Reddy, the then DSP, ACB, Tirupati, who is the first investigating officer in this case was examined as PW.11, C.

Lakshmikantha Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati, who is 2nd Investigating Officer in this case was examined as PW.12.

11. In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents and material objects:

Ex.P1 is the report dated 21.12.2015 lodged by PW.1 to the ACB police concerned, Ex.P2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 recorded by the ACB police concerned, Ex.P3 is the resolution passed by the Janmabhumi committee dated 07.08.2015 nominated PW.1 to take up the contract work, Ex.P4 is the prosecution sanction order in

G.O.Ms.No.33, Water Resources (Vigilance-I) department dated 7 09.05.2017, Ex.P5 is the service particulars of the Accused Officer along with covering letter dated 12.02.2016, Ex.P6 is the agreement entered by PW.1 with PW.8 dated 14.08.2015, Ex.P7 is the M-Book relating to the work executed by PW.1, Ex.P8 is letter of PW.8 dated 05.03.2016 which contains the procedure for execution work and the duties of Assistant

Executive Engineer in completing his part of the job, Ex.P9 is the pre- trap proceedings dated 22.12.2015 in Mediators Report-I, Ex.P10 is the post-trap proceedings dated 22.12.2015 in Mediators Report-II, Ex.P11 is copy of FIR in Crime No.20/RCT-TCT/2015 of ACB, Tirupati Range,

Tirupati, Ex.P12 is the rough sketch for the scene of offence, Ex.P13 is the original FIR in Crime No.20/RCT-TCT/2015 of ACB, Tirupati Range,

Tirupati, Ex.P14 is the memo dated 06.01.2016 issued by the Director

General, ACB, Hyderabad, Ex.P15 is the memo dated 06.01.2016 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, Ex.P16 is the show-cause notice dated 05.02.2016 issued by PW.12 to the Accused Officer, Ex.P17 is the reminder notice dated 22.02.2016 issued by PW.12 to the Accused

Officer, Ex.P18 is the explanation dated 27.02.2016 submitted by the

Accused Officer, Ex.P19 is the memo dated 19.05.2017 issued by the

Director General, ACB, Vijayawada.

MO.1 is the sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate

Powder used in pre-trap proceedings, MO.2 is sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre-trap proceedings, MO.3 is the sealed bottle containing wash of right hand fingers of the Accused

Officer, MO.4 is cash of Rs.15,000/-, MO.5 is sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of right side front pant pocket of the Accused

Officer, MO.6 is pant of the Accused Officer, MO.7 is sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post-trap proceedings.

12. In order to establish the charges leveled against the Accused 8 Officer, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 12, among them, Pws.1, 9 to 11 are the main witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 12, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 12 and the documentary evidence is to be appreciated by the Court.

13. PO INT NO.I:-

It is to be first seen whether the Accused Officer was a public servant as on the date of trap as defined under Section 2(c) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the Accused Officer worked as Assistant Executive

Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Yerravaripalem Section, Chittoor District from 27.11.2014 to 22.12.2015. By virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of “public servant” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is no dispute from the side of the Accused Officer with regard to his designation in Irrigation

Department as on the date of trap and he discharged his duties by receiving salaries from the State Government Funds. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Accused Officer was a public servant as on the date of trap as defined under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

14. POINT NO.II:-

It is to be next seen whether there was any official favour pending with the Accused Officer pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the work has been allotted by the District Collector to Janma Bhoomi Committee to de- silting of feeder channels feeding from Sankranthigutta to Pakeervani

Cheruvu of Chintakunta village of Yerravaripalem mandal, which was executed by Badaganapalle Murali Mohan (PW.1) for Rs.1,07,000/- in the month of July, 2015. After that, the recommended work has been sent to the Accused Officer through MPDO, Yerravaripalem mandal namely 9 Nallapu Reddy Murali (PW.3). On 02.08.2015 Executive Engineer,

Irrigation Division, Tirupati by name Nagabushanam (PW.8) called PW.1 to his office regarding the work and entered into an agreement on

Rs.100/- Non Judicial stamp paper with PW.1 and given work order to

PW.1. As per the said orders, the work was started in the month of

August, 2015 by PW.1 and completed the said work in the month of

September, 2015 and intimated the same to the Accused Officer. Upon that, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as bribe for measuring the work and for sending the M-Book for

Rs.1,07,000/- to his higher officials, but PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount and left the place. After one week, PW.1 met the Accused

Officer regarding his bill, upon that, the Accused Officer said that he would reject his work as it was not done properly if he turn down to give the bribe amount. PW.1 expressed his inability to pay that much bribe amount, as he was in loss. Then the Accused Officer demanded him to pay atleast Rs.15,000/- as bribe after sanctioning of his bill amount.

Having no other go, PW.1 agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount, but he was unwilling to pay the bribe amount and approached ACB office, Tirupati and lodged a report for taking necessary action against the Accused Officer.

15. In order to prove the official favour was pending with the

Accused Officer pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap, the prosecution has examined the defecto-complainant namely

Badaganapalle Murali Mohan as PW.1, who stated in his evidence that he is a member of Janmabhoomi committee in Chintakunta village along with four nominated members. The work has been allotted by the

District Collector, Chittoor District in Janmaboomi Programne to de-silting of feeder channels from Sankrantigutta to Pakeervani cheruvu of

Chintakunta village on 15.08.2015 to their Janmaboomi committee 10 consisting of him, four nominated members, elected members i.e,

Surpanch and MPTC. Since he has practicing as an Advocate at Tirupati and as such their Janmaboomi committee in Chintakunta village entrusted the aforesaid work to him. He entered into an agreement with

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department at Tirupati in the 3rd week of

August, 2015 for executing the aforesaid work with no loss and no profit basis. He commenced the aforesaid de-silting of feeder channels work in the month of September, 2015 and it was completed within 20 days.

16. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that the Accused Officer was Assistant Executive Engineer, minor irrigation, Yerravaripalem

Section, Chittoor District and he inspected the said work executed by him and he check measured the said work and the measurements were noted in the M Book. The Accused Officer demanded his assistant by name Balaiah, who was present at the time of inspection, where the work was executed to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- for forwarding the bill.

His assistant by name Balaiah contacted him over a phone and informed the demand of the Accused Officer. Then he replied to his assistant over a phone that there was no necessity to pay any amount to the Accused

Officer. The Accused Officer check measured the work and noted the measurements in the M Book.

17. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on 18.12.2015 he went to the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupati for enquiring his bill and he found the Accused Officer in the premises of the said office and he was informed by the Accused Officer that his bill was passed and he has to pay the amount earlier demanded by him. He did not give any reply to the said demand of the Accused Officer and kept quite on the ground that he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer. Then the Accused Officer threatened him stating that if he failed to pay the demanded amount of Rs.15,000/- for the work 11 executed by him to the cost of Rs.1,07,000/-, in future works he would not cooperate for passing of the bills and also see that no contract work would be allotted to him by the Janmaboomi committee in future. Then he discussed the aforesaid matter with other Janmaboomi committee members and they all finally decided to lodge a report against the

Accused Officer in ACB office, Nellore, as he executed the work on no profit and no loss basis. On 21.12.2015 at about 10.30 am he went to

ACB office, Tirupati along with his friend by name Gurukrishna Mohan and lodged Ex.P1- report to the DSP, ACB, Tirupati (PW.11) for taking necessary action against the Accused Officer.

18. It was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 on behalf of the

Accused Officer that the total estimated cost of the work was

Rs.1,70,000/-. After deducting VAT and CESS charges, the total estimate costs of the work in question was Rs.1,56,390/-. On 11.09.2015 the

Accused Officer inspected and measured the work in his presence and recorded in the M- book for Rs.1,07,336/- only and obtained his signatures on M- Book by the Accused Officer. On 11.09.2015 itself the

Accused Officer forwarded the M- Book along with the bill to the Deputy

Executive Engineer, Chandragiri. He denied his knowledge that the

Deputy Executive Engineer, Chandragiri forwarded the said file on 11.09.2015 to the Executive Engineer, Tirupati. Either prior to this work or after this work, he did not execute any similar contract works. The

Executive Engineer, Tirupati through pay and accounts division credited the total bill amount of Rs.1,07,336/- to his bank account on 11.12.2015.

He entrusted the aforesaid work to one Balaiah, who is a contractor, to execute the said work. The said Balaiah spent his own funds for executing the aforesaid contract work. He withdrawn the amount from the bank after credited the bill amount to his account, handed over the same to the said Balaiah.

12

19. PW.3, who is the then MPDO of Yerravaripalem mandal, in his evidence stated that the District Collector accorded permission to de-silt of feeder channel from Sankrantigutta to Pakeervani cheruvu of

Chintakunta village and entrusted the same to the Janmabhoomi committee members of Chintakunta village. He forwarded the said proceedings and relevant papers to the Panchayath Secretary,

Chintakunta village. PW.1 was nominated by the Janmaboomi committee to take up the work and the Panchayath Secretary forwarded the resolution (Ex.P3) passed by the Janmaboomi committee on 07.08.2015 nominating PW.1 to take up the said work to the MPDO office,

Yerravaripalem mandal. On receipt of Ex.P3 resolution, he forwarded the same to the Accused Officer , who was the Assistant Executive Engineer,

Minor Irrigation, Yerravaripalem section.

20. PW.4, who was the incharge of Panchayat Secretary,

Chintakunta Gram Panchayat in his evidence stated that the District

Collector accorded permission to de-silt of feeder channel from

Sankrantigutta to Pakeervani cheruvu of Chintakunta village and entrusted the said work to the committee members of Janmaboomi of

Chintakunta village. He was convener of the said Janmaboomi committee and the said committee passed a resolution on 07.08.2015 under Ex.P3 nominating PW.1 to take up the aforesaid work and forwarded the said

Ex.P3 resolution to the office of MPDO, Yerravaripalam section. He also signed in Ex.P3 resolution in the capacity of Panchayath Secretary cum convener of Janmaboomi Committee.

21. PW.6, who is the then Sarpanch of Chintakunta village in his evidence stated that he was elected as Sarpanch to the Chintakunta village from July, 2013 to 2nd August, 2018. During the said period, he was also acted as chairman of janmaboomi committee. PW.1 was a member of the said Janmaboomi committee. The District Collector 13 accorded permission to de-silt of feeder channel from Sankrantigutta to

Pakeervani cheruvu of Chintagunta village and entrusted the said work to the Janmabhoomi committee members of Chintakunta village. PW.4 was convener of the janmaboomi committee. The said Janmabhoomi committee was under his leadership passed a resolution on 07.08.2015 under Ex.P3 nominating PW.1 to take up the aforesaid work and forwarded the said Ex.P3 resolution to the MPDO office, Yerravaripalem section. Later PW.1 executed the work entrusted to him and at that time, the Accused Officer worked as Asst Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation,

Yerravaripalem section.

22. PW.7, who is the then Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division,

Madanapalli, in his evidence stated that while he was working as

Executive Engineer, the Accused Officer worked as Assistant Executive

Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Yerravaripalem section. The work of the Accused Officer is after completion of any contract works relating to the department by the contractors, he has to take the measurements and enter the said measurements in the M-book and he has to submit the M-book along with his recommendations to the Executive Engineer,

Irrigation Department, Tirupati.

23. PW.8, who is Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tirupati, in his evidence stated that he obtained Ex.P6 agreement from PW.1 regarding the work taken up by PW.1 i.e., to de-silt of feeder channel from Sankrantigutta to Pakeervani cheruvu of Chintakunta village. As per

Ex.P6-agreement, the work was entrusted to P.W.1 on 14.08.2015, stipulating two months period for completion of the said work covered by the agreement. The approximate value of the work was arrived at

Rs.1,56,390/-. Accordingly, PW.1 taken up the said work and completed the same by September, 2015. By then, the Accused Officer worked as

Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Yerravaripalem section 14 and the Accused Officer was the authority to check measure the work.

24. PW.8 in his evidence further stated that the Accused Officer has to inspect the work executed by PW.1 and note the measurements in the M-book and forward the same to the Deputy Executive Engineer along with his recommendations for preparation of the bill amount and he has to counter check of the said M-book. He was also in charge of

Executive Engineer, Tirupati from December, 2014 to January, 2018, during the said period, his original post was Deputy Executive Engineer,

Chandragiri Division and Yerravaripalem is within his jurisdiction. The

Accused Officer after check measure the work done by PW.1 forwarded the M-book with his recommendations for preparing the bill and it was received by him on 11.09.2015 and he cross checked the same in the capacity of Executive Engineer on 05.11.2015 and after verifying the M- book an amount of Rs.1,07,336/- was estimated as value of the work done by PW.1. Accordingly, his department paid the said amount to

PW.1. Ex.P7 is the M-book, relating to the work taken up by PW.1. Ex.P8 is his letter dated 05.03.2016 which contains the procedure for execution of the work and the duties of Assistant Executive Engineer in completing his part of the job.

25. It is an undisputed fact that the defacto complainant namely

Badaganapalle Murali Mohan (PW.1) is a native of Chintakunta village of

Yerravaripalem mandal and he is practicing as an Advocate at the Bar

Association of Tirupati. The District Collector, Chittoor accorded permission to de-silting of feeder channels feeding from Sankranthigutta to Pakeervani Cheruvu of Chintakunta village of Yerravaripalem mandal and entrusted the execution of the said work to the Committee members of Janmabhoomi committee of Chintakunta village. The incharge

Panchayat Secretary of Chintakunta Grama panchayat by name

Palapandala Ramachandra (PW.4) was the Convener and the Sarpanch of 15 Chintakunta village by name Kanchana Lokeswara (PW.6) was the

Chairman of said Janmabhoomi Committee. PW.1 and four others were nominated members of the Janmabhoomi Committee of Chintakunta village. On 07.08.2015 the said Janmabhoomi committee passed a resolution under Ex.P3 nominating PW.1 to take up the aforesaid work and forwarded Ex.P3 resolution to MPDO, Yerravaripalem Section (PW.3).

On receipt of Ex.P3 resolution by PW.3, he forwarded the same to the

Accused Officer, who was Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation,

Yerravaripalem Section.

26. It is also an undisputed fact that PW.1 entered into an agreement with Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department at Tirupati on 14.08.2015 (Ex.P6) for executing the work of de-silting of feeder channels feeding from Sankranthigutta to Pakeervani Cheruvu of

Chintakunta village of Yerravaripalem mandal, stipulating two months period for completion of the said work covered by the agreement and the approximate value of the work was arrived at Rs.1,56,390/-.

Accordingly, PW.1 taken up the said work and completed the same by

September, 2015. It is also an undisputed fact that the Accused Officer, who was Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Yerravaripalem

Section was the authority to check measure the work executed to PW.1.

The Accused Officer has to inspect the work done by PW.1 and note down the measurements in the M-Book and forward the same to the

Deputy Executive Engineer along with his recommendation for preparation of the bill amount and the said Deputy Executive Engineer has to counter check of the said M-Book. Accordingly, the Accused

Officer, inspected the work executed by PW.1 on no profit and no loss basis and he check measured the said work and measurements were taken in the M-book.

27. It is also an undisputed fact that the Accused Officer after 16 check measured the work executed by PW.1, forwarded the M-Book with his recommendations for preparing the bill to the tune of Rs.1,07,336/- to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Chandragiri Division, who received the same on 11.09.2015 and he cross checked the same in the capacity of Executive Engineer as he was incharge of the said post, on 05.11.2015 and after verifying the M-Book, an amount of Rs.1,07,336/- was estimated as the value of the work done by PW.1. Ex.P7 is the M-

Book relating to the work taken up by PW.1 and estimated the work executed by PW.1 to the tune of Rs.1,07,336/-. The said bill amount of

Rs.1,07,336/- was credited to the bank account of PW.1 on 11.12.2015.

28. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that the total estimated cost of the aforesaid work was Rs.1,70,000/-. After deducting

VAT and CESS charges, the total estimated costs of the work in question was Rs.1,56,390/-. On 11.09.2015 the Accused Officer inspected and check measured the work in his presence and recorded in the M-Book for

Rs.1,07,336/- only and obtained his signatures on M-Book by the

Accused Officer. On 11.09.2015 itself, the Accused Officer forwarded the

M-Book (Ex.P7) along with the bill to the Deputy Executive Engineer,

Chandragiri. The Executive Engineer through pay and Accounts Division credited the total bill amount of Rs.1,07,336/- to his bank account on 11.12.2015.

29. As per the prosecution, the Accused Officer demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- for bribe for check measuring the work and for sending M-Book for Rs.1,07,000/- to his higher officials. As PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he left the office of the Accused Officer.

Again, after one week, when PW.1 met the Accused Officer regarding his bill amount, the Accused Officer reiterated his earlier demand by threatening that if he failed to pay the bribe amount he would reject his work stating, as it was not done properly. Then PW.1 expressed his 17 inability to pay that much amount, for which, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay atleast Rs.15,000/- after sanctioning of the bill amount. The contents of the charge sheet does not reveal anywhere the relevant dates i.e. the date of commencing and its completion by PW.1, the dates of PW.1 met the Accused Officer and the dates when Accused

Officer demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe amount for doing official favour.

30. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, he stated that the Accused

Officer demanded his assistant namely Balaiah to pay a sum of

Rs.21,000/- as bribe for forwarding the bill along with the M-Book recommending to pay the bill amount. His assistant namely Balaiah informed the demand of the Accused Officer over a phone. On 18.12.2015 he went to the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation

Department, Tirupati for enquiring his bill and found the Accused Officer in the premises of the said office and he was informed by the Accused

Officer that his bill was passed and he has to pay the amount earlier demanded by him. As per the aforesaid evidence of PW.1, the Accused

Officer demanded bribe amount to the assistant of PW.1 by name

Balaiah, when the Accused Officer inspected the work executed by PW.1 prior to check measuring the said work. At that time, PW.1 was not present at the place where the work was executed and no demand was made by the Accused Officer to PW.1 at the time of check measure the work. But the evidence of PW.1 reveals that the demand was made by the Accused Officer to him to pay the bribe amount on 18.12.2015 at the premises of office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department,

Tirupati. This part of testimony made by PW.1 was not found either in his

Ex.P1 report or in his earlier statements made to the ACB police concerned recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Judicial

Magistrate recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

31. It is already stated supra that on 11.09.2015 itself the Accused 18 Officer inspected the work executed by PW.1 and check measured the work and noted the measurements in M-Book and forwarded the said M-

Book along with bill for Rs.1,07,336/- to the Deputy Executive Engineer,

Chandragiri with his due recommendations and on 11.09.2015 itself the

Deputy Executive Engineer, Chandragiri forwarded the said bill to the

Executive Engineer, Tirupati and later on 11.12.2015 the total bill amount of Rs.1,07,336/- was credited to the bank account of PW.1, which is prior to the demand dated 18.12.2015 was made by the Accused

Officer as per the evidence of PW.1.

32. It is also an undisputed fact that PW.1 lodged Ex.P1 report in

ACB office, Tirupati on 21.12.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. to DSP, ACB,

Tirupati by name A. Sankar Reddy (PW.11). By the date of lodging Ex.P1 report to PW.11, no official favour was pending with the Accused Officer and PW.1 forwarded M-Book along with bill for Rs.1,07,336/- along with his due recommendations to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Chandragiri on 11.09.2015 which is two months prior to the lodging of Ex.P1 report.

Even the bill amount of Rs.1,07,336/- was credited to the bank account of PW.1 on 11.12.2015, which is 10 days prior to the lodging of Ex.P1 report in ACB office, Tirupati.

33. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has vehemently contended that in the instant case the prosecution failed to establish any official favour was pending with the Accused

Officer pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the following decisions:

i) The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State Vs. K. Narasimhacharyreported in2006 CRI.L.J.518,wherein it was held that – “The Accused Officer merely a recommending authority and not the valuation or the final authority. The Accused Officer also not a outward Clerk for issuance of property 19 Valuation Certificate. The said Certificate was already forwarded and signed by final authority before alleged demand of bribe by the Accused Officer. Aforesaid circumstances create suspicion about demand of bribe. The acquittal of the Accused Officer was proper.” ii) The decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 Crl.L.J. 3155, wherein it was held that – “From the prosecution witnesses it is proved that there was no work of Radhey Shyam pending with the accused, therefore he could not have given even any money as bribery. Demand of the money by the Accused is not proved. Accused is entitled for acquittal”.

iii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1994 CRI.L.J.1383,wherein it was held that – “There was no motive for demanding and accepting the bribe because no bill was pending before the accused for pre-audit. Acquittal of the accused by trial court justified.”

34. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that it is clear in the evidence of PW.1 that the

Accused Officer demanded bribe at the time of check measure the work executed by PW.1 and further the Accused Officer demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe amount after passing of the bill and therefore the official favour pertaining to PW.1 was pending with the Accused Officer prior to the date of trap. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of Bombay High Court rendered in Prakash Sankarrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2110,wherein it was held that – “As rightly observed by the trial court, for succeeding in the case under P.C. Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused Officer made demand of bribe and accepted amount pursuant to that demand. It may be that Accused Officer could not directly do any favours to the person from whom he was accepting the demand. However, if the Accused Officer is capable of doing certain work and he holds a post or position which can ordinarily be taken to be capable of giving him necessary powers then nothing more is 20 required to be proved by the prosecution that the fact of demand, the representation made by the Accused Officer, of doing favours and the fact of acceptance of bribe.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat

reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1497, wherein it was held that – “If the Accused Officer used his official position to extract illegal gratification, the requirement of the law is satisfied. It is not necessary in such a case for the court to consider whether or not the public servant was capable of doing or intended to do any official act or favour or disfavor.”

35. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record. A perusal of Ex.P1 report lodged to ACB police concerned and the earlier statement of PW.1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C PW.1 does not state the relevant dates when the Accused Officer demanded him to pay the bribe amount for doing official favor. It is already stated supra that on 21.09.2015 the

Accused Officer inspected the work executed by PW.1 and check measured the work and noted down the measurements in M-Book and on the same day the Accused Officer forwarded the M-Book along with the bill for Rs.1,07,336/- to his due recommendations to the Deputy

Executive Engineer, Chandragiri. As per the evidence of PW.1, he was not present on 21.09.2015 when the Accused Officer check measured the work. Therefore, the demanding of bribe amount by the Accused

Officer to PW.1 does not arise.

36. Further, as per the evidence of PW.1, he met the Accused

Officer on 18.12.2015 at the premises of Executive Engineer, Irrigation

Department, Tirupati for enquiring his bill. At that time, he was informed by the Accused Officer that his bill was passed and he has to pay the demanded bribe amount. It was admitted by PW.1 in his cross examination that the bill amount was credited to his bank account on 11.12.2015 itself. When the bill amount was credited to the account of 21 PW.1 on 11.12.2015, there is no necessity to PW.1 to go to the office of

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupati on 18.12.2015 for enquiring about his bill i.e. after one week of the bill amount was credited to the bank account of PW.1. Therefore, the aforesaid version of

PW.1 that he met the Accused Officer on 18.12.2015 at the premises of office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupati and at that time the Accused Officer asked him to pay the demanded bribe amount as the bill amount was credited to his bank account is not believable.

However, PW.1 lodged a report in ACB office, Tirupati on 21.12.2015. It is admitted by PW.1 that the Accused Officer check measured his work on 21.09.2015 and noted the measurements in the M-Book and forwarded the M-Book along with the bill with his due recommendations to the

Deputy Executive Engineer, Chandragiri on 21.09.2015 itself i.e. 3 months prior to lodging of Ex.P1 report. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Accused Officer completed his part of work on 21.09.2015 i.e. 3 months prior to Ex.P1 report and no official favour was pending with the Accused Officer pertaining to PW.1 on the date of lodging of Ex.P1 report or prior to the date of trap.

37. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that the

Accused Officer demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe amount after passing of the bill amount and if PW.1 failed to pay the demanded bribe amount he would not co-operate for passing of the bills in future contract works.

Keeping in view of the said contention raised by the learned Special

Public Prosecutor, I have perused the relevant record. Admittedly, PW.1 is Practicing as an Advocate and he is not supposed to do contract works. But PW.1 in his evidence explained that the aforesaid work was handed over to him by the Janmabhoomi committee of his village to execute the said work on no profit and no loss basis. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that he did not execute any contract works 22 prior to the subject work or after the subject work. Therefore, PW.1 is not a regular contractor and the contention of the prosecution that the

Accused Officer demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe amount after passing of the bill and he would co-operative for passing of the bills for his future contract works does not arise. Having considered the material available on record, I am holding that the prosecution failed to establish that any official favour was pending with the Accused Officer pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap and further the prosecution failed to establish that the Accused Officer assured PW.1 that he would take care of his works to be done in future.

38. POINT NO.III:

It is to be next seen whether the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW.1. As per the prosecution PW.1 completed the work of de-silting of feeder channels feeding from

Sankranthigutta to Pakeervani Cheruvu of Chintakunta village of

Yerravaripalem mandal by the month of September, 2015 and intimated the same to the Accused Officer, who was Assistant Executive Engineer,

Minor Irrigation, Yerravaripalem Section to check measure the said work.

Upon that, the Accused Officer demanded him to pay a sum of

Rs.21,000/- as bribe for measuring the work and for sending the M-Book for Rs.1,07,000/- to his higher officials, for which, PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount. After one week, PW.1 met the Accused Officer regarding his bill amount, upon that, the Accused Officer said that he would rejected his work as it was not done properly, if he turn down to give the bribe amount, upon that, PW.1 expressed his inability to pay that much amount. Then the Accused Officer demanded him to pay atleast Rs.15,000/- to him as bribe after sanctioning of his bill. Having no other go, PW.1 agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount, but unwilling to pay the bribe amount, he approached the ACB office, Tirupati on 23 21.12.2015 at 11.00 a.m. and lodged a report to DSP, ACB, Tirupati by name A. Sankar Reddy (PW.11) for taking necessary action against the

Accused Officer. After due verification, on 22.12.2015 PW.1 registered the report of PW.1 as case in Crime No.20/RCT-TCT/2015 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and investigated into.

39. Further, during the course of investigation, on 22.12.2015 from 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. PW.1 conducted pre-trap proceedings in the presence of two mediators, other Inspectors, staff and PW.1 in ACB office, Tirupati. After completion of pre-trap proceedings, on the same day i.e. on 22.12.2015 at about 11.20 a.m. the Accused Officer was trapped infront of main gate, S.V. Music college near Balaji colony junction, Tirupati, when PW.1 met the Accused Officer infront of the main gate of S.V. Music college and gave a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Accused

Officer on his demand, the Accused Officer received the bribe amount with his right hand kept the same in his trousers right front pocket. The chemical test conducted on the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inner linings of his trousers right front pocket yielded positive results. The bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the right side front pant pocket of the Accused Officer under post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II in the presence of the mediators.

40. In order to prove the demand and acceptance, the prosecution has examined the defacto-complainant namely Badaganapalle Murali

Mohan as PW.1, who reiterated the contents in his Ex.P1 report. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that he commenced the work of de-silting of feeder channels feeding from Sankranthigutta to Pakeervani Cheruvu of

Chintakunta village of Yerravaripalem mandal in the month of

September, 2015 and it was completed within 20 days. The Accused

Officer being Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation,

Yerravaripalem Section inspected the said work executed by him and he 24 check measured the said work and the measurements were taken in the

M-Book. The Accused Officer demanded his assistant by name Balaiah to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- for forwarding the bill, who was present at the time of inspection, where the work was executed. His Assistant by name

Balaiah contacted him over a phone and informed the demand of the

Accused Officer. Then he replied to his assistant over a phone that there was no necessity to pay any amount to the Accused Officer. The Accused

Officer check measured the work and noted the measurements in the M-

Book.

41. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on 18.12.2015 he went to office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupati for enquiring his bill and found the Accused Officer in the premises of the said office and he was informed by the Accused Officer that his bill was passed and he has to pay the amount earlier demanded by him. He did not give any reply to the said demand of the Accused Officer and kept quite on the ground that he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer. Then the accused threatened him stating that if he failed to pay the demanded bribe amount atleast Rs.15,000/- for the work executed by him to the cost of Rs.1,07,000/- he would not co- operate in his future works for passing of the bills and also see that no contract work would be allotted to him by the Janmaboomi committee in future. Then he discussed the aforesaid matter with the other

Janmaboomi committee members and they all finally decided to lodge a report against the Accused Officer in ACB office concerned. While so, on 21.12.2015 at about 10.30 a.m himself and his friend by name

Gurukrishna Mohan went to ACB office, Tirupati and lodged a report to the DSP, ACB, Tirupati (Ex.P1).

42. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that he was informed by

PW.11 that he has to attend the ACB office, Tirupati on the following day 25 along with bribe amount of Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, on 22.12.2015 in between 08.00 a.m. and 08.30 a.m he went to ACB office, Tirupati along with intended bribe amount and met PW.11, who introduced him to the mediators, who are employees of Panchayath Raj Department namely K.

Sudhakar Rao, MPDO of Vadamalapeta mandal and Hussain Khan, Senior

Assistant in the office of MPDO of Tirupati and vice-versa. The mediators asked him whether there were any money transactions in between him and the Accused Officer, for which, he replied “NO”.

43. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that then PW.11 furnished copy of FIR to the mediators and asked them to verify the contents of the report with him. Then the mediators read over the contents of the report to him and he affirmed that the contents of the said report are true and correct. Then PW.11 enquired him whether he brought the intended bribe amount, for which, he replied positively and produced cash of Rs.15,000/- consisting of fifteen Rs.1000/- currency notes and on the instructions of PW.11, 2nd mediator namely Hussain Khan received the said amount from him and verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and incorporated in pre trap proceedings. On the instructions of DSP, one of the constables by name Pardasaradhi prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and handled the currency notes and rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions, they remained unchanged.

44. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that, on the instructions of

PW.11, the said constable applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and kept the said amount in his left side upper shirt pocket after making it empty. Then the said constable rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions, they turned into pink in colour. PW.11 instructed him not to touch the said currency notes and he has to tender the said amount to the Accused Officer in case of his further demand, 26 but not otherwise. In case the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the bribe amount from him, then he should come out and give a signal to the Head constable by name UN Murthy, by combing his hair with his both hands. PW.11 demonstrated the significance of colour tests to him and the mediators. While he was in ACB office, Tirupati at about 10.00 a.m. or 10.15 a.m, he received a phone call from the Accused Officer stating to come to in front of SV Music college, where the request bus stop is located. The 2nd mediator namely Hussain Khan scribed pre trap proceedings and it was concluded by 10.30 am. While he was in ACB office, Tirupati, he contacted to his brother-in-law by name Chandrababu and asked him to come to SV Music College, Tirupati for his protection.

45. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on the same day at about 11.10 a.m. himself, mediators, DSP, Inspectors and other ACB staff started from ACB office, Tirupati in two TATA Sumo vehicles in order to go to SV Music college, Tirupati and they reached request bus stop situated opposite to S.V. Music College, Tirupati at about 11.15 a.m. and found his brother-in-law by name Chandrababu was waiting at the request bus stop and then the DSP got stopped the vehicles there and asked him to get down from the vehicle. He was instructed by the DSP that they would call to his mobile phone and asked him to keep the mobile phone in the on position at his ear. The ACB police concerned left the said place and took vantage positions at some distance in an auto.

Due to fear, he handed over the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- to his brother-in-law by name Chandrababu. In the meantime, the Accused

Officer got down from the bus at request bus stop and then he shown the Accused Officer to his brother-in-law by pointing out with his index finger towards the Accused Officer stating that he was the person demanded money from him.

46. PW.1 in his evidence further stated the Accused Officer 27 approached him and demanded him to pay the bribe amount of

Rs.15,000/- and then his brother in law handed over the said amount of

Rs.15,000/- to the Accused Officer, who received the said amount with his right hand and kept the said amount in his right side pant pocket.

The Accused Officer, after receiving the amount from him, assured that, he would attend his works promptly in future works to be executed by him. Then he walked away some distance and relayed the pre-arranged signal by combing his hair with his both hands. On receipt of his signal, the head constable namely UN Murthy relayed the signal to the other trap party members by raising up his both hands and then the trap party members led by DSP (PW.11) rushed to the spot and the DSP asked him to wait outside of the gate of S.V. Music college till he was called inside.

At about 03.00 p.m. he was called inside the Music college gate and the

DSP enquired him the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. His version was incorporated in post trap proceedings. At the end of the proceedings, after read over the contents of the proceedings, he signed in the said post trap proceedings. On 23.12.2015 his detailed statement was recorded by PW.11 in ACB office, Tirupati. On 02.01.2016 his statement was recorded by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

U/s 164 of Cr.P.C.

47. PW.11, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on 21.12.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PW.1, he endorsed Ex.P1 report to the Inspector of

Police, ACB, Tirupati by name C. Lakshmikanth Reddy (PW.12) with instructions to verify the contents of the report and also verify the antecedents of the Accused Officer and PW.1. Accordingly, PW.12 caused discreet enquiry and found that the contents of the Ex.P1-report are genuine and the Accused Officer was enjoying bad reputation and PW.12 28 endorsed his preliminary enquiry report on Ex.P1 and submitted the same to him on 22.12.2015 at 6.30 a.m. After obtaining permission from the head office, he registered Ex.P1-report as case in Cr.No.20/RCT-

TCT/2015 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and issued Ex.P13-FIR. As directed, PW.1 came to ACB office, Tirupati on 22.12.2015 at 6.30 a.m.

along with intended bribe amount. PW12 secured the presence of mediators namely Kosuru Sudhakar Rao (PW.9) and S.E Hussain Khan (PW.10) at 7.45 a.m. Himself, Mediators, PW.1, Inspectors and other ACB staff assembled in his room at 8.15 a.m. and commenced Pre-trap

Proceedings. He introduced PW.1 to the Mediators and vice – versa.

48. PW.11 in his evidence further stated that he handed over a copy of FIR to the mediators and asked them to verify the contents of the report with PW.1. Accordingly, the mediators read over the contents of the report to PW.1, who affirmed that the contents of the said report are true and correct. Then, the Mediators endorsed on the copy of FIR as ‘seen and ascertained’ and put their signatures beneath the said endorsement. Then he asked PW.1 whether he brought the intended bribe amount, for which, PW.1 replied positively and produced cash of

Rs.15,000/- consisting of fifteen Rs.1000/- currency notes and on his instructions, PW.10 received the said amount from PW.1 and verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and incorporated in

Ex.P9-Pre-trap Proceedings with his handwriting. On his instructions,

Police Constable No.936 by name Pardasaradhi prepared Sodium

Carbonate Solution in two glass tumblers and the said Constable handled the currency notes received from the mediators and the said

Constable rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solution, it remained unchanged. On his further instructions, the said constable applied thin layer of Phenolphthalein Powder on both sides of currency notes and kept the said currency notes in the left side upper shirt pocket of PW.1 29 after making it empty. He instructed PW.1 not to touch the said currency notes, and he has to tender the said amount to the Accused Officer in case of his further demand, but not otherwise. In case the Accused

Officer demanded and accepted the said bribe amount, then he should come out and give a signal to the HC No.592 by name UN Murthy, who would follow him, by combing his scalp with his both hands.

49. PW.11 in his evidence further stated that he instructed HC No.

592 by name UN Murthy to receive the signal from PW.1 and relay the same to the trap party members by raising up his both hands. On his instructions, Police Constable No.936 rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solution and they turned into Pink in colour. He demonstrated the significance of the chemical tests to the Mediators and PW.1. Then he drawn the samples of Sodium Carbonate Powder and Phenolphthalein

Powder used in Pre-trap Proceedings, Mos.1 and 2 are the same. The Pre- trap Proceedings was drafted by PW.9 and it was concluded by 10.30 a.m. Himself, Mediators, PW.1 and Inspectors signed in Ex.P9-Pre-trap

Proceedings. After completion of pre-trap proceedings, PW.1 received a phone call from the Accused Officer asking him to come to main gate of

SV Music college, Tirupati and further asking him to wait for his arrival.

50. PW.11 in his evidence further stated that at about 11.00 a.m.

himself, mediators, PW.1, Inspectors and other ACB staff left ACB Office,

Tirupati in one TATA Sumo and two hired cars in order to go to SV Music college, Tirupati and reached near SV Music college, Tirupati at about 11.15 a.m. he got stopped the vehicles there, which is nearer to S.V.

Music college. He asked PW.1 to get down from the vehicle and he reiterated his earlier instructions to PW.1 and asked him to proceed to

S.V. Music college gate and he instructed HC No.592 by name UN Murthy to follow PW.1 closely and to take vantage position and relay the signal to other trap party members and after receiving the signal from PW.1.

30 Then, himself, mediators and other trap party members took vantage positions near the SV Music college. At about 11.20 a.m. they received the signal from HC No.592 by name UN Murthy and then all the trap party members rushed towards main gate of SV Music college and on their way, they found PW.1 standing at the entrance of Ambedkar

Bhavan, which is adjacent to the SV Music college. He asked PW.1 to wait outside of the S.V. Music college till he was called inside. Then they proceeded to the main gate of SV Music college and found one male person standing in front of main gate of SV Music college and approached him and he disclosed his identity to the said person and also the identity of other trap party members to the said person. On hearing the identity of ACB officials, the said person stunned and became nervous.

51. PW.11 in his evidence further stated that he got prepared

Sodium Carbonate Solutions in two glass tumblers and he asked the

Accused Officer to rinse his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately, and while doing so, the solution in which the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer were rinsed turned into pink in colour.

Then the resultant solution was transferred into a clean glass bottle, got it sealed, labeled and affixed identity slip duly signed by him and mediators, MO.3 is the same. Then he went inside the SV Music college compound along with Accused Officer and other trap party members and he found watch man in the college compound and requested him to provide tables and chairs for continuation of post-trap proceedings, upon that, the said watchman provided tables and chairs. Then he enquired the Accused Officer about the things that were happened just before their reached the main gate of SV Music college and the version of the

Accused Officer was incorporated in Post-trap Proceedings by the mediators. Then he asked the Accused Officer to produce the bribe 31 amount received from PW.1 and the Accused Officer voluntarily stated that the said amount was kept in his right side pant pocket and he picked up the wad of currency notes from his right side pant pocket.

52. PW.11 in his evidence further stated that on his further instructions, PW.9 received the said wad of currency notes from the

Accused Officer and counted the said amount, it was Rs.15,000/- and verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes, which were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P9-Pre-trap Proceedings.

Then he seized the said amount of Rs.15,000/- (MO.4) from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance. Then he provided one pant to the Accused Officer with a request to remove his wearing pant.

The inner linings of the right side pant pocket of the Accused Officer was subjected to sodium Carbonate Solution test, which yielded positive result. Then the resultant solution was transferred into a clean glass bottle, got it sealed, labeled and affixed identity slip duly signed by him and mediators, MO.5 is the same. He drawn the sample of Sodium

Carbonate Powder used in Post-trap Proceedings( MO.7). He seized pant of the Accused Officer (MO6). Then he asked the Accused Officer to produce the file of PW.1 with him, for which, the Accused Officer stated that the said file was in the office of Executive Engineer, Tirupati, upon that, he contacted the Executive Engineer and informed that the

Accused Officer was trapped by them and requested him to produce the file at S.V. Music college. Then he called PW.1 inside the SV Music

College compound and he enquired PW.1 with regard to the things that were happened from the time of leaving trap party members till relaying of the signal. The version of PW.1 was incorporated in Ex.P10-Post-trap

Proceedings.

53. PW.11 in his evidence further stated that he confronted the version of the Accused Officer with PW.1 and the said version of the 32 Accused Officer was denied by PW.1 and he stuck to his earlier version.

In the meantime, the Executive Engineer by name Nagabushanam (PW.8) appeared before him and produced a brown colour wrapper file and M-Book pertaining to the works done by PW.1. On perusal, the brown wrapper file containing 1 to 26 sheets and M-book containing 1 to 52 sheets, then he seized the M-book and brown colour wrapper file from

PW.8 and the description of the said file and M-book were incorporated in

Ex.P10-post trap proceedings. Then he secured the presence of the watch man (PW.2) and enquired him about the said incident and his version was incorporated in Ex.P10. Then he prepared Rough Sketch for the scene of offence (Ex.P12). At about 04.00 p.m he arrested the

Accused Officer by informing the grounds of his arrest. PW.9 scribed

Post-trap Proceedings with the assistance of PW.10 and it was concluded by 4.15 p.m. Himself, mediators, Inspectors and PW.1 signed in Ex.P10-

Post-trap Proceedings. Copy of Ex.P10 was furnished to the Accused

Officer and obtained his acknowledgement on it.

54. PW.11 in his evidence further stated that on his requisition, the

Executive Engineer, Tirupati sent the job chart and service particulars of the Accused Officer, Exs.P5 and P8 are the same. On the next day, the detailed statement of PW.1 was recorded by him at ACB office, Tirupati.

He got recorded the statement of PW.1 through the Magistrate concerned under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The oral permission to lay the trap was ratified by the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Hyderabad by his Memo, dated 06.01.2016(Ex.P14). As per the memo

dated 06.01.2016 (Ex.P15) given by the Director General, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad further investigation was entrusted to

PW.12.

55. PWs.9 and 10, who are said to be mediators in this case, supported the aforesaid testimony made by PW.11 with regard to 33 conducting Ex.P9-pre-trap proceedings on 22.12.2015 from 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in ACB office, Tirupati wherein they ascertained the contents of Ex.P1-report from PW.1 and found that the contents of Ex.P1 report as genuine and later noted the serial numbers and denominations of currency notes of Rs.15,000/- given by PW.1 as proposed bribe amount.

Further, they supported the testimony of PW.11 with regard to getting the said currency notes tainted with chemical powder and later on the instructions of PW.11 one of the constables applied phenolphthalein powder on both sides of currency notes by using cotton swab and kept the said currency notes in the upper shirt pocket of PW.1 after making it empty and told him that not to touch the said currency notes. PW.11 further instructed PW.1 to give the said amount to the Accused Officer on his further demand only and then give a pre-arranged signal. Further,

PW.11 demonstrated the chemical test and explained their significance to them and PW.1.

56. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that on 22.12.2015 at about 10.45 a.m., himself, PW.10, D.S.P (PW.11), Inspectors, PW.1 and other ACB staff started from ACB office, Tirupati in two vehicles and at about 11.00 a.m they reached one Church where the DSP got stopped the vehicles and asked PW.1 to proceed to the place where the DSP told him. Accordingly, PW.1 proceeded to the said place and the DSP reiterated his earlier instructions to PW.1. At about 11.20 a.m. PW.11 might have been received the signal and he did not witness the said signal. PW.11 asked them to proceed and then they followed the DSP and other trap party members and they went to SV Music college gate and found PW.1 near the gate and the DSP asked PW.1 to wait at some distance from the gate of SV Music college. They found one person at SV

Music college gate and then PW.11 approached the said person, who was waiting near the gate of SV Music college and disclosed his identity and 34 the identity of other trap party members and ascertained the identity of the said person as the Accused Officer. Then PW.11 got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked the Accused Officer to rinse his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately and while doing so, the solution in which right hand fingers of the Accused Officer were rinsed turned into pink in colour and there was no change in the colour where the Accused Officer rinsed his left hand fingers. The resultant solution was transferred into a glass bottle, got it sealed, labeled and affixed identity slip duly signed by them, MO.3 is the same.

57. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that then PW.11 enquired the Accused Officer about the bribe amount, for which, the Accused

Officer replied that he kept the said amount of Rs.15,000/- in his right side pant pocket and the Accused Officer voluntarily picked out a wad of currency notes from his right side pant pocket and on the instructions of the DSP, Accused Officer handed over the said amount to him and he counted the said amount, it was Rs.15,000/- and he verified denominations and numbers of the currency notes, which were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P9 Pre-trap Proceedings. Then PW.11 received the said cash of Rs.15,000/- from him, MO.4 is the same. PW.11 conducted post-trap proceedings in one room near the gate of SV Music college, Tirupati. PW.11 enquired the Accused Officer with regard to the things that were happened just before their entering into the said place.

The version of the Accused Officer was incorporated in Ex.P10- post trap proceedings by him with his hand writing. PW.11 provided another pant to the Accused Officer and asked him to remove his wearing pant. The inner linings of the right side pant pocket of the Accused Officer was subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, which yielded positive result. The resultant solution was transferred into another bottle, got it sealed, labeled and affixed identity slip, MO5 is the same. The DSP 35 seized the pant of the Accused Officer (MO.6).

58. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that then PW.11 called PW.1 to the said place and enquired him with regard to the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. The version of PW.1 was incorporated in Ex.P10-post trap proceedings. Then PW.11 secured the presence of Executive Engineer of

Irrigation Department and recovered the relevant documents from him.

The said Executive Engineer produced M-book and other vouchers and the same were seized by PW.11. Exs.P3 to P6 are the same made up files. At about 04.00 pm the Accused Officer was arrested by PW.11 after informing the grounds of arrest. PW.11 drawn the sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post trap proceedings (MO.7). He scribed

Ex.P10-post trap proceedings and it was concluded by 04.15 pm.

59. PW.10, who is the second mediator, supported the aforesaid testimony made by PW.9 with regard to conducting post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II and conducting chemical test to the hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inner linings of right side pant pocket of Accused Officer and seizure of tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1, 9 to 11, the prosecution has examined the

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tirupati as PW.8, who stated in his evidence that on 22.12.2015 in between 11.30 and 12.00 noon while he was attending the work at Tirupati rural, he received a phone call from DSP, ACB, Tirupati (PW.11) and informed that the Accused Officer was trapped by them and asked him to produce the relevant file at SV

Music College, Tirupati. Then he went to SV Music college, Tirupati and informed to PW.11 that the concerned file was with Pay and Accounts office at Tirupati.

60. PW.12, who is said to be conducting preliminary enquiry on 36 Ex.P1 report and 2nd Investigating Officer in this case, in his evidence stated that on 21.12.2015 at about 11.15 am PW.11 entrusted Ex.P1 report to him for verification of its contents and verification of antecedents of the Accused Officer and PW.1. Accordingly, he conducted preliminary enquiry on Ex.P1 report and found that the contents of Ex.P1 report are genuine and the Accused Officer was enjoying bad reputation while discharging his duties and there was no enimity to P.W.1 against the Accused Officer and he endorsed preliminary enquiry report on Ex.P1 and submitted the same to P.W.11 on 22.12.2015 at 06.30 a.m. He filed a requisition before Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chittoor with a request to depute one Gazetted Officer and one Non-Gazetted Officer to act as mediators and also communicated message to PW.1 to attend

ACB office, Tirupati on 22.12.2015 at about 06.00 a.m. along with intended bribe amount. He assisted PW.11 in conducting pre- trap and post- trap proceedings.

61. PW.12 in his evidence further stated that as per Ex.P15 memo issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, wherein he was authorized to conduct further investigation in this case. He took up investigation in this case and during his investigation, on 04.02.2016 he has examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws 2, 3 and 8. On 04.03.2016 he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.4. On 07.03.2016 he has examined and recorded the statements of R. Venkata

Ramana (LW.9), D. Rajakumari (LW.10) and N. Rathanamma (LW.11). On 19.03.2016 he has examined and recorded the statements of K. Vasanthi (LW.7) and PW.6. On 05.02.2016 he issued a show-cause notice(Ex.P16) to the Accused Officer calling his explanation and also on 22.02.2016 he issued a reminder notice (Ex.P17) to the Accused Officer calling his explanation and on receipt of the reminder notice, the Accused Officer submitted his explanation dated 27.02.2016 (Ex.P18) signed on 37 01.03.2016. He also received Ex.P8 service particulars and job chart of the Accused Officer along with covering letter dated 05.03.2016 from

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tirupati. He received a memo

dated 19.05.2017(Ex.P19) from the Director General, ACB, Vijayawada

along with prosecution sanction order, wherein he was authorized to file a charge sheet against Accused Officer. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the Accused Officer.

62. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he categorically stated that on 22.12.2015 from 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. pre-trap proceedings (Ex.P9) was conducted in ACB office, Tirupati in the presence of the mediators, wherein DSP, ACB, Tirupati (PW.11) demonstrated the significance of chemical tests. He handed over the bribe amount to the mediators and the denominations and numbers of the currency notes were incorporated in Ex.P9-pre-trap proceedings and after applying phenolphthalein powder on both sides of currency notes, the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- was kept in his left side upper shirt pocket after making it empty and after completion of pre-trap proceedings, they started from ACB office, Tirupati. This part of testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.9 and 10, who are the mediators said to be present at the time of conducting pre-trap proceedings in ACB office, Tirupati.

63. PWs.9 and 10, who are the mediators, in their evidence further stated that the chemical test organized on the right hand fingers of the

Accused Officer yielded positive result and so also inner linings of right side pant pocket of the Accused Officer. The aforesaid testimony made by PWs.9 and 10 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.11, who led the trap party members and first Investigating Officer in this case. The cross examination of PW.11 on behalf of the Accused Officer could not extract any material for him to speak false against the Accused Officer on the 38 aforesaid aspect. The cross examination of PWs.9 and 10 also could not extract any material for them to speak false against the Accused Officer or to speak any undue favour of ACB police concerned for any extraneous considerations as such on the above aspect. Hence, I am not at all disbelieving the testimony PWs.9 to 11 in respect of conducting chemical test to the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inner linings of right side pant pocket of the Accused Officer. As there are no valid reasons for disbelieving the testimony of PWs.9 to 11 as nothing substantial was extracted in their cross examination to discrete their testimony.

64. As seen from the evidence of PWs.9 to 11, the testimony made by PW.11 with regard to chemical test conducted to the right hand fingers of Accused Officer and inner linings of right side pant pocket of the Accused Officer yielded positive results corroborated by the evidence of PWs.9 and 10, who are the mediators. PWs.9 and 10 in their evidence categorically stated that the colour test conducted to right hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inner linings of right side pant pocket of

Accused Officer yielded positive results. The cross examination of PWs.9 and 10 on behalf of the Accused Officer could not extract any reason for making such a false statement as against Accused Officer, so far as sodium carbonate solution test conducted to the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer and inner linings of the right side pant pocket of the

Accused Officer yielded positive result. This part of testimony made by

PWs.9 to 11 leaves little scope for any kind of discrepancy or non corroboration within their testimony. PWs.9 and 10, who are the independent witnesses, there is no need for them to speak false against the Accused Officer.

65. As far as demand is concerned, as per the prosecution in the month of September, 2015, the Accused Officer demanded PW.1 to pay a 39 sum of Rs.21,000/- as bribe for measuring and for sending the M-Book for Rs.1,07,000/- to his higher officials. This is the first demand made by the Accused Officer to PW.1 as per the prosecution version. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, he stated in his evidence that the Accused Officer, who was Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Yerravaripalem

Section, inspected the work executed by him in the month of September, 2015 and prior to taking measurements, the Accused Officer demanded his Assistant namely Balaiah to pay a sum ofRs.21,000/- as bribe for forwarding the bill. The said demand made by the Accused Officer was intimated to him by his assistant namely Balaiah over a phone. This part of testimony made by PW.1 reveals that no demand was made by the

Accused Officer directly to PW.1 on the place where PW.1 executed the contract work. Moreover, PW.1 was not present at the time of demanding bribe by the Accused Officer and at that time one Balaiah was present.

PW.1 came to know about the demand of the Accused Officer through the said Balaiah. But the prosecution did not examine the said Balaiah

before the Court, who is material witness to prove the said demand

made by the Accused Officer and even the Investigating Officer did not cite the said Balaiah as a witness. Therefore, the first demand is concerned there is no acceptable evidence placed before the Court by the prosecution.

66. As far as second demand is concerned, as per the prosecution after one week from the first demand, PW.1 met the Accused Officer regarding his bill amount , upon that, the Accused Officer said that he would reject his work as it was not done properly if he turn down to give the bribe amount, for which, PW.1 expressed his inability to pay that much amount. Then the Accused Officer demanded him to pay atleast

Rs.15,000/- after sanctioning of bill amount. As per the aforesaid version of the prosecution the said demand was made after one week of the first 40 demand and it might have been in the last week of September, 2015 or first week of October, 2015. But PW.1 in his evidence did not state in respect of the said demand made by the Accused Officer in his evidence.

On the other hand, PW.1 in his evidence stated that on 18.12.2015 he went to the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupati for enquiring his bill amount and he found the Accused Officer in the premises of the said office and he was informed by the Accused Officer that his bill was passed and he has to pay the amount earlier demanded by him.

67. The aforesaid testimony made by PW.1 is not found in his

Ex.P1 report made to the ACB police concerned or in his earlier statements made to the ACB police concerned recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C. and learned Judicial Magistrate recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. This is entirely new version introduced by PW.1 in his evidence

before the Court. The 2nd demand made by the Accused Officer after one

week of the first demand, the prosecution did not put forth any evidence in respect of the 2nd demand made by the Accused Officer. On the other hand, PW.1 in his evidence stated that the Accused Officer demanded the bribe amount on 18.12.2015 in the premises of office of Executive

Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupati. This is entirely developed version and the aforesaid version was not found in the earlier statements made by PW.1.

68. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of the

Accused Officer that on 11.09.2015 the Accused Officer inspected and measured the work in his presence and recorded the measurements in the M-Book for Rs.1,07,336/- only and obtained his signature on M-Book by the Accused Officer. This part of testimony made by PW.1 in his cross examination was not found in his evidence in chief examination. PW.1 in his evidence in chief examination stated that the Accused Officer check 41 measured the work in the presence of his assistant by name Balaiah. But during his cross examination, he admitted that the Accused Officer check measured the work on 11.09.2015 in his presence and obtained his signature on the M-Book. Therefore, PW.1 gave different versions as per his convenience. It is noteworthy that PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that the Accused Officer check measured his work on 11.09.2015 in his presence, but he did not say that the Accused Officer demanded him to pay bribe for check measure the work and forward the bill to his higher officials i.e. recommendation to sanction a sum of

Rs.1,07,336/-. PWs.9 and 10, who are the mediators and PW.11, who is the first Investigating Officer, led the trap party did not say anything with regard to the demand made by the Accused Officer to pay bribe amount. It is an undisputed fact that PWs.9 to 11 are not eye witnesses to the alleged demand made by the Accused Officer to PW.1 to pay either Rs.21,000/- or Rs.15,000/- as bribe for doing official favour.

69. As far as acceptance of bribe amount is concerned, as per the prosecution on 22.12.2015 at about 11.20 a.m. the Accused Officer was trapped in front of main gate of SV Music college, near Balaji colony,

Tirupati, wherein PW.1 met the Accused Officer in front of the SV Music college gate and gave a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Accused Officer on his demand and the Accused Officer received the bribe amount from PW.1 with his right hand and kept the same in his trousers right front pocket.

The bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the right side front pant pocket of the Accused Officer at his instance under post trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II.

70. In order to prove the acceptance of the bribe amount, the prosecution has examined the defacto-complainant namely B. Murali

Mohan as PW.1, who stated in his evidence that on 22.12.2015 at about 11.10 a.m. himself, mediators, DSP, Inspectors and other ACB staff 42 started from ACB office, Tirupati in two TATA Sumo vehicles in order to go to SV Music college, Tirupati and they reached request bus stop situated opposite to SV Music College, Tirupati at about 11.15 a.m, he found his brother in law by name chandrababu was waiting at the request bus stop. Then the DSP got stopped the vehicles there and asked him to get down from the vehicle and he was instructed by the that DSP that they would call to his mobile phone and asked him to keep his mobile phone in the on position at his ear. The ACB police concerned left the said place and they took vantage positions at some distance in an auto. Due to fear, he handed over the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- to his brother in law by name Chandrababu. In the meantime, the

Accused Officer got down from the RTC bus and was coming towards request stop and then he shown the Accused Officer to his brother-in-law by pointing out his index finger towards the Accused Officer stating that he was the person demanded money from him.

71. Further, the Accused Officer approached him and demanded him to pay the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- and then his brother-in-law handed over the said amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Accused Officer, who received the said amount with his right hand and kept the said amount in his right side pant pocket. The Accused Officer after receiving the bribe amount from him assured that he would attend his works promptly in future to be executed by him. Then he walked away some distance and relayed the pre arranged signal. On receipt of the signal, the Head constable namely U.N. Murthy relayed the signal to the other trap party members by raising up his both hands and then the trap party members led by DSP rushed to the spot and the DSP asked him to wait at the gate of SV Music college till he was called inside. At about 03.00 pm he was called inside the Music college gate and the DSP enquired him the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till 43 relaying of the signal and his version was incorporated in Ex.P10-post trap proceedings.

72. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of the

Accused Officer that the Accused Officer never demanded him to pay any bribe directly at any point of time. The Accused Officer never demanded him to pay either Rs.21,000/- or Rs.15,000/- as bribe. He did not give the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Accused Officer on 22.12.2015 at the time of trap in this case. He gave tainted amount of

Rs.15,000/- to his brother-in-law namely Chandrababu, but he did not actually witness while Chandrababu paying tainted amount to the

Accused Officer. As seen from this part of evidence of PW.1 in his cross examination, he categorically stated that the Accused Officer never demanded him directly to pay either a sum of Rs.21,000/- or a sum of

Rs.15,000/- as bribe to him for doing official favour and further, he did not hand over tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Accused Officer on the date of trap. Therefore, PW.1 in his evidence in cross examination did not support the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, PW.1 in his evidence in cross examination further stated that he entrusted the aforesaid contract work to one Balaiah, who is the contractor to do the work and the said Balaiah spent his own funds for the aforesaid contract work. He withdrawn the amount from the bank after crediting the bill amount, handed over the same to the said Balaiah, while receiving the said amount from him, the said Balaiah complained him that he got lesser amount than the amount spent for executing the work.

73. Further, PW.1 in his evidence in cross examination stated that he went to ACB office, Tirupati due to pressure from the said Balaiah stating that the Accused Officer done injustice by reducing the bill amount and further he was informed by the Balaiah that the Accused

Officer demanded bribe amount and believing the version of the said 44 Balaiah, he went to ACB office, Tirupati along with Balaiah and

Gurukrishna Mohan on 19.12.2015 and lodged a report in ACB office,

Tirupati. On receipt of his report, he was informed by the ACB officials that they would send a message after verification of contents of Ex.P1.

On 21.12.2015 he was asked to attend before ACB office, Tirupati and accordingly on 21.12.2015 he went to ACB office, Tirupati along with

Gurukrishna Mohan. Ex.P1 is not the report that was given by him to the

ACB police concerned two days prior to 21.12.2015. Ex.P1 report was prepared on the computer available in ACB office, Tirupati by the ACB officials and obtained his signature on Ex.P1.

74. As seen from the aforesaid testimony made by PW.1 in his cross examination, he lodged a report in ACB office, Tirupati on 19.12.2015 due to pressure from Balaiah as the Accused Officer done in justice to the said Balaiah by reducing the bill amount to Rs.1,07,336/- instead of Rs.1,56,390/-. Further, he did not lodge Ex.P1-report in ACB office, Tirupati and the original report lodged by him on 19.12.2015 is not Ex.P1 report and the said original report was not filed in this case and in its place the ACB officials prepared Ex.P1 report on their computer and obtained his signature on Ex.P1 is that of his original report.

75. PW.1 in his evidence in cross examination further stated that as the ACB officials asked him to come to SV Music college request bus stop instead of the office of Executive Engineer, Tirupati, then he got doubt and fear and as such he contacted his brother-in-law namely

Chandrababu over a phone, requesting him to come to SV Music college request bus stop, Tirupati. He along with trap party members went to SV

Music college request bus stop in Tata sumo vehicles. He gave tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- to his brother-in-law namely Chandrababu in the presence of DSP, ACB, Tirupati (PW.11). He received a phone call from

ACB officials stating that they caught hold of the Accused Officer and 45 they further informed him to wait there till they make another phone call. 3 hours later he received a phone call from ACB officials asking him to come to SV Music college compound. The DSP did not record his statement either on the date of trap or subsequently. On 01.01.2016 he was asked to come to ACB office and placed one statement before him and asked him to go through the said statement and he has to give the said statement before the Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, on 02.01.2016 he went to the Court at Tirupati and gave statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate as stated by the ACB officials.

76. As seen from the aforesaid evidence of PW.1 in his cross examination, the Accused Officer received the tainted amount of

Rs.15,000/- from the brother-in-law of PW.1 by name Chandrababu on the date of trap at opposite to SV Music college, Tirupati. This part of version of PW.1 is not found in his earlier statements made to the ACB police concerned and learned Judicial Magistrate. Further, the prosecution did not choose to examine the said Chandrababu before the

Court. The evidence of PW.1 is contrary to the prosecution version that on the demand made by the Accused Officer on 22.12.2015 at about 11.15 a.m. PW.1 gave tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Accused

Officer at opposite to S.V. Music college gate, Tirupati.

77. Further, PWs.9 and 10, who are said to be mediators, in their evidence stated that at about 10.45 a.m. they accompanied DSP,

Inspectors, PW.1 and other ACB staff from ACB office, Tirupati in two

TATA sumo vehicles and reached one Church at 11.00 a.m. and the DSP got stopped the vehicles there and asked PW.1 to proceed to the SV

Music college, Tirupati. SV Music college is situated at a distance of half

KM from their alightening point i.e. Church. The said SV Music college gate is not visible from the Church. PWs.9 and 10 in their evidence further stated that they cannot say whether PW.1 reached the SV Music 46 college or not and it is far away from their place. Even PWs.9 and 10 in their evidence stated that no pre-arranged signal was received by them and they were informed by the DSP (PW.11) that the Accused Officer was caught hold of their other team. This part of testimony made by PWs.9 and 10 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW.11, who is the first

Investigating Officer in this case.

78. Further, PW.10 in his cross examination stated that they did not receive any pre-arranged signal from PW.1, but DSP informed them that the trap was laid, wherein the Accused Officer was caught hold of by their other team and asked them to follow him to SV Music college gate.

Then they followed the DSP on his vehicle from the church to the SV music college gate and they found the Accused Officer in the custody of team of ACB officials consisting of four officials. When they reached the said place, one of the constables in the said team informed him that they caught hold of the Accused Officer while he was receiving bribe from PW.1. This part of testimony made by PW.10 is entirely different from the version of PW.11 and contrary to the case of the prosecution.

79. As per the prosecution, on receipt of pre-arranged signal from

PW.1, the trap party members led by PW.11 proceeded to the SV Music college gate and found the Accused Officer and after organizing chemical test to both hand fingers of the Accused Officer, PW.11 seized the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- from the right side front pant pocket of the Accused Officer at his instance under Ex.P10-post trap proceedings in Meditors Report-II. PW.11 in his evidence supported the said version of the prosecution. But PWs.9 and 10, who are the mediators, did not support the version of PW.11 as well as the version of prosecution and they stated entirely different version that when they reached SV Music college gate they found the Accused Officer in the custody of another team of ACB officials.

47

80. Further, PWs.9 and 10 in their evidence did not support the testimony of PW.11 with regard to recovery of tainted amount of

Rs.15,000/- from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance under Ex.P10-post-trap proceedings. PW.10 in his evidence stated that one of the constables informed them that they recovered bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from the possession of the Accused Officer and kept the said amount on table. The said version of PW.10 is entirely different from the version of the DSP, ACB, Tirupati (PW.11). Therefore, PWs.9 and 10 in their evidence did not support the recovery of the tainted amount from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance in their presence under Ex.P10-post-trap proceedings.

81. As far as the pace of conducting of post-trap proceedings is concerned, PW.11 in his evidence stated that the post-trap proceedings were conducted in the compound of SV Music college, Tirupati and it is open place and the watch man who was present there provided tables and chairs for conducting post-trap proceedings. On the other hand,

PWs.9 and 10 in their evidence categorically stated that the said post- trap proceedings was conducted in a room inside the premises of SV music college and the same was denied by PW.11. Therefore, the prosecution failed to fixing of the place of conducting post-trap proceedings.

82. Further, PW.1, who is the defacto-complainant, in his evidence stated that on the date of trap at about 11.15 a.m. they reached along with ACB officials opposite to SV music college, Tirupati and the ACB police concerned took vantage positions at some distance from SV Music college gate in an auto. But PW.11, who is first Investigating Officer in this case, he did not state that they took vantage positions at some distance from SV Music college gate in an auto. On the other hand,

PWs.9 and 10, who are the mediators, they stated that on the date of 48 trap at about 11.15 a.m. they reached near Church which is at a distance of half kilometer from the SV Music college and the DSP (PW.11) got stopped their vehicles there. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1, 9 to 11, they stated 3 different versions in respect of their alightening point

before reaching the scene of offence prior to the trapl i.e. SV Music

college gate.

83. PW.2, who is said to be eye witness, alleged to be watching meeting of Accused Officer with PW.1 infront of main gate of SV Music college, Tirupati stated in his evidence that he is working as Security

Guard in SV Music college, Tirupati from 2006 onwards. There is no request bus stop near the gate of SV Music College, Tirupati. On 22.12.2015 he attended to his duty during the nighttime. He is not a day duty security guard of the said college. He did not witness any person was apprehended by the ACB officials near SV Music college, Tirupati. As seen from the aforesaid testimony of PW.2, he did not speak any incriminating circumstances in respect of the presence of PW.1 and

Accused Officer by discussing something infront of main gate of compound of SV Music college, Tirupati and thereby he did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought the permission of the Court to declare PW.2 as hostile subjected to cross examine him. Even after his cross examination, nothing of incriminating was elicited as against the Accused Officer. PW.2, who gave incriminating statement against the Accused Officer, when he was examined by the ACB police concerned under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

turned hostile, while he was giving evidence before the Court. At the instance of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, PW.2 was declared as hostile and his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was marked as Ex.P2.

84. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he stated inconsistent 49 versions in their evidence on different stages and therefore the testimony of PW.1 becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence as per the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Suraj Mal Vs.

State (Delhi Admn.,) reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408.

85. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has vehemently contended that the prosecution failed to establish the vital ingredients to constitute the offence of receiving illegal gratification by the public servant while discharging his duties and therefore, the Accused Officer may be acquitted. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the following decisions.

i) The decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police and

another reported in 2015 CRI.L.J.4670, wherein it was held that- “Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, if so facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the P.C. Act”.

ii) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in V. Venkata Subba Rao Vs. State Inspector of Police, A.P. reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.754 , wherein it was held that – “In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of presumption only if a demand is proved” iii) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi through C.B.I. reported in 2015 CRI.L.J. 4399, wherein it was held that-- “The prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant, upon whose evidence much relevance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent” iv) The decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in Nagulapati Mallaiah Vs. The State reported in 2014 CRI.L.J. 1581 wherein it was held that – “Mere facts namely that the chemical test proved positive and the recovery of the tainted amount at the instance of the appellant do not automatically enable the 50 court to draw the presumption against the appellant under Section 20 of the P.C.Act, 1988 unless the prosecution could be able to establish either by positive evidence or from the circumstances brought on record that the appellant voluntarily accepted the bribe amount. Defence available with the Accused Officer that there was possibility for the complainant who was known to be unscrupulous individual in the habit of involving the public servants in false charges of graft and made false complaint against the Accused Officer. Accused Officer is entitled to be benefit of doubt”.

v) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 CRI.L.J. 2787, wherein it was held that – “Mere acceptance of money is not sufficient for convicting the Accused Officer U/Sec. 13(1)(d)(i) of PC Act. There must be evidence on record that the Accused Officer obtained any amount by corrupt or illegal means. A complainant not supporting the prosecution case on the points of demand and acceptance.From the evidence of panch witnesses, it was not clear that there was any demand by the Accused Officer and amount was paid to him by the complainant”.

vi) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2014 CRI.L.J. 2433, wherein it was held that -- “It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the P.C. Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, can be drawn are wholly absent” vii) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in N. Sunkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 230 (SC), wherein it was held that – “It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the Accused Officer without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section7 of P.C. Act, 1988, since demand of illegal gratification is sine- qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13(1)

(d) of the P.C. Act is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the P.C. Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act.

51 Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification, proof of acceptance will not follow”.

Viii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi reported in 2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 434 (SC), wherein it was held that – “In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the Accused Officer has obtained the illegal gratification. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important and when the Accused Officer has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the Accused Officer that the money had been put in the drawer as an illegal gratification”.

ix) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779, wherein it was held that – “Accused Officer can rebut charge either through cross- examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable evidence. It was held that, burden of proof on the Accused Officer under Section 20 of P.C. Act is not the same as the burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”

86. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that the prosecution has established all the vital ingredients such as official favour vested in the Accused Officer for check measure the work executed by PW.1, forwarding M-Book along with bill to his higher officials with his due recommendation and prompt attending check measure future contract works to be undertaken by PW.1, demand of illegal gratification for doing official favour, payment of illegal gratification of

Rs.15,000/- and acceptance of the said amount from the Defacto- complainant (PW.1) by the Accused Officer at the time of trap and therefore the Accused Officer is liable to be punished for the charges framed against him.

87. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Special 52 Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in

B. Vidya Sagar Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh

reported in 2014 (2) ALD (CRL.) 965,wherein it was held that – “The amount was not found in the hands of DW.4 but, underneath the bed and the chemical test conducted to the crucial portion of the bed also yielded positive result. This belies the claim of A.O. and his wife. D.W.4 being the wife of A.O., is an interested witness and her evidence cannot be believed. As per her evidence, when PW.1 tendered some papers to A.O., he angrily returned them saying that, he was not competent to see those papers. If that was the scenario, the question of A.O. writing a letter to Sujatha Reddy requesting her to accept the joining report of PW.1, in that angry mood does not arise. But A.O. is not denying his writing the letter to Sujatha Reddy. The said letter falsifies the happening of the circumstances as spoken by DW.4 on one hand and confirms the prosecution version on the other.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Subbu Singh Vs. State by Public Prosecutor reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3433,wherein it was held that – “So far as the stand that money was kept for the purpose of falsely implicating, the same is without substance. The Accused Officer was a police officer who knew the consequences of the bribe. Once it is proved by the prosecution that the money was demanded as bribe and the same was received from PW.2, Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 comes into play. Once there is a presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 it is for the Accused Officer to establish that the amount was not received as bribe.” iii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi and another Vs.

State of Gujarat reported in (2012)7 Supreme Court

cases 80, wherein it was held that – “The currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellants. In the lengthy cross examination, nothing has really been elicited to doubt their presence and veracity of the testimony.” 53 iv)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in K.L. Bakolia Vs.State Th. Director, C.B.I. passed in Criminalappeal No.797/2015, dated 15.05.2015, wherein it was held that – “Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that, the accused received illegal gratification. Defence plea of the accused that, the currency notes were put under Sofa without his knowledge was rightly rejected by the Courts below.”

v) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Krishna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.2436, wherein it was held that – “The complainant, the investigating officer and other witnesses, who were present when the appellant was caught red-handedly by the Anti Corruption Team have been cross- examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They have been reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.” vi)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inMadhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.175, wherein it was held that – “If a public servant is found in possession of currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein and the prosecution does not have further duty to prove behind the fact that, prosecution witness had paid the demanded money to the appellant, public servant.” vii)In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of U.P. Vs. Dr. G. K. Ghosh reported in AIR 1984 SCR(3) 993 wherein it was held that – “The evidence of a Police Officer cannot be brushed aside as that of an interested witness. That he has an interest is true only to an extent a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen, who complains of harassment by a Government Officer making a demand for illegal gratification, is protected and the role of his department in the protection of such citizens is vindicated”.

viii) The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3224, wherein it was held that – “The corroboration need not be by direct oral evidence and can be gathered from circumstantial evidence. The 54 sole evidence of the complainant, is sufficient to convict a person, if it is reliable, acceptable and trust worthy.” ix) The decision ofKarnataka High Courtrendered in S. Siddaramegowda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.2158 wherein it was held – “The scrutiny of the evidence lead by the prosecution though contains minor discrepancies, sofar as the demand, the evidence of Pws1, 2, 4 and 8 is consistent, cogent and trust-worthy. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses”.

x) In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Vittalaiah Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 776, wherein it was held that – “The prosecution by cogent evidence could establish that, A.O. demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1 and therefore, statutory presumption under section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 follows.” xi) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State (C.B.I.) Vs. Dr. Amarjyothi Baruah passed in Special Case No.3/2010, dt.11.12.2012, wherein it was held that – “The amount which was recovered from the accused is not a legal remuneration, but an illegal gratification as ascertained from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.”

88. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both sides and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record. PW.1, who is the defacto- complainant, in his evidence in cross examination categorically stated that the Accused Officer never demanded any bribe from him directly at any point of time either Rs.21,000/- or Rs.15,000/-. It is already stated supra that the prosecution failed to establish the demand made by the

Accused Officer towards PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe for doing official favour or for attending check measure works for the future contracts to be undertaken by PW.1. There is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the Accused Officer demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of

Rs.15,000/- as bribe for doing official favour. The prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the

Accused Officer. The prosecution has also failed to establish the vital 55 ingredients of demand of bribe amount, payment of Rs.15,000/- towards bribe to the Accused Officer by PW.1 on the date of trap, acceptance of the bribe amount by the Accused Officer from PW.1 in front of SV Music college gate, Tirupati. Moreover, the Accused Officer claimed that he never demanded and accepted any illegal gratification from the defacto- complainant namely B. Murali Mohan (PW.1) and even on the date of trap also, he did not demand any illegal gratification and accepted the same from PW.1 and further the contention of the Accused Officer is that he was falsely implicated in this case. It is already stated supra that the prosecution failed to establish that the Accused Officer demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe for doing official favour.

89. The prosecution is able to prove that pre-trap proceedings were conducted in ACB office, Tirupati on 22.12.2015 in between 8.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. in the presence of PWs.9 and 10 by the DSP, ACB,

Tirupati(PW.11) and the prosecution is also able to prove that the chemical test organized to the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer and also inner linings of right side front pant pocket of the Accused

Officer yielded positive results. But there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the possession of the Accused Officer at his instance on the date of trap. On the other hand, the Accused Officer claimed that he never demanded and accepted any bribe amount from PW.1 for doing any official favour. The said stand taken by the Accused Officer is supported by PW.1 in his cross examination and therefore it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish that the Accused

Officer demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe for doing official favour.

90. The prosecution was able to prove only the chemical test organized to the right hand fingers of the accused Officer and inner 56 linings of right side front pant pocket of the Accused Officer yielded positive results. But prosecution failed to establish that the Accused

Officer demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- for doing official favour and the Accused Officer accepted a sum of Rs.15,000/- from PW.1 for doing official favour on 22.12.2015 at about 11.15 a.m.

91. POINT NO.IV:

It is to be next seen whether the Accused Officer by abusing his official position and also by resorting to illegal and corrupt practices, obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable security either for himself or for some other person. The prosecution did not putforth any acceptable evidence before the Court to prove the demand made by the Accused

Officer to pay illegal gratification either for check measuring the work executed by PW.1 for Rs.1,07,000/-, forwarding the M-Book along with bill with due recommendation to his higher officials or prompt attendance of future check measure future works to be undertaken by

PW.1. PW.1, who is the material witness, did not support the prosecution case with regard to the demand was made by the Accused Officer to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe for doing official favour and therefore PW.1 did not support the prosecution case. It is already stated supra that except conducting colour test to the right hand fingers and inner linings of right side front pant pocket of the Accused Officer, there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the demand was made by the Accused Officer to PW.1 and the Defacto-complainant (PW.1) gave illegal gratification to the Accused Officer on the date of trap, further

PWs.9 to 11 are not eye witnesses to the aspect of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to establish that the Accused Officer by abusing his official position and also by resorting to illegal and corrupt practices obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable security either for 57 himself or for some other person.

92. POINT NO.V:-

It is to be next seen whether there was valid sanction for the prosecution to prosecute the Accused Officer under the Prevention of

Corruption Act,1988. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the Government of AP being competent authority to remove the Accused

Officer from service, has accorded sanction to prosecute the Accused

Officer and to take cognizance of the offence by the competent Court vide G.O.Ms.No.33 Water Resources (Vigilance-I) department dated 09.05.2017 of Special Chief Secretary to the Government. In support of it, the prosecution has examined K. Babu Rao, Section Officer, Water

Resources Department, Vigilance-I, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur

District as PW.5, who stated in his evidence that their office received

Final Report, copy of FIR, Mediators Reports, Statements of witnesses and other relevant material documents from the office of the Director

General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad to accord sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer. After taking advice from the Vigilance

Commissioner, the file was placed before the concerned Minister and after taking approval of the Minister concerned, the file was circulated and placed before the Secretary to the Government, Water Resources

Department, by name Sasibushan Kumar. The said Secretary to the

Government by name Sasibushan Kumar gone through the entire material and after satisfying himself, he issued G.O.Ms.No.33, Water

Resources (Vigilance-I), department dated 09.05.2017 accorded sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer. Ex.P4 bears the signature of the Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department by name

Sasibushan Kumar.

93. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has vehemently contended that the prosecution sanction order issued 58 under Ex.P4 by the Secretary to the Government, Water Resources

Department by name Sasibushan Kumar without application of mind. In support it, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon the decision of Orissa High Court rendered in Md. Tafazul Rehman Vs.

State of Orissa reported in 1985 CRI.L.J.1971, wherein it was held that – “Documents considered by the sanctioning authority are not mentioned in draft sanction order which was produced

in the Court. No evidence showing that, complainant’s

statement was placed before sanctioning authority. Evidence on the contrary showing that, sanctioning authority signed the draft sanction order given by Vigilance Department. It was held that, the sanction was granted without application of mind.”

94. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that the Secretary to the

Government, Water Resources Department by name Sasibushan Kumar after verifying the entire record including the statements of witnesses, Pre- trap and Post-trap Proceedings issued sanction order under Ex.P4 to launch prosecution against Accused Officer and therefore Ex.P4 is valid

Sanction Order in the eye of law. In support of it, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3224, wherein it was held that – “It is well settled that, adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by us by sitting as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. Once the order granting sanction shows that, all the available material were placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction order stands proved.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in K.P. Pullaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 586, wherein it was held that – “PW.4 a Section Officer of the Secretariat, mentioned about the sanction order issued by the Principal Secretary of 59 Revenue Department to prosecute the Accused Officer in this case. He denied a suggestion that the Principal Secretary did not apply his mind while according sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer. The evidence of PW.4 is not relevant to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of the bribe by Accused Officer persons.” iii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of M.P.Vs. Jiyalal reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 72, wherein it was held that – “It was also not justified for the learned Single Judge to hold that the District Magistrate who had passed the sanction order should have been subsequently examined as a witness by the prosecution in order to prove the same. The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona-fide manner. It was of course open to the respondent to question the genuineness or validity of the sanction order before the

Special Judge, but there was no requirement for the District

Magistrate to be examined as a witness by the

prosecution.”

95. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both the parties with regard to validity of the sanction order under Ex.P4 to prosecute the Accused Officer and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record.

PW.5, who is the Section Officer, Water Resources Department (Vigilance.I), A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, in his evidence clearly stated that, after perusing the entire material like copy of FIR,

Mediators Reports, Statements of witnesses etc., and after satisfying himself, Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department, by name Sasibushan Kumar accorded sanction to prosecute the Accused

Officer under Ex.P4. Further, in the aforesaid decision rendered by our

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Jiyalal categorically held

that the Sanction Order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona-fide manner. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer in respect of validity of the sanction order under Ex.P4.

60

96. POINT NO.VI:-

It is already stated supra that the prosecution has established that the Accused Officer was a public servant at the relevant time within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

But the prosecution failed to establish that the Accused Officer demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the defacto- complainant on the date and time of trap, which is other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour and the prosecution has also failed to establish that the Accused Officer being a public servant by abusing his official position as Assistant Executive

Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Yerravaripalem Section obtained a sum of

Rs.15,000/- from the Defacto-complainant (PW.1) on the date of trap for himself, which is pecuniary advantage and thereby the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the Accused Officer and as such the Accused Officer is entitled for acquittal.

97. From the fore-going reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against the Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the

P.C. Act, 1988 and beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the

Accused Officer is entitled for acquittal for the charges leveled against him.

In the result, the Accused Officer is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C.

Act, 1988 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the Accused Officer shall be in force for a period of six months from this day. The case property of M.Os.1 to 3, 5 to 7, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.15,000/- (MO.4) shall be returned to PW.1 after expiry of appeal time.

61

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 13th day of December,

2018.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1:Badaganapalle Murali Mohan, - NONE - Defacto complainant.

PW.2:Kuppam Nalla Rama Rathnam Setty, Security Guard, S.V. Music College, Tirupati.

PW.3:Nallapu Reddy Murali, the then MPDO, Yerravaripalem Mandal.

PW.4:Palapandala Ramachandra, incharge of Panchayat Secretary, Chintakunta village.

PW.5:K. Babu Rao, Section Officer, Water Resource Department, Vigilance-I, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

PW.6:Kanchana Lokeshwara, the then Sarpanch, Chintakunta Gram Panchayat.

PW.7:G. Suresh Babu, Executive Engineer, I & CAD, Irrigation Division, Madanapalli.

PW.8:S.V. Nagabhushanam, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tirupati.

PW.9:K. Sudhakara Rao, the then MPDO of Vadamalapet mandal, 1st Mediator .

62 PW.10:Syed Ehtesham Hussain Khan, the then Senior Assistant, in the office of MPDO, Tirupati rural, 2nd Mediator.

PW.11:A. Sankar Reddy, the then DSP, ACB, Tirupati, First investigating officer.

PW.12: C. Lakshmikantha Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, Tirupati. 2nd Investigating Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1:is the report dated 21.12.2015 lodged by PW.1 to the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P.2:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P.3:is the resolution passed by the Janmabhumi committee dated 07.08.2015 nominated PW.1 to take up the contract work.

Ex.P.4:is the prosecution sanction order in G.O.Ms.No.33, Water Resources(Vigilance-I) department dated 09.05.2017.

Ex.P.5:is the service particulars of the Accused Officer along with coveringletterdated 12.02.2016.

Ex.P.6:is the agreement entered by PW.1withPW.8dated 14.08.2015.

Ex.P.7:is the M-Book relating to the work executed by PW.1.

Ex.P.8:is letter of PW.8 dated 05.03.2016 which contains the procedure for execution work and the duties of Assistant ExecutiveEngineerin completing his part of the job.

Ex.P.9:is the pre-trap proceedings 63

dated 22.12.2015 in Mediators

Report-I.

Ex.P.10:is the post-trap proceedings

dated 22.12.2015 in Mediators

Report-II.

Ex.P.11:is copy of FIR in Crime No.20/RCT-TCT/2015 of ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati.

Ex.P.12:Ex.P12 is the rough sketch for the scene of offence.

Ex.P13:is the original FIR in Crime No.20/RCT-TCT/2015 of ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati.

Ex.P14:is the memo dated 06.01.2016 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad.

Ex.P15:is the memo dated 06.01.2016 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad.

Ex.P16:is the show-cause notice dated 05.02.2016 issued by PW.12 to the Accused Officer.

Ex.P17:is the reminder notice dated 22.02.2016 issued by PW.12 to the Accused Officer.

Ex.P18:is the explanation dated 27.02.2016 submitted by the Accused Officer.

Ex.P19:is the memo dated 19.05.2017 issued by the Director General, ACB, Vijayawada.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

MO.1:is the sealed cover containing sample -- NIL -- of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in pre-trap proceedings.

MO.2:is sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre- trap proceedings.

MO.3:is the sealed bottle containing wash of right hand fingers of the Accused Officer.

64 MO.4:is cash of Rs.15,000/-.

MO.5:is sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of right side front pant pocket of the Accused Officer,

MO.6:is the pant of the Accused Officer

MO.7:is sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post-trap proceedings.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases

-cum-II Addl. District & Sessions

Judge, Nellore.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES–

CUM-II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : NELLORE.

Monday, this the 19 th day of November, 2018.

Present: Sri Mohammed Abdul Rafi,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE NO.2 OF 2014

1.Name of the:State represented by the InspectorofPolice,Anti Complainant CorruptionBureau,Nellore Range, Nellore.

2.Names of the Accused:1) Gosu Venkata Syamala Devi, Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal, persons SPSR Nellore District.

2) Durgampati Srinivasulu, Attender, O/o Tahsildar, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Crime Number:1/RCT-NLR/2012 of ACB., Nellore Range, Nellore.

4.Section of Law:Under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Accused Officer-1 and under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 against Accused No.2.

5.Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty. Persons

6.Finding of the Court: Accused Officer-1 is found not guilty for the offences Punishable Under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988.

2

7.Result:In result, Accused Officer-1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused Officer-1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day. The case property of M.Os.1 to 8 which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.2,000/- (MO.9) shall be returned to PW.1 and cash of Rs.100/- (MO.10) shall be returned to Accused No.2 after expiry of appeal time. Further, the case property of unaccounted cash of Rs.3,300/- (MO.11) shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Venkata Subbaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri V.R Machavaram, counsel for Accused Officer-1 and Sri K.N. Mohan, counsel for Accused No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore has laid a Charge Sheet in Cr.No.1/RCT-NLR/2012 charged under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Accused

Officer-1 and under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Accused No.2 with the following allegations:

2. That Accused Officer-1 worked as Tahsildar, Kaligiri Mandal from 08.04.2011 to 20.01.2012 and Accused No.2 worked as

Attender in the office of Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal from 08.04.2011 to 20.01.2012. By virtue of the posts held by them, they fall under the category of public servants as defined under Section 2 (c) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The defacto-complainant namely Poluboina 3

Srinivasulu (PW.1) is a resident of Padamatigudladona village of

Kaligiri mandal. On 09.02.2008 the then Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal had issued pattadar pass book vide patta No.1069 of 1-B register in the name of PW.1, but the title deed was not issued. PW.1 had 07 cents of the land in S.No.321/1 and 10 cents of the land in

S.No.321/3 at Gudladona Revenue village of Kaligiri mandal and he got registered the same in Sub Registrar Office, Vinjamur vide

Registered Doc No.913/2008 dated 04.08.2008.

On 17.01.2012 PW.1 submitted an application to the

Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal with a request to enter the aforesaid lands in 1-B Register and Adangal Register (fasili No.1421) and to issue 1-

B Nakalu copy, copy of adangal (fasili No.1421) and he also requested to process and issue the title deed book in his name and enclosed the copy of registered documents bearing No.913/2008

dated 04.08.2008, original pattadar passbook and paid Rs.50/- as

fees to get adangal copy and 1-B Nakalu copy. Accused Officer-1 had demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe to do his work, otherwise his work would not be done. On 18.01.2012 in the morning again PW.1 approached Accused Officer-1 and requested about his work, for which, Accused Officer-1 reiterated her earlier demanded bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-, for which, PW.1 pleaded his inability to pay the bribe amount to Accused Officer-1, upon that, Accused Officer-1 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/-, otherwise his work would not be done and as there was no other go, he agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- on the next day and came back.

As PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount to Accused

Officer-1 and he lodged a written report in ACB office, Nellore to

J. Bhaskar Rao, DSP, ACB, Nellore (PW.9) to take necessary against

Accused Officer-1 and the said report was registered as case in 4

Crime No.1/RCT-NLR/2012 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 against Accused Officer-1 after following the due procedure and investigated into. During the course of investigation, PW.9 conducted pre-trap proceedings on 19.01.2012 in between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. in the office of DSP, ACB, Nellore in the presence of two mediators namely Midde Venkata Suresh Babu,

Assistant Executive Engineer (Panchayat Raj Institutions), Mandal

Praja Parishad, Podalakur (PW.2) and Othuri Venkata Ramana, Junior

Assistant, in the office of Superintending Engineer (Panchayat Raj

Institutions), Nellore (LW.3), PW.1, Inspectors and other ACB staff. All the required formalities to be observed were complied with.

On 19.01.2012 the trap party consisting of PW.9, mediators,

PW.1, Inspectors and other ACB staff left the ACB office, Nellore at 11.30 a.m. in Government vehicles and reached Tahsildar Office centre at 01.50 p.m. PW.9 instructed PW.1 to get down from the vehicle and proceed to the office of the Tahsildar, Kaligiri to meet

Accused Officer-1 and to request for issue of 1-B Nakalu copy, adangal copy and to make entries in pattadar pass book as well as title deed and in the event of further demand of bribe by Accused

Officer-1 to pay the amount and not to pay without further demand from Accused Officer-1. Accordingly, PW.1 proceeded to the

Tahsildar office, Kaligiri and went into the office of the Tahsildar and came to know that the Accused Officer-1 went to a camp and she would return in few hours. Then he came out from the office waited in the office premises.

Further, at about 03.00 p.m. he went to the Tahsildar office and enquired about Accused Officer-1, meanwhile Accused No.2, who was attender in the said office, came to him and informed that

Accused Officer-1 would come in the evening and asked him to pay the bribe amount to him intended to be given to Accused Officer-1.

5

Accused No.2 further stated that he would see the work done and the records would be handed over in the next day, upon that, PW.1 told him that he would meet Accused Officer-1 personally and request for his work and came back and waited in the office premises.

Further, at about 5.10 p.m. Accused Officer-1 came to the office in a car. As there were several persons in the office premises,

PW.1 went inside the office room of Tahsildar, when his turn came and requested her about his work. At that time Accused No.2 was also present inside the chamber of Accused Officer-1. Accused

Officer-1 asked PW.1 whether he brought the demanded bribe amount, for which, PW.1 replied positively. Then Accused Officer-1 asked him to pay the bribe amount to Accused No.2. Accordingly,

PW.1 gave a wad of currency notes taken out from his left side upper shirt pocket to Accused No.2, who received the said bribe amount with his right hand and counted with his both hands and informed the Accused Officer-1 that the amount was Rs.2,000/-.

Then Accused Officer-1 asked Accused No.2 to keep the bribe amount with him.

Later Accused Officer-1 asked Accused No.2 to bring the pattadar pass book, title deed, application filed by PW.1 from the rest room which was adjacent to the Tahsildar room. Accordingly,

Accused No.2 brought the above records from the rest room and handed over to Accused Officer-1, who in turn handed over the same to PW.1 and informed that the title deed was signed by the

RDO, Kavali and as well as signed by her and instructed him to meet VRO concerned and get the entries in pattadar pass book and title deed. Then she handed over the application filed by him dated 17.01.2012 and stated that she signed on the said application on that VRO would complete his work and further instructed to get the 6 1-B copy and adangal copy which were with the Deputy Tahsildar.

Further, PW.1 he came out of the Tahsildar office and gave pre-arranged signal by wiping his face thrice with his hands. At about 6.40 p.m. PW.9 received the signal relayed by K.

Venkateswarlu, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore (PW.10).

Immediately, PW.9 and trap party members rushed to the office of

Tahsildar, Kaligiri and entered into the said office and found PW.1 was standing infront of the office of the Tahsildar, Kaligiri. PW.9 asked PW.1 to stay outside the office till he was called. The trap party entered into the office room of the Tahsildar, Kaligiri and found one woman sitting in the Tahsildar office chamber and one male person standing by the side of the said woman. PW.9 disclosed his identity and the identity of the trap party members and ascertained the identity of the woman sitting in the chair as Accused Officer-1 and male person standing by the side of the said woman as

Accused No.2.

Then PW.9 got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and organized chemical test to both hand fingers of

Accused Officer-1 which yielded negative result. Then PW.9 organized chemical test to the hand fingers of Accused No.2, which yielded positive results. Then PW.9 asked accused No.2 to produce the bribe amount received by him from PW.1 a little while ago, upon that, Accused No.2 produced a wad of currency notes taking out from his left side shirt pocket. The 2nd mediator received the amount from Accused No.2 and verified the particulars of the notes, found them tallied with the numbers of the notes recorded in pre-trap proceedings. PW.9 seized the above currency notes amounting

Rs.2,000/- from the possession of Accused No.2. The inner linings of the left side upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2 was subjected to

Sodium Carbonate solution test, which yielded positive result.

7

Further, while removing the shirt of Accused No.2, the mediators noticed 100 rupee note connected with the bribe amount along with some other papers. PW.9 got swabbed Rs.100/- currency note and subjected to sodium carbonate solution test which proved positive result. PW.9 also seized the Rs.100/- currency note from the possession of accused No.2 for the purpose of investigation. Further

PW.9 also seized shirt of Accused No.2. PW.9 confronted PW.1 with the version of Accused Officer-1 that he voluntarily paid the amount without her demand, upon that, PW.1 denied the said version of

Accused Officer-1 and stuck to his earlier version that he paid the amount on further demand of Accused Officer-1 and as per the instructions of Accused Officer-1 he gave the bribe amount to

Accused No.2.

Then PW.9 asked PW.1 to produce the records and application handed over to him by Accused Officer-1 after paying the bribe amount, upon that, PW.1 handed over the records i.e. title deed, pattadar pass book and application for pattadar pass book-title deed and mutation filed by PW.1 and the same were seized by PW.9 with duly attestation of mediators. The above proceedings were reduced into writing in the form of mediators Report-II in detail.

Accused Officer-1 was retired from her services on 31.12.2012 and according to Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988, there is no need to get sanction orders from the competent authority to prosecute Accused

Officer-1 in a Court of Law. Likewise, accused No.2 only abetted the offence committed by Accused Officer-1 and as such no sanction order is needed for him to prosecute him in a Court of Law. Hence the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against Accused Officer-1, and under

Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 against Accused No.2. On 8 appearance of both the accused before this Court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, for which, they denied the commission of offence, whereupon charges under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the

P.C. Act, 1988 were framed against Accused Officer-1 and Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 against Accused No.2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.16 and MOs.1 to 11. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Othuri Venkata Ramana (LW.3).

6. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2 were examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. During the course of defence side evidence, DWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the Accused Officer-1 and no documents were marked on her behalf. Accused No.2 did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and

Accused Officer-1 and counsel for Accused No.2 did not choose to advance his arguments in spite of giving sufficient time and several opportunities and as such the arguments on behalf of Accused No.2 treated as heard and perused the relevant record including written arguments filed on behalf of the prosecution and Accused Officer-1.

9 8. Now the points for determination are:-

I) Whether the Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 were public servants as on the date of

trap as defined under Section 2(c) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

II) Whether there was any official favour pending

with Accused Officer-1 as on the date of trap?

III) Whether Accused Officer-1 demanded and

accepted the bribe amount from PW.1?

IV) Whether Accused Officer-1 by abusing his

official position and also by resorting to illegal

and corrupt practices, obtained pecuniary

advantage or valuable security either for

himself or for some other person?

V) Whether Accused No.2 abetted the

commission of offence by receiving illegal

gratification from PW.1 as per the instructions

of Accused Officer-1?

VI) Whether the prosecution has proved its case

against the Accused Officer-1 for the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13 (1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

beyond all reasonable doubts and Accused

No.2 for the offence punishable under Section

12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

beyond all reasonable doubts ?

9. The prosecution story,in brief, is that, the Accused Officer-1 demanded the illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- from PW.1 for doing an official favour processing and issuing of the title deed book in the name of PW.1 pertaining to lands in S.No.321/1 to an extent of 07 cents and in S.No.321/3 to an extent of 10 cents at Gudladona

Revenue village of Kaligiri mandal vide Doc.No.913/2008 dated 04.08.2008 of Sub Registrar Office, Vinjamur and to make entries in pattadar pass book and to issue copies of adangal and 1-B

Namuna, which were pending with Accused Officer-1 and on 19.01.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. Accused Officer-1 received a sum of

Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 through Accused No.2 and therefore the

Accused Officer-1 is liable for punishment for the offences 10 punishable U/Secs.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and

Accused No.2 is liable for punishment for the offence punishable

U/Sec.12 of the P.C. Act, 1988. On the other hand, the defence of

Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 is one of total denial of the prosecution case.

10. In order to prove the guilt of Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Out of them, the Defacto-complainant namely P.

Srinivasulu was examined as PW.1, one of the mediators namely

M.V. Suresh Babu, the then Assistant Executive Engineer in

Panchayat Raj Institutions Division, Podalakur, who is said to be present at the time of ACB trap was examined as PW.2, K.

Leela, the then Deputy Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal was examined as

PW.3, N. Mallikarjuna, Junior Assistant, in the office of Tahsildar,

Kaligiri mandal was examined as PW.4, B. Rohini, Village Servant,

Peddakonduru village was examined as P.W.5, G. Simhadri Naidu, the then Junior Assistant in the office of Sub Registrar, Vinjamur was examined as PW.6, Shaik Abdul Hameed, the then Senior Assistant, in the office of Revenue Divisional Office, Kavali was examined as

PW.7, M. Venkateswarlu, the then RDO, Kavali was examined as

PW.8, J. Bhaskar Rao, the then DSP, ACB, Nellore, who is the first

Investigating Officer in this case was examined as PW.9,

K. Venkateswarlu, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore, who is the second Investigating Officer in this case was examined as PW.10.

11. In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents and material objects:

Ex.P1 is the application dated 17.01.2012 submitted by PW.1 to the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal, Ex.P2 is the report dated 18.01.2012 lodged by PW.1 to the ACB Police concerned, Ex.P3 is the application of PW.1 addressed to Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal for 11 pattadar pass book and title deed, Ex.P4 is the application of PW.1 addressed to the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal, Ex.P5 is the statement of PW.1 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C., Ex.P6 is copy of FIR in Crime No.1/RCT-NLR/2012 of ACB,

Nellore Range, Nellore, Ex.P7 is the pre-trap proceedings dated 19.01.2012 in Mediators Report-I,Ex.P8 is the register of Registered post documents maintained by Tahsildars office, Kaligiri mandal,

Ex.P9 is the Attendance Register of Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal,

Ex.P10 is the register Registered post applications maintained by

Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal, Ex.P11 is the post-trap proceedings

dated 19.01.2012 in Mediators Report-II, Ex.P12 is the receipt dated

17.01.2012 issued by the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal in favour of PW.1, Ex.P13 is the original FIR in crime No.1/RCT-NLR/2012 of

ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore, Ex.P14 is the memo dated 19.01.2012 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad permitting PW.9 to lay the trap against Accused Officer-1, Ex.P15 is the rough sketch for the scene of offence, Ex.P16 is the memo dated 20.09.2013 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad authorized PW.10 to conduct further investigation.

MO.1 is the sealed cover containing sample of Sodium

Carbonate Powder used in pre-trap proceedings, MO.2 is sealed cover containing the sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre- trap proceedings, MO.3 is sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post trap proceedings, MO.4 is sealed bottle containing right hand wash of the Accused No.2, MO.5 is sealed bottle containing left hand wash of Accused No.2, MO.6 is sealed bottle containing wash of upper portion of Rs.100/- currency note, MO.7 is sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of the upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2, MO.8 is shirt of Accused No.2,

MO.9 is cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.10 is cash of Rs.100/- seized from the 12 shirt pocket of Accused No.2, MO.11 is cash of Rs.3,300/- seized from the table drawer of Accused Officer-1 kept in her rest room.

12. In order to establish the charges leveled against Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10, among them, Pws.1, 2 and 9 are the main witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 10, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 10 and the documentary evidence is to be appreciated by the Court.

13. PO INT NO.I:-

It is to be first seen whether Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 were public servants as on the date of trap as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that Accused Officer-1 worked as Tahsildar, Kaligiri Mandal from 08.04.2011 to 20.01.2012 and Accused No.2 worked as Attender, in the office of Tahsildar,

Kaligiri mandal from 08.04.2011 to 20.01.2012. By virtue of the posts held by them, they fall under the category of public servants as defined under Section 2 (c) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

There is no dispute from the side of Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 with regard to their designation in the office of Tahsildar,

Kaligiri mandal as on the date of trap, and they discharged their duties by receiving salaries from the State Government Funds.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 were public servants as on the date of trap, as defined Under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

14. POINT NO.II:-

It is to be next seen whether there was any official favour pending with Accused Officer-1 pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of 13 trap. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that on 09.02.2008 the then Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal had issued pattadar pass book vide patta No.1069 of 1-B register in the name of P.

Srinivasulu (PW.1), but the title deed was not issued. PW.1 had 07 cents of land in S.No.321/1 and another 10 cents of land in

S.No.321/3 at Gudladona Revenue village of Kaligiri mandal and he got registered the same in Sub Registrar Office, Vinjamur vide

Registered Doc No.913/2008 dated 04.08.2008. On 17.01.2012 PW.1 submitted an application(Ex.P1) to the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal with a request to enter the aforesaid 17 cents of the land in 1-B

Register and Adangal Register (fasili No.1421) and to issue 1-B

Nakalu copy, copy of adangal (fasili No.1421) and also to process and issue the title deed book in his name and he enclosed the copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc No.913/2008 dated 04.08.2008, original pattadar passbook to Ex.P1-application and paid Rs.50/- as fees to get adangal copy and 1-B Nakalu copy.

15. Further, Accused Officer-1, who was Tahsildar of Kaligiri mandal, had demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe to attend his work, otherwise his work would not be done. On 18.01.2012 during morning again PW.1 approached Accused

Officer-1 and enquired about his work, for which, Accused Officer-1 reiterated her earlier demand. He expressed his inability to pay that much amount, considering the request of PW.1, Accused Officer-1 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/-, otherwise his work would not be done. As there was no other go, he agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- on the next day. As he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to Accused Officer-1, he lodged

Ex.P2 report in ACB Office, Nellore for taking necessary action against Accused Officer-1.

16. In order to prove the official favour was pending with 14

Accused Officer-1 pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap, the prosecution has examined the defacto-complainant namely

P. Srinivasulu as PW.1, who stated in his evidence that he owns

Acs.0.77 cents of land at Gudladona Revenue village and he had purchased that property about 6 or 7 years ago from August, 2014, but in the pass book issued to him by the Revenue authorities, the extent of the land purchased by him was shown as 60 cents only. On 17.01.2012 he made Ex.P1 application to the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal with a request to enter the remaining 17 cents of the land in his pattadar pass book and title deed. He enclosed copy of sale deed to his Ex.P1-application and he also enclosed necessary forms to his application.

17. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on 18.01.2012 he met Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2, who were working as

Tahsildar and Attender in the office of Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal, and requested Accused Officer-1 to enter his remaining land in the revenue records. His title deed and pass book were lying in Tahsildar office by the date of filing his Ex.P1-application. He paid a sum of

Rs.50/- as fee for attending the said work.Accused Officer-1 demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to get enter the remaining land in the pass book. Accused Officer-1 put her initial on

Ex.P1-application and it was handed over to Accused No.2 and he kept Ex.P1-application and its enclosers with him. Again on the next day i.e. on 19.01.2012 he approached Accused No.2, who demanded him to pay bribe amount in the presence of Accused

Officer-1. Thereafter, he approached ACB Office, Nellore and lodged

Ex.P2-report to take necessary action against Accused Officer-1.

18. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 he stated that on 17.01.2012 he made Ex.P1-application along with required documents addressed to Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal with a request to 15 enter the remaining land in an extent of 17 cents in the 2 bits covered by registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.913/2008 dated 04.08.2008 in his pattadar pass book and title deed and also enter the same in the Revenue records and the said Ex.P1-application was handed over to Accused Officer-1 on 17.01.2012 and on 18.01.2012 he met Accused Officer-1 for his work, for which, Accused Officer-1 demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- for attending his work and on 19.01.2012 again he approached Accused No.2 and enquired about his work, for which, Accused No.2 reiterated the demand of

Accused Officer-1 in her absence.

19. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on the date of trap i.e. on 19.01.2012 after 5.30 p.m. he met Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 in the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and enquired about his work, for which, Accused Officer-1 enquired him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount, for which, he replied positively and then Accused Officer-1 instructed him to hand over the said amount to Accused No.2 and accordingly he handed over the said amount of Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2. After payment of the bribe amount, he was handed over title deed and pattadar pass book without making necessary entries and asked him to approach

VRO concerned, who would make entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed. As seen from this part of testimony made by PW.1, the official favour was pending with Accused Officer-1 till the date of trap.

20. It was not suggested to PW.1 in his cross examination on behalf of Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 that by the date of trap the request of PW.1 mentioned in Ex.P1-application was complied by the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal i.e. got entered remaining 17 cents of the land in the title deed of PW.1 which was lying with the Tahsildar Office, Kaligiri mandal and also got entered 16 the remaining land in an extent of 17 cents situated at Gudladona

Revenue village in 1-B register and adangal and delivered 1-B namuna and copy of adangal to PW.1. Accused Officer-1 was silent on this aspect during the course of cross examination of PW.1. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he was not cross examined on behalf of Accused Officer-1 on the aspect of pending of official favour with him pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap.

21. PW.3, who is the then Deputy Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal, in her evidence stated that on 17.01.2012 PW.1 made Ex.P1- application to the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal with a request to furnish copies of 1-B Namuna and No.3 adangal. She processed

Ex.P1-application and handed over the said application to Accused

Officer-1 on 18.01.2012. On 19.01.2012 at about 5.00 p.m. Accused

Officer-1 returned to Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal after attending the camp. As seen from the evidence of PW.3, she stated that she processed Ex.P1-application of PW.1 and handed over the same to

Accused Officer-1 and it was pending till the date of trap with

Accused Officer-1.

22. PW.5, who is Village Servant of Peddakoduru village stated in her evidence that she received Ex.P4 application from PW.1 in

Prajaseva kendram and the same was forwarded to the Computer

Operator. PW.1 in his Ex.P4 application sought to furnish copies of 1-

B register and No.3 adangal. Ex.P12 is the receipt dated 17.01.2012 issued in favour of PW.1.

23. PW.9, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on the date of trap i.e. on 19.01.2012 at about 6.40 p.m. he received pre-arranged signal from PW.10 and he rushed to the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal along with mediators and other ACB staff and entered into the chamber of Accused

Officer-1 and found Accused Officer-1 was present in her seat and 17

Accused No.2was standing by the side of Accused Officer-1 and during the post trap proceedings, when he enquired Accused

Officer-1 with regard to the things that were happened just prior to their entering into her chamber, upon that, Accused Officer-1 stated that prior to the arrival of the trap party in her chamber, PW.1 met her in her chamber and enquired about his pattadar pass book and title deed along with copy of 1-B Register. Upon that, she handed over the title deed, pattadar pass book and Ex.P1-appliction to PW.1 with instructions to meet concerned VRO to get the entries in the title deed, pattadar pass book and for the remaining things.

24. As seen from the aforesaid part of testimony made by

PW.9, the official favour pertaining to PW.1 was pending with

Accused Officer-1 till the date of trap i.e. to enter the remaining land of PW.1 to an extent of 17 cents in pattadar pass book and title deed and also furnish copy of 1-B Namuna and adangal to PW.1 by entering the remaining land in the Revenue records concerned. This part of testimony made by PW.9 is corroborated by the evidence of

PW.2, who is one of the mediators said to be present at the time of trap. There is no dispute from the side of Accused Officer-1 that the request of PW.1 in Ex.P1-application was not complied till the date of trap by the Tahsildar Office, Kaligiri mandal and it was pending as on the date of trap.

25. At this juncture, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 has vehemently contended that in the instant case the prosecution failed to establish any official favour was pending with Accused

Officer-1 pertaining to PW.1 as on the date of trap. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 has relied upon the following decisions.

i)The decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in R. Srinivasan 18

and another Vs. State by Police Inspector, Lokayuktha,

Bangalore reported in 2016 CRI.L.J.3066,wherein it was held that – “Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged demand for bribe in terms of Section 7 of the P.C. Act and consequential receipt of money preceded by demand by 2nd accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the very demand made for and receipt of money by 1st accused -Srinivasan”.

ii) The decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 CRI.L.J.3155,wherein it was held that – “The most important and salient feature of the case is that, it was because of intervention of political worker that the accused was got trapped. When there is no motive for demanding or accepting bribe proved as no work of the complainant was pending with the accused, the acquittal of accused by the trial court is justified.” iii) The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State Vs. K. Narasimhachary reported in 2006 CRI.L.J. 518, wherein it was held that – “The accused merely a recommending authority and not the valuation or the final authority. The accused also not a outward Clerk for issuance of property Valuation Certificate. The said Certificate was already forwarded and signed by final authority before alleged demand of bribe by the accused. Aforesaid circumstances create suspicion about demand of bribe. The acquittal of the accused was proper.”

26. On the other hand , the learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that it is clear in the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 9 that the official favour pertaining to PW.1 was pending with Accused Officer- 1 as on the date of trap. In support of the said contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of Bombay High Court rendered in Prakash Sankarrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2110,wherein it was held that – “As rightly observed by the trial court, for succeeding in the case under P.C. Act, 1988, the prosecution has to prove that the accused made demand of bribe and accepted amount pursuant to that demand. It may be that accused could not directly do any favours to the person from whom he was accepting the demand. However, if the accused is capable of doing certain work 19 and he holds a post or position which can ordinarily be taken to be capable of giving him necessary powers then nothing more is required to be proved by the prosecution that the fact of demand, the representation made by the accused, of doing favours and the fact of acceptance of bribe.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat

reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1497, wherein it was held that – “If the accused used his official position to extract illegal gratification, the requirement of the law is satisfied. It is not necessary in such a case for the court to consider whether the public servant was capable of doing or intended to do any official act or favour or disfavor.” iii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs., R. Jeevaratnam reported in 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 486 (SC), wherein it was held that – “The High Court concludes, on the basis of evidence, that by 23.11.1991 the file had already been cleared to the knowledge of the complainant. The High Court concludes that as the file was already cleared, the question of doing favour of not, doing favour did not arise.”

27. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record. From the beginning, PW.1 in his Ex.P2 report lodged to ACB concerned and his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

stated that on 17.01.2012 Accused Officer-1 demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe to get enter his remaining land of 17 cents in 2 bits situated at Gudladona Revenue village in title deed book and also to get enter the said land in 1-B Register and adangal and to furnish 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal. On 18.01.2012 when he met Accused Officer-1 in her chamber at Tahsildar Office,

Kaligiri mandal and enquired about his work, for which, she reiterated her earlier demand of bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- and then he expressed his inability to pay that much amount, for which,

Accused Officer-1 asked him to pay atleast Rs.2,000/- to attend his 20 work. As there was no other go, he agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- on the next day and as he was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged Ex.P2 report in ACB office, Nellore on 18.01.2012 at 3.00 p.m. Ex.P2-is the report lodged by PW.1 which is strong piece of corroborative evidence and it corroborates oral testimony of PW.1.

28. Further, the last demand was made by Accused Officer-1 on the date of trap i.e. on 19.01.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. At that time, there was no 3rd person was present and heard the conversation of the demand of the Accused Officer-1 with PW.1. It is already stated supra that there is no dispute from the side of

Accused Officer-1 that the request of PW.1 in Ex.P1-application was not complied by the date of trap. It is further stated supra that PW.9 in his evidence stated that on 19.01.2012 during post trap proceedings PW.1 produced the records handed over by Accused

Officer-1 i.e. title deed, pattadar pass book, his application for pattadar pass book and title deed/mutation.

29. Further, the Deputy Tahsildar by name Leela (PW.3) produced Ex.P1-application submitted by PW.1 dated 17.01.2012

before Prajaseva Kendram for obtaining revenue records (Ex.P3)

through registered post (Ex.P8) and the same were seized under post trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II. Further, PW.9 called

PW.1 to the chamber of Accused Officer-1 and enquired him the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal and the version of PW.1 was incorporated under post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II, wherein PW.1 stated that on the instructions of Accused Officer-1 he handed over the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2 and after receiving the said amount, on the instructions of Accused

Officer-1, accused No.2 handed over the papers to him and asked 21 him to get the entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed through VRO and 1-B Namuna and adangal copy would be issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (PW.3).

30. As seen from the evidence of PWs.2 and 9, after receiving the bribe amount, on the instructions of Accused Officer-1, the title deed and pattadar pass book were handed over to PW.1 by Accused

No.2 by bringing from the rest room and asked him to get the entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed through VRO concerned and further informed PW.1 to get 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal from the Deputy Tahsildar (PW.3). Therefore, the official favour i.e. to get enter into the remaining land of PW.1 to the extent of 17 cents in 2 bits in pattadar pass book and title deed and also get enter the said land in 1-B Namuna and adangal and would provide 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal, pending with Accused

Officer-1 pertaining to PW.1 till the date of trap. Further, the facts in the instant case are different from the facts in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the counsel for the Accused Officer-1 and therefore, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the counsel for

Accused Officer-1 have no application in the present facts of the case.

31. Having considered the material available on record, I am holding that as on the date of trap, official favour pertaining to PW.1 was pending with Accused Officer-1. Further, it can be safely concluded that the power of giving orders to enter the remaining land of 17 cents in 2 bits in pattadar pass book and title deed, furnishing 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal to PW.1 by entering the remaining land in the Revenue records vested in Accused Officer-1 being the Tahsildarof Kaligiri mandal and therefore AccusedOfficer-1 is capable of giving instructions to his subordinate staff for making the said entries in the Revenue records, pattadar pass book and title 22 deed and provides 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal to PW.1, which can ordinarily be taken to be capable of giving her necessary powers. Then nothing more is required to be proved by the prosecution as per the decision of Bombay High Court rendered in

Prakash Sankarrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2110 and also the decision of our Hon’ble

Supreme Court rendered in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs.

the State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1497. Further, as per the aforesaid decision of our Hon’ble Supreme

Court rendered inState of Andhra Pradesh Vs., R.

Jeevaratnam reported in 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 486 (SC), wherein it was observed that official favour should not be pending with

Accused Officer-1 as on the date of trap.

32. POINT NO.III:-

It is to be next seen whether Accused Officer-1 demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW.1. As per the prosecution, on 17.01.2012 PW.1 submitted Ex.P1- application to the Tahsildar,

Kaligiri mandal with a request to enter the remaining 17 cents of his land in 1-B Register and Adangal and to furnish 1-B Nakalu, copy of

Adangal and he also requested to process and issue the title deed book in his name and enclosed the copy of register sale deed bearing Doc No.913/2008 dated 04.08.2008, original pattadar pass book to Ex.P1 application and paid necessary fee of Rs.50/- to get adangal copy and 1-B Nakalu and met the Accused Officer-1 with a request to do the above said work, for which, Accused Officer-1 demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe to attend his work. On 18.01.2012 during morning, PW.1 again met the Accused

Officer-1 in her chamber and requested her about his work, for which, Accused Officer-1 reiterated her earlier demand, for which, he expressed his inability to pay that much amount, for which, 23

Accused Officer-1 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/-, otherwise his work would not be done. As there was no other go, PW.1 agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- on the next day.

As he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to Accused Officer-1, he went to ACB office, Nellore and lodged Ex.P1 report against

Accused Officer-1.

33. Further, on 19.01.2012 after due verification, J. Bhaskar

Rao, DSP, ACB, Nellore (PW.9) registered the report of PW.1 as a case in Crime No.1/RCT-NLR/2012 under Sec.7 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

PW.9 conducted pre-trap proceedings in ACB office, Nellore on 19.01.2012 from 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. in the presence of two mediators namely Midde Venkata Suresh Babu (PW.2) and Othuri

Venkata Ramana (LW.3), other inspectors, staff and PW.1. All the required formalities to be observed with were complied with. On the same day at about 6.30 p.m. Accused Officer-1 was trapped in her chamber at Tahsildar Office, Kaligiri when she demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 through

Accused No.2 and that Accused No.2 kept the said bribe amount in his left side upper shirt pocket and after receiving the bribe amount, as per the instructions of Accused Officer-1, Accused No.2 brought the pattadar pass book and title deed, Ex.P1-application filed by

PW.1 from the rest room which was adjacent to Tahsildar room and handed over the same to PW.1 by informing that the title deed was signed by RDO, Kavali and as well as Accused Officer-1 and instructed PW.1 to meet VRO concerned to get the entries in pattadar pass book and title deed and further instructed PW.1 to get 1-B Nakalu copy and adangal copy which were with the Deputy

Tahsildar. The chemical test conducted on both hand fingers of

Accused No.2 and inner linings of the left side upper shirt pocket of accused No.2 yielded positive results. The bribe amount of 24

Rs.2,000/- was recovered from Accused No.2.

34. In order to prove the demand and acceptance, the prosecution has examined the Defacto-complainant namely

Poluboina Srinviasulu as PW.1, who reiterated some of the contents in his Ex.P2 report. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on 18.01.2012 he met Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 and requested Accused Officer-1 to enter his remaining land in revenue records, for which, Accused Officer-1 demanded him to pay a sum of

Rs.2,000/- to get enter his remaining land in the pass book, title deed and revenue records. Again on the next day i.e. on 19.01.2012 he approached accused No.2, who demanded him to pay money in the presence of Accused Officer-1. Thereafter, he approached ACB officials, Nellore and lodged Ex.P2 report for taking necessary action against Accused Officer-1. As directed by the ACB office, Nellore to come along with intended bribe amount of Rs.2,000/-, accordingly he went to the ACB office, Nellore on 19.01.2012 at about 8.30 a.m.

along with demanded bribe amount. After ½ hour, he was called inside the office he was introduced with the mediators i.e.

employees of Panchayat Raj Department. Then, the DSP (PW.9) enquired him whether he brought the intended bribe amount, for which, he replied positively and produced cash of Rs.2,000/- and on the instructions of the DSP, the said amount of Rs.2,000/- was handed over to the mediators, one of them counted the said cash and other mediator noted down the numbers and denominations of the currency notes in pre-trap proceedings.

35.PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on the instructions of PW.9, some solution was prepared in two glasses by adding some powder in the said two glasses, they were asked to rinse their hand fingers in those solutions, while doing so, there was no change in 25 the colour of the solutions. Then the said ACB officials applied some powder on the currency notes and kept the said currency notes in his left side shirt pocket after making it empty. When the person who applied powder on the currency notes rinsed his hand fingers in the said solutions and the said solutions turned into red and pink colour. The pre-trap proceedings was completed by 10.30 a.m.

Thereafter, all the trap party members including mediators and himself proceeded to the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal in two vehicles. After reaching the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal, the DSP got stopped the vehicles a little away from the office of the

Tahsildar, Kaligiri. Then the DSP instructed PW.1 to proceed to the office of Tahsildar, Kaligiri and the DSP reiterated his earlier instructions to him.

36.PW.1 in his evidence further stated that then he proceeded to the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri and by the time he entered into the room of Accused Officer-1, he did not find Accused Officer-1 in her room. When he enquired Accused No.2 about the presence of

Accused Officer-1, he was informed by Accused No.2 that Accused

Officer-1 was on camp and further informed him that he would hand over his documents soon after Accused Officer-1 returned to the office. At about 5.30 p.m. Accused Officer-1 returned to the office.

Then he went into her room. Just before he entered the room of

Accused Officer-1, Accused No.2 enquired him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount, for which, he replied positively. Then

Accused No.2 asked him to pay the bribe amount to him and then he handed over the documents to him. Thereafter, he met Accused

Officer-1 and enquired whether she received Rs.2,000/- paid to

Accused No.2 and she told that she received the said amount.

Thereafter PW.1 came out from the Tahsildar office and relayed the signal.

26

37. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that then all the ACB officers entered into the office room of Accused Officer-1 and he was asked to wait outside. After one or two hours, he was called inside the room of Accused Officer-1 and enquired him about the things that were happened from the time of leaving of the trap party members till relaying of the signal and his version was incorporated in post trap proceedings by the mediators. After receiving the amount from him without making necessary entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed, he was asked to approach VRO concerned for making the entries in the pattadar pass book and title deed.

38. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of Accused Officer-1 that he scribed Ex.P2 report on the dictation of one constable at ACB office, Nellore. One Patnam Venkateswarlu advised him to lodge a report in ACB office concerned. The RDO signed in his title deed on 31.05.2012. Prior to that, Accused Officer- 1 who was the then Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal, also signed in the title deed. He handed over the title deed in the office of Tahsildar,

Kaligiri mandal in the month of December, 2011 to Accused No.2.

He did not get any receipt from Accused No.2 in token of title deed handed over to him. Accused Officer-1 never demanded him to pay bribe. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of

Accused No.2 that he lodged Ex.P2 report in ACB office, Nellore alleging that Accused No.2 alone demanded money.

39. PW.9, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case, he stated in his evidence that on 18.01.2012 at about 3.00 p.m. PW.1 came to ACB office, Nellore and lodged Ex.P2 report. After going through the contents of the report (Ex.P2), he entrusted the same to the Inspector of Police, ACB by name K. Venkateswarlu (PW.10) for verification of the report and antecedents of the Accused Officer-1.

After verification, PW.10 submitted Ex.P2 report to him by endorsing 27 the verification report. On receipt of permission from the head office, he registered Ex.P2 report of PW.1 as case in Crime NO.1/RCT-

NLR/2012 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and issued Ex.P13-

FIR. He secured the presence of mediators namely M. Venkata

Suresh Babu, Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj

Institutions, Mandal Praja Parishad, Podalakur (PW.2) and Othuri

Venkata Ramana, Junior Assistant, in the office of Superintending

Engineer (Panchayat Raj Institutions), Nellore (LW.3) by filing requisition to their superior officer.

40. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that on 18.01.2012 pre-trap proceedings was conducted in his office room in the presence of the mediators, PW.1 and other ACB staff from 9.00 a.m.

onwards. During the pre-trap proceedings, he introduced PW.1 with the mediators and his staff, vice versa. He handed over the copy of

FIR to the mediators and asked them to verify the contents of the report with PW.1. Accordingly, the mediators read over the contents of the report to PW.1 who affirmed that the contents of the said report are genuine. To that effect both the mediators put their signatures on the copy of FIR. On his instructions PW.1 produced cash of Rs.2,000/- consisting of four 500 currency notes intending to be given as bribe to Accused Officer-1. On his request, 2nd mediator received the said amount, counted and noted down the numbers on the currency notes in the pre-trap proceedings. PC 2245 handed the currency notes and rinsed his both hand fingers in the sodium carbonate solution. While doing so, the colour of the solution was not changed. On his further instructions, the said constable applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and kept the said currency notes in the left side shirt pocket of PW.1 after making it empty. He instructed PW.1 not to touch the currency notes till

Accused Officer-1 demanded.

28

41. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that on his instructions, PC 2245 rinsed his both hand fingers in the sodium carbonate solution, there was a change in the colour of the solution and it was turned into pink in colour. He explained the significance of the colour test to the mediators. He drawn the samples of sodium carbonate powder and phenolphthalein powder used in pre-trap proceedings separately, MOs.1 and 2 are the same. He instructed

PW.1 that he has to tender the tainted amount to Accused Officer-1 on her further demand only, but not otherwise. In case, the Accused

Officer-1 demanded and accepted the tainted amount from him, he should come out and give the signal by wiping his face with his hands. Pre-trap proceedings was concluded by 11.00 a.m. and it was attested by both the mediators and himself. Ex.P14 is the memo dated 19.01.2012 issue by the Director General, ACB,

Hyderabad permitting him to lay the trap against Accused Officer-1.

42. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that after completion of pre-trap proceedings, himself, mediators, PW.1, Inspectors along with ACB staff including Woman PC 180 and Woman PC 1745 by name A. Radha left ACB office, Nellore in two vehicles at 11.30 a.m.

and they reached the Tahsildar Office, Kaligiri mandal at about 1.50 p.m. He got stopped the vehicles at the entrance. He instructed

PW.1 to get down from the vehicle and proceed to the office of the

Tahsildar. He reiterated his earlier instructions to PW.1. PW.1 proceeded towards the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal. At about 6.40 p.m., he received signal relayed by the Inspector namely K.

Venkateswarlu (PW.10). Immediately, he along with the remaining trap party members proceeded to the office of the Tahsildar and he found PW.1 in front of the office of Tahsildar and he instructed him to remain there till he was called inside. Then they entered into the office room of the Tahsildar, Kaligiri and found a woman sitting in 29 the chair in the chamber of the Tahsildar and also noticed one male person standing by the side of the said woman. He approached the said woman sitting in the chair and he disclosed his identity and identity of other trap party members and he ascertained the identity of the said woman sitting in the chair as Accused Officer-1.

He also ascertained the identity of the male person found by the side of the woman as Accused No.2.

43. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that on hearing the identity of the ACB officials, Accused No.2 started shivering and tried to rub his hands to his clothes. On seeing the same, he warned

Accused No.2 not to do so. Then he asked Accused Officer-1 to explain the things that were happened just their entering into her chamber. The version of Accused Officer-1 was incorporated in post- trap proceedings, wherein she stated that PW.1 came to her room and asked about the pattadar pass book and title deed along with 1-

B Register copies, upon that, she handed over the title deed, application of PW.1 dated 17.01.2012 and also pattadar pass book and instructed him to meet the concerned VRO to get entries in the title deed and pattadar pass book and for the remaining things, to meet the Deputy Tahsildar. Accused Officer-1 further stated that

PW.1 voluntarily offered Rs.2000/- and she asked Accused No.2 to receive the same. Accordingly, Accused No.2 received the same from PW.1 and kept the same in his left side upper shirt pocket.

44. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that then he asked

Accused No.2 to narrate the things that were happened prior to the arrival of the trap party members in the chamber of Accused

Officer-1. The version of Accused No.2 was incorporated in trap proceedings, wherein he stated that after receiving the amount from PW.1, on the instructions of Accused Officer-1 he brought the title deed, pattadar pass book and application of PW.1 from the rest 30 room of Accused Officer-1 and handed over to Accused Officer-1, who in turn handed over the same to PW.1. Then PW.1 went outside the room and within few minutes, the raid party members entered into the room. On his further instructions, PC 1315 by name N.

Damodara Rao prepared sodium carbonate solutions in two glass tumblers and asked Accused Officer-1 to rinse her both hand fingers in the said solutions separately, while doing so, there was no change in the colour of the solutions.

45. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that on his further instructions, PC 1315 prepared sodium carbonate solution afresh in two glass tumblers and asked Accused No.2 to rinse his both hand fingers in those solutions and while doing so, both the solutions turned into pink in colour. The resultant solutions were transferred into two separate glass bottles, got them sealed and labeled and affixed identity slips duly signed by him and mediators. Then he asked Accused No.2 to produce the bribe amount received by him from PW.1, upon that, accused No.2 produced the said amount from his left side upper shirt pocket. On his request, the 2nd mediator received the said amount from Accused No.2, verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and found they were tallied with the currency notes noted in pre-trap proceedings.

Then he seized cash of Rs.2,000/- from Accused No.2 at his instance.

46. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that then he called

PW.1 inside the room of Accused Officer-1 and enquired him the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. The version of PW.1 was incorporated in post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II. He confronted the version of Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 with

PW.1, who denied the said versions of Accused Officer-1 and 31

Accused No.2 and struck to his earlier version. On his request, PW.1 produced the records handed over by Accused Officer-1 which were his title deed, pattadar pass book, his application, pattadar pass book and mutation. The details of the said records were incorporated in post-trap proceedings. He seized the above records and they were duly attested by mediators and himself. He drawn sodium carbonate powder used in post-trap proceedings. On perusal of Ex.P1 application, it reveals that Accused Officer-1 put her signature on 17.01.2012. Then he called the Deputy Tahsildar, namely Leelavathi (PW.3) and asked her to produce the documents relating to PW.1 entrusted by the Tahsildar. Accordingly, she produced 1) application filed by PW.1 dated 17.01.2012 before

Prajaseva Kendram for obtaining revenue records (Ex.P3) and 2)

Registered Post Register (Ex.P8) and they were seized for further investigation. He also seized Attendance Register of Tahsildar Office (Ex.P9)

47. PW.9 in his evidence further stated that he searched the rest room of the Tahsildar and found a sum of Rs.3300/- (MO.11) in her table drawer and then he asked Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 about the amount found there, for which, they were unable to explain the same. He seized the said unauthorized cash of Rs.3300/- (MO.11). He prepared rough sketch for the scene of offence (Ex.P15). He arrested Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 by informing the grounds of arrest. Later original pattadar pass book and title deed were handed over to PW.1. On 04.02.2012 the statement of PW.1 was recorded by the IV Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

48. PW.2, who is said to be one of the mediators in this case, supported the aforesaid testimony made by PW.9 with regard to conducting Ex.P7-pre-trap proceedings on 19.01.2012 from 9.00 32 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. in ACB office, Nellore, wherein he and another mediator namely O. Venkata Ramana (LW.3) ascertained the contents of Ex.P2 report from PW.1 and found that the contents of

Ex.P2 report as genuine and later noted serial numbers and denominations of currency notes of Rs.2,000/- produced by PW.1 as proposed bribe amount. Further, supported the testimony of PW.9 with regard to getting the said currency notes tainted with chemical powder and later on the instructions of PW.9, the said constable applied phenolphthalein powder on both sides of currency notes by using cotton swab and kept the said amount in the left side upper shirt pocket of PW.1 after making it empty. PW.9 instructed PW.1 not to touch the said currency notes. PW.9 further instructed PW.1 to give the said tainted amount to Accused Officer-1 on her further demand only and then give pre-arranged signal. Further, PW.9 demonstrated the chemical test and explained its significance to himself and another mediator and PW.1.

49. PW.2 in his evidence further stated that on 19.01.2012 after completion of Ex.P7 pre-trap proceedings, then all the trap party members proceeded to the Tahsildar Office, Kaligiri in two vehicles. Two lady constables also accompanied them. They reached nearby Tahsildar office, Kaligiri at about 1.50 p.m. and

PW.9 got stopped the vehicles at a little distance from the Tahsildar office. PW.9 reiterated his earlier instructions to PW.1, who proceeded the Tahsildar Office. On the instructions of PW.9, one constable and one Inspector of Police followed PW.1 closely. At about 6.40 p.m., PW.9 received phone message from the Inspector, then all the trap party members rushed to the Tahsildar office,

Kaligiri and on their way, they found PW.1 at the entrance and asked PW.1 to wait outside of the office. Then they entered into the chamber of Tahsildar and found Accused Officer-1 was sitting in a 33 chair and Accused No.2 was standing by her side. Then PW.9 approached them and disclosed his identity and the identity of other trap party members and ascertained the woman sitting in the chair as Accused Officer-1, male person who was standing by the side of Accused Officer-1 as Accused No.2.

50. PW.2 in his evidence further stated that PW.9 got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked Accused

Officer-1 to rinse her both hand fingers separately in the said sodium carbonate solutions, while doing so, there was no change in the colour of solutions. Accused No.2 rinsed his both hand fingers in the sodium carbonate solutions, both the solutions were turned into pink in colour. The resultant solutions were transferred into two clean glass bottles, got them sealed, labeled and affixed identity slips duly signed by them and PW.9, MOs.4 and 5 are the same.

Then PW.9 enquired Accused Officer-1 with regard to the things that were happened just prior to their entering into her chamber. The version of Accused Officer-1 was incorporated in post-trap proceedings. PW.9 also seized one hundred rupee currency note (MO.10) found in the shirt pocket of Accused No.2. Then the upper portion of MO.10 currency note was subjected to chemical test, which yielded positive result, MO.6 is sealed bottle containing wash of upper portion of hundred rupee currency note. The inner linings of the left side shirt pocket of the Accused No.2 was also subjected to chemical test which yielded positive result. MO.7 is another sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of the left side shirt pocket of accused No.2. MO.8 is shirt of Accused No.2. They also found a sum of Rs.3000/- and odd in the rest room of Accused

Officer-1 in the table drawer. Then PW.1 was called inside and PW.9 enquired PW.1 with regard to the things that were happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal 34 and the version of PW.1 was incorporated in Ex.P7-post-trap proceedings.

51. PW.2 in his evidence further stated that PW.9 secured relevant registers i.e. Register of Registered Post documents register (Ex.P8), Attendance register (Ex.P9), Register of registered post applications (Ex.P10) and PW.9 seized all those records and their descriptions were incorporated in Ex.P11-post-trap proceedings. He scribed Ex.P11-mediators report. Copies of Ex.P11 was furnished to Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 and obtained their acknowledgments on it. The post-trap proceedings was concluded by 6.00 a.m. on 20.01.2012.

52. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 9, the prosecution has examined the staff of the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal. PW.3, who is the then Deputy Tahsildar office, Kaligiri, in her evidence stated that on 19.01.2012 she attended Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal and also Accused No.2. On that day at about 5.00 p.m., Accused Officer-1 returned to the office from the camp.

She was in the office till the arrival of Accused Officer-1, she met her and discussed about the meeting to be held on the next day. She also found accused No.2 in her room. She did not witness the ACB trap happened in the office room of Accused Officer-1.

53. PW.4, who is Junior Assistant in the office of Tahsildar,

Kaligiri mandal, in his evidence stated that on 19.01.2012 Accused

Officer-1 returned to the office from the camp in between 5.30 p.m.

and 6.00 p.m. and Accused No.2 was present in the office till that time. He knows about the trap of Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2. The final evidence before the Court is that of PW.10, who is the 2nd Investigating Officer in this case. He stated in his evidence that on 18.01.2012 at 3.20 p.m. PW.9 endorsed Ex.P2 report to him on the instructions to verify the contents of Ex.P2 report and also 35 verify the antecedents of Accused Officer-1 and PW.1. Accordingly, he verified the antecedents of Accused Officer-1 and PW.1 and submitted his report to PW.9 on 19.01.2012 at 6.30 a.m. by endorsing on Ex.P2. Later he assisted PW.9 in conducting pre-trap proceedings.

54. PW.10 in his evidence further stated that on 19.01.2012 at about 6.40 p.m. he relayed the signal to the trap party members and he assisted PW.9 in conducting post-trap proceedings. He signed in rough sketch for the scene of offence. Subsequently, as per the memo dated 20.09.2013 issued by the Director General,

ACB, Hyderabad (Ex.P16), wherein he was authorized to conduct further investigation in this case, he received CD file from PW.9 and perused the investigation done by him. During the course of his further investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.3 to 8. As Accused Officer-1 was retired from her service on 31.07.2012, he did not get any permission to prosecute her. As

Accused No.2 abetted the commission of offence, no sanction was required to prosecute him. After completion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2.

55. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he categorically stated that on 19.01.2012 from 9.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. pre-trap proceedings (Ex.P7) was conducted in ACB office, Nellore in the presence of mediators, wherein DSP (PW.9) demonstrated the significance of chemical tests and he handed over the bribe amount to the mediators and the denominations and numbers of the currency notes were incorporated in Ex.P7-pre-trap proceedings and after applying phenolphthalein powder on both sides of currency notes, the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- was kept in his left side upper shirt pocket after making it empty and after completion of pre-trap proceedings they started from ACB office, Nellore. This part 36 of testimony made by PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, who is one of the mediators.

56. PW.2, who is one of the mediators, in his evidence further stated that the chemical test organized on both hand fingers of

Accused Officer-1 which yielded negative results and the chemical test was organized to both hand fingers of Accused No.2, inner linings of the left side upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2 and on the surface of one hundred rupee currency note which was contacted with the tainted amount inside the upper left side shirt pocket of

Accused No.2, yielded positive results. The aforesaid testimony made by PW.2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.9, who led the trap party members and 1st Investigating Officer in this case. The cross examination of PW.9 on behalf of Accused Officer-1 and

Accused No.2 could not extract any material for him to speak false against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2. The cross examination of PW.2 also could not extract any material for him to speak false against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 or to speak any undue favor of ACB police concerned for any extraneous considerations as such. Hence I am not at all disbelieving the testimony of PWs.2 and 9, as nothing substantial was extracted in their cross examination to discredit their testimony.

57. As seen from the evidence of PWs.2 and 9, the testimony made by PW.9 with regard to chemical test conducted to both hands of Accused Officer-1, yielded negative results, the chemical test conducted to both hand fingers of Accused No.2, inner linings of the left side upper shirt pocket of Accused NO.2, upper portion of 100 rupee currency note which was contacted with the tainted amount yielded positive results and also seizure of tainted amount of

Rs.2,000/- from the possession of Accused No.2 at his instance under Ex.P11 post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II is 37 corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, who is one of the mediators.

PW.2 in his evidence categorically stated that the colour test conducted to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1 yielded negative results and colour test conducted to both hand fingers of

Accused No.2, inner linings of the left side upper shirt pocket of

Accused No.2, surface of Rs.100/- currency note which was contacted with the tainted amount yielded positive results. PW.2 has correctly identified Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2, as the same persons, who were caught hold of the trap party red-handedly and also seized tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from the left side upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2 at his instance and the denominations and numbers of the tainted currency notes were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P7-pre-trap proceedings.

58. The cross examination of PW.2 on behalf of Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2 could not extract any reason for making such a false statement as against Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2, sofar as sodium carbonate solution test conducted to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1, Accused No.2, inner linings of the left side upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2 and surface of Rs.100/- currency note which was contacted with tainted amount and recovery of the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from the left side upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2 at his instance. This part of testimony made by PWs.2 and 9 leaves little scope for any kind of discrepancy or non corroboration within their testimony. PW.2, who is an independent witness, there is no need for him to speak false against Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2. The recovery of tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- (MO.9) from the possession of Accused No.2 is proved to be fact through the testimony of PW.2 is supported by the testimony of PW.9 in clear substantiation of the case of the prosecution.

38

59. Further, PW.2 in his evidence stated that PW.9 seized cash of Rs.100/- from the left side shirt pocket of Accused No.2 (MO.10) and the said currency note was contacted with the tainted amount when accused No.2 kept the tainted amount in his left side upper shirt pocket and the said amount of Rs.100/- (MO.10) is the personal amount of Accused No.2. Further, PW.9 also seized unaccounted cash of Rs.3,300/- (MO.11) from the table desk of Accused Officer-1 in her rest room. This part of testimony made by PW.2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.9 with regard to seizure of

Rs.100/- currency note (MO.10) from the left side upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2 and unaccounted cash of Rs.3,300/- from the table desk of Accused Officer-1 in her rest room, which is besides the chamber of Accused Officer-1, under Ex.P11 post-trap proceedings in Mediators Report-II.

60. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 17.01.2012

Accused Officer-1 demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as bribe for attending his work referred in Ex.P1-application addressed to the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal. On 18.01.2012 during morning, when PW.1 met Accused Officer-1 in her chamber and requested to attend his work , for which, Accused Officer-1 reiterated her earlier demand of to pay Rs.3,000/-, for which, PW.1 expressed his inability to pay that much amount , for which, Accused Officer-1 asked him to pay atleast Rs.2,000/- for attending his work otherwise his work would not be completed. As there was no other go, PW.1 agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to Accused Officer-1 on the next day and as he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to Accused Officer-1, he lodged Ex.P2 report in ACB office, Nellore for taking necessary action against Accused Officer-1. The aforesaid demands made by Accused Officer-1 were incorporated in Ex.P2 report lodged by PW.1 to the ACB police concerned.

39

61. A perusal of Ex.P2 report lodged by PW.1 to the ACB police concerned, it does not reveal anywhere the presence of Accused

No.2 in the aforesaid incidents on 17.01.2012 and 18.01.2012. But

PW.1 in his evidence before the Court, he did not refer the demand made by Accused Officer-1 on 17.01.2012. On the other hand, PW.1 in his evidence stated that on 18.01.2012 he met Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 and requested Accused Officer-1 to attend his work mentioned in Ex.P1-application, for which, Accused No.2 demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe and the said version of PW.1 is contrary to his version mentioned in Ex.P2-report.

62. Further, PW.1 in his evidence did not refer anywhere that at the first instance, Accused Officer-1 demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as bribe for doing official favour and when he expressed his inability to pay that much amount and then Accused

Officer-1 reduced the bribe amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/-.

PW.1 in his evidence further stated that on 19.01.2012 he approached Accused No.2, who demanded him to pay bribe money, in the presence of Accused Officer-1. This part of testimony made by PW.1 is not found either in his Ex.P2 report or his earlier statements made to the ACB police concerned recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and before the learned Magistrate recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 in his chief examination, he claimed that prior to the date of trap,

Accused No.2 also demanded him to pay bribe amount for attending his work by the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal, which is total developed version in the evidence of PW.1.

63. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 in his chief examination, he stated that on 17.01.2012 he made Ex.P1 application to the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal with a request to enter his remaining land in an extent of 17 cents in two bits in his 40 pattadar pass book and title deed and also in the revenue records and on the next day i.e. on 18.01.2012 when he met Accused

Officer-1 with a request to attend his work, for which, Accused

Officer-1 demanded him to pay bribe amount and again on the next day i.e. on 19.01.2012 he approached Accused No.2, who demanded him to pay bribe amount, in the presence of Accused

Officer-1. This is entirely different version of PW.1 and the said version of PW.1 was not found either in his Ex.P2 report or his earlier statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C.

64. PW.1 in his evidence in chief examination categorically stated that he was instructed PW.9 to tender the tainted amount of

Rs.2,000/- to Accused Officer-1 on her further demand only, but not otherwise. In case Accused Officer-1 demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from him, he should come out from the office and relay the pre-arranged signal to the trap party members.

PW.1 in his evidence in chief examination further stated that on the date of trap i.e. on 19.01.2012 after getting down the vehicle at little distance away from the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal and proceeded to the Tahsildar office and entered into the said office and found Accused Officer-1 was not there and at about 5.30 p.m.

she returned to the office after attending camp, Accused No.2 took him into the room of Accused Officer-1 and then Accused Officer-1 asked him to pay the bribe amount to Accused No.2. Thereafter, he met Accused Officer-1 and enquired whether she received bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- paid to Accused No.2, for which, she replied positively.

65. The aforesaid that she received the said amount. This part of testimony made by PW.1, it reveals that the alleged bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- was not paid by PW.1 to Accused No.2 in the presence 41 of Accused Officer-1 and as such after making payment to the

Accused No.2, he met Accused Officer-1 in her chamber and enquired her whether she received the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- paid by him to Accused No.2. However, the aforesaid testimony made by PW.1 is not found in her earlier statements recorded under

Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and it is contrary to his earlier versions. Admittedly, Accused Officer-1 did not receive any bribe amount from PW.1 onthe date of trap i.e.on 19.01.2012.Further, the chemical test organized to both hand fingers of Accused Officer-1 which yielded negative results. After deposing chief examination of

PW.1 before the Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor notced that there were variations in the chief examination of PW.1 comparing to his earlier statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and also comparing to the contents of Ex.P2 report. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor declared

PW.1 as hostile subjected to cross examine him. But during the course of cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of the prosecution, he admitted the contents of Ex.P2-report are genuine and he stated the some of the facts mentioned in his Ex.P2-report before PW.9 and learned Judicial Magistrate when his earlier statements were recorded.

66. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of Accused Officer-1 he scribed Ex.P2 report on the dictation of one

ACB constable. One Patnam Venkateswarlu advised him to lodge a report to the ACB police concerned. He was not present when the

ACB police concerned scribed Ex.P11 post-trap proceedings in

Mediators Report-II and he was not consulted at that time. Due to fear of warrant issued against him by this court, he deposed in his chief examination that Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 demanded him to pay bribe. At the instance of ACB police 42 concerned, he gave a statement before the learned Judicial

Magistrate. Accused Officer-1 never demanded him to pay any bribe

amount.

67. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of Accused No.2 that he lodged a report in ACB office, Nellore alleging that Accused No.2 only demanded money. It was suggested to PW.1 on behalf of Accused No.2 that Accused No.2 never demanded and accepted any bribe from him and he thrusted the bribe amount in the pocket of Accused No.2 and the said suggestion was denied by PW.1 in his cross examination.

68. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 in his cross examination, he categorically stated that Accused Officer-1 never demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe for attending his work i.e. entering his remaining land in an extent of 17 cents in his pattadar pass book and title deed and also entering the same in revenue records, providing 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal. On the other hand, PW.1 in his cross examination changed his earlier version and stated that accused No.2 demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe for attending his work, for which, he paid the said amount of Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2 and Accused Officer-1 is no way concerned to the said payment.

69. As per the prosecution, Accused Officer-1 demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe for doing official favor i.e.

entering the remaining land in an extent of 17 cents in pattadar pass book and title deed of PW.1 and also furnish 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal to PW.1 by entering the same in the revenue records. PW.1 lodged Ex.P2 report in ACB office, Nellore narrating the demands made by Accused Officer-1 on 17.01.2012 and 18.01.2012 for attending his work. PW.1 did not refer the presence of Accused NO.2 in Ex.P2 report lodged to the ACB police concerned 43 and as such PW.9 registered Ex.P2 report as case in Crime

NO.1/RCT-NLR/2012 under section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 against

Accused Officer-1 only and issue Ex.P13-FIR.

70. Prior to the trap there was no allegation for demanding the bribe amount against Accused No.2. The grievance of PW.1 in his Ex.P2 report against Accused Officer-1 only. But PW.1 in his evidence before the Court changed his version and stated that

Accused Officer-1 never demanded him to ay bribe of Rs.2,000/- for attending his work and on the other hand, PW.1 claimed that

Accused No.2 demanded him to pay bribe for attending his work and accepted the said amount of Rs2,000/- from him, which is contrary to his earlier statements made by him recorded under

Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C.

71. At this juncture, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 had vehemently contended that the prosecution failed to establish vital ingredients to constitute the offence of receiving illegal gratification by the public servant while discharging his duties and therefore Accused Officer-1 may be acquitted. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for Accused Officer-1 has relied upon the following decisions.

i) The decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police and

another reported in 2015 CRI.L.J.4670, wherein it was held that- “Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, if so facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the P.C. Act”.

ii) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in V. Venkata Subba Rao Vs. State Inspector of Police, A.P. reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.754 , wherein it was held that – “In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 provides for raising of presumption only if a demand is proved” 44 iii) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi through C.B.I. reported in 2015 CRI.L.J. 4399, wherein it was held that-- “The prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant, upon whose evidence much relevance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent” iv) The decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in

Nagulapati Mallaiah Vs. The State reported in 2014 CRI.L.J.

1581 wherein it was held that – “Mere facts namely that the chemical test proved positive and the recovery of the tainted amount at the instance of the appellant do not automatically enable the court to draw the presumption against the appellant under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988 unless the prosecution could be able to establish either by positive evidence or from the circumstances brought on record that the appellant voluntarily accepted the bribe amount. Defence available with the accused that there was possibility for the complainant who was known to be unscrupulous individual in the habit of involving the public servants in false charges of graft and made false complaint against the accused. Accused is entitled to be benefit of doubt”.

v) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 CRI.L.J. 2787, wherein it was held that -- “Mere acceptance of money is not sufficient for convicting the accused U/Sec. 13(1)(d)(i) of PC Act. There must be evidence on record that the accused obtained any amount by corrupt or illegal means. A complainant not supporting the prosecution case on the points of demand and acceptance. From the evidence of panch witnesses it was not clear that there was any demand by the accused and amount was paid to him by the complainant”.

vi) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2014 CRI.L.J. 2433, wherein it was held that -- “It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 45 20 of the P.C. Act can be drawn are wholly absent” vii) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in N. Sunkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 230 (SC), wherein it was held that – “It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section7 of P.C. Act, 1988, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the P.C. Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow”.

Viii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi reported in 2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 434 (SC), wherein it was held that – “In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important and when the accused has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the accused that the money had been put in the drawer as an illegal gratification”.

ix) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779, wherein it was held that – “Accused can rebut charge either through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable evidence. It was held that, burden of proof on the accused under Section 20 of P.C. Act is not the same as the burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”

x) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in M. R. Purushotham Vs. State of Karataka reported in 2015(2) Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 249, wherein it was held that – “When PW.1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he 46 has stated in his initial complaint in Ex.P1 before PW.4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW.3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Ex.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are liable to be set aside”.

xi) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1589 wherein it was held that - “It is difficult for the Court to hold that the prosecution has established the offence against the accused that he accepted the money voluntarily as illegal gratification” xii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inSuraj Mal Vs. the state (Delhi administration) reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1408, wherein it was held that – “Where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. Mere recovery of money from accused is not sufficient.

72. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution has argued that the prosecution has established all the vital ingredients such as official favour vested in the Accused Officer-1 to get entry of remaining land of PW.1 in an extent of 17 cents in pattadar pass book and title deed and to get entry the said land in the revenue records and provides 1-B Namuna and copies of adangal to PW.1, demand of illegal gratification for doing official favour, payment of illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- and acceptance of the said amount from the Defacto-complainant (PW.1) by the Accused Officer-1 through Accused No.2 at the time of trap and therefore the Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 are liable to be punished for the charges framed against her.

47

54. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions:

i)The decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Vidya Sagar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) ALD (CRL.) 965,wherein it was held that – “The amount was not found in the hands of DW.4 but, underneath the bed and the chemical test conducted to the crucial portion of the bed also yielded positive result. This belies the claim of A.O. and his wife. D.W.4 being the wife of A.O., is an interested witness and her evidence cannot be believed. As per her evidence, when PW.1 tendered some papers to A.O., he angrily returned them saying that, he was not competent to see those papers. If that was the scenario, the question of A.O. writing a letter to Sujatha Reddy requesting her to accept the joining report of PW.1, in that angry mood does not arise. But A.O. is not denying his writing the letter to Sujatha Reddy. The said letter falsifies the happening of the circumstances as spoken by DW.4 on one hand and confirms the prosecution version on the other.” ii)The decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Subbu Singh Vs. State by Public Prosecutor reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3433,wherein it was held that – “So far as the stand that money was kept for the purpose of falsely implicating, the same is without substance. The accused was a police officer who knew the consequences of the bribe. Once it is proved by the prosecution that the money was demanded as bribe and the same was received from PW.2, Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 comes into play. Once there is a presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe.” iii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi and another Vs.

State of Gujarat reported in (2012)7 Supreme Court

cases 80, wherein it was held that – “The currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellants. In the lengthy cross examination nothing has really been elicited to doubt their presence and veracity of the testimony.” 48 iv) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in K.L. Bakolia Vs. State Th. Director, C.B.I. passed in Criminal appeal No.797/2015, dt.15.5.2015, wherein it was held that – “Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that, the Accused Officer received illegal gratification. Defence plea of the Accused Officer that, the currency notes were put under Sofa without his knowledge was rightly rejected by the Courts below.”

v)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of A.P. Vs. M. Radha Krishna Murthy reported in 2009 CRI.L.J. 1896,wherein it was held that – “Whenever as part of the case relating to demand and acceptance is not acceptable, the whole case would fail even if the case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by the prosecution is established. When part of the prosecution relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by itself, the ratio of the decision does not apply.” vi) The decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.3224, wherein it was held that – “The corroboration need not be by direct oral evidence and can be gathered from circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of the complainant, is sufficient to convict a person, if it is reliable, acceptable and trust worthy.” vii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Krishna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.2436, wherein it was held that – “The complainant, the investigating officer and other witnesses, who were present when the appellant was caught red-handedly by the Anti Corruption Team have been cross-examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They have been reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.” viii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inMadhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.175, wherein it was held that – 49 “If a public servant is found in possession of currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein and the prosecution does not have further duty to prove behind the fact that, prosecution witness had paid the demanded money to the appellant, public servant.” ix) The decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in S. Siddaramegowda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.2158 wherein it was held – “The scrutiny of the evidence lead by the prosecution though contains minor discrepancies, sofar as the demand, the evidence of Pws1, 2, 4 and 8 is consistent, cogent and trust-worthy. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses”.

x) In another decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of U.P. Vs. Dr. G. K. Ghosh reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 993 wherein it was held that – “The evidence of a Police Officer cannot be brushed aside as that of an interested witness. That he has an interest is true only to an extent a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen, who complains of harassment by a Government Officer making a demand for illegal gratification, is protected and the role of his department in the protection of such citizens is vindicated”.

xi)In another decision of our Hon’ble High Court rendered in B. Vittalaiah Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 776,wherein it was held that – “The prosecution by cogent evidence could establish that, A.O. demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1 and therefore, statutory presumption under section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 follows.” xii) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in M. Narasinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.515,wherein it was held that “The court can draw legal presumption that, said gratification was accepted as reward for doing public duty.” xiii)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State (C.B.I.) Vs. Dr. Amarjyothi Baruah passed in Special Case No.3/2010, dt.11.12.2012, wherein it was held that – “The amount which was recovered from the accused is not a legal remuneration, but an illegal gratification as ascertained from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.” 50 xiv)In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Mahesh Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1974 CRI.L.J.509,wherein it was held that – “To cast on the prosecution the burden of proving that, the amount was accepted by the accused otherwise than by way of legal remuneration is to ask the prosecution to prove that the amount was paid and accepted by way of bribe.” xv) In another decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in D. Velayutham Vs. State reported in 2015 (2) ALD (CRL.) 586 (SC), wherein it was held that – “PW.1 has consistently stated that A.1 demanded the bribe and that A.2 received the amount as stated by him. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no corroboration regarding the demand. This is a case where each of the accused tried to throw the blame on the other, but taking the overall circumstances into consideration in the light of evidence of PW.3 and 4 along with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, both courts below have consistently held that the evidence of these witnesses establishes the guilt of the accused and we see no reason to come to a different conclusion.”

74. Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by both sides and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the parties, I have perused the relevant record. PW.1 who is the defacto complainant, in his evidence in chief examination stated deferent versions in respect of the demand made by the Accused

Officer-1 to pay bribe of Rs.2,000/- for doing official favour and PW.1 in his evidence in cross examination categorically stated that

Accused Officer-1 never demanded him to pay bribe for doing official favour. It is settled principal of Law that where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence. A perusal of Ex.P2 report lodged by PW.1 to the ACB police concerned, it reveals that on 17.01.2012 Accused

Officer-1 demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- for attending his work and further on 18.01.2012 Accused Officer-1 reiterated her earlier demand for doing official favour to PW.1 and when PW.1 51 expressed his inability to pay that much amount, she reduced the bribe amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/- and PW.1 agreed to pay the said amount to PW.1 on the next day and as he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to Accused Officer-1, he lodged Ex.P2 report with ACB police concerned.

75. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he stated different versions and further his evidence is silent with regard to the demand made by Accused Officer-1 on 17.01.2012. On the other hand, he stated that Accused No.2 demanded him to pay a sum of

Rs.2,000/- on 18.01.2012 in the presence of Accused Officer-1. It is already stated supra that the said version stated by PW.1 is not found in his earlier statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and also it is not mentioned in Ex.P2 report lodged to the ACB police concerned. Further, PW.1 in his evidence in cross examination stated that Accused No.2 alone demanded him to pay the bribe amount for doing official favour and that Accused Officer-1 never demanded him to pay bribe for attending his work.

76. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he stated inconsistent versions in their evidence on different stages and therefore the testimony of PW.1 becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence as per the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Suraj

Mal Vs. the State (Delhi administration) reported in AIR 1979

Supreme Court 1408.

77. There is no acceptable evidence on record to show that

Accused Officer-1 demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe for doing official favour i.e. to get enter the remaining land of

PW.1 in an extent of 17 cents in pattadar pass book and title deed and provides 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal by entering the remaining land of PW.1 in the revenue records. The prosecution has also failed to establish the vital ingredients of demand of bribe 52 amount, payment of Rs.2,000/- towards bribe to the Accused

Officer-1 by PW.1 on the date of trap, acceptance of bribe amount by the Accused Officer-1 from PW.1. On the other hand, Accused

Officer-1 claimed that she never demanded and accepted any illegal gratification from the defacto-complainant namely P. Srinivasulu (PW.1) and even on the date of trap also she did not demand any illegal gratification and accepted the same from PW.1 and further the contention of the Accused Officer-1 is that she was falsely implicated in this case. It is already stated supra that the prosecution failed to establish that Accused Officer-1 demanded

PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe for doing official favour.

78. Further, the prosecution is able to prove that the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the left side upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2 at his instance under Ex.P11-post-trap proceedings. Except recovery of tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from the possession of Accused No.2, there is no other acceptable evidence on record to show that on the demand made by the

Accused Officer-1 PW.1 handed over the tainted amount of

Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2 on the instructions of Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 received the said amount from PW.1 and kept in his left side upper shirt pocket. On the other hand, Accused Officer-1 claimed that she never demanded and accepted any bribe amount from PW.1 for doing any official favor. The said stand taken by the

Accused Officer-1 is supported by PW.1 in his evidence in cross examination and therefore it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish that Accused Officer-1 demanded

PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe for doing official favour.

79. Further, DWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of Accused

Officer-1, in support of her claim. One B. Sivarami Reddy, resident of Kaligiri was examined as DW.1, who stated in his evidence that 53 on the date of trap, he came to Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal to get pass books of his cousin namely Koncha Kistamma. At about 2.15 p.m. he noticed Patnam Venkateswarlu and some others at

Dolphin Daba in Kaligiri and they were discussing about the farmers pass books, by sitting behind him in the hotel. Later at about 4.00 or 4.10 p.m. he went to the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri , but the

Tahsildar was not present in the office and he was informed that she would come after 5.00 p.m. At about 5.45 p.m. or 6.00 p.m. the

Tahsildar came to the office, immediately some people came in civil dresses to the Tahsildar office after her arrival and some altercation took in the room of Tahsildar. He came to know that ACB police came there. The persons who were discussing with P. Venkateswarlu in Dolphin Daba came to the Tahsildar office in the evening, among them, two persons kept some amount in the hands of Accused No.2 and asked him to keep that amount in his pocket.

80. K. Mahesh, resident of Kavali Musthapuram, was examined as DW.2, who stated in his evidence that on 19.01.2012 he went to Tahsildar Office, Kavali to get Income and Caste certificates. By then Tahsildar was not present in the office and he was informed that she would come to the office after 6.00 p.m. So he waited there till her arrival as he was in need of Income and

Caste certificates. After 6.00 p.m. the Tahsildar came to her office and immediately 5 or 6 persons ran into her office room. Two persons caught hold of Accused No.2 and kept some amount in his hands and asked him to keep that amount in his pocket. They kept the money in the pant pocket of accused No.2.

81. Shaik Khalipha carpenter, resident of Kaligiri was examined as DW.3, who stated in his evidence that on 19.01.2012 he went to the office of Tahsildar, Kaligiri at 5.00 p.m. to attend minor works. By then the Tahsildar was not present in the office.

54

The Tahsildar came to the office at about 6.30 p.m. Some persons caught hold of Accused No.2 and tried to thrust something in his pocket. Later some people went into the office of Tahsildar.

Thereafter, all the public were asked to leave that place by some persons stating that they are from ACB Department.

82. As seen from the evidence of DWs.1 to 3, they stated three different versions. DW.1 in his evidence stated that two persons from ACB department kept some amount in the hands of

Accused No.2 and asked him to keep that amount in his pocket whereas DW.2 in his evidence stated that two persons from ACB department caught hold of Accused No.2 and kept some amount in his hands and asked him to keep that amount in his pocket, and they keep the money in the pant pocket of Accused No.2. Whereas

Dw.3 in his evidence stated that some persons from ACB department caught hold of Accused No.2 and tried to thrust something in his pocket. The versions in respect of keep the money in the hands of Accused No.2 by the ACB police concerned are inconsistent in each other and the said versions of DWs.1 to 3 are not believable. However, the prosecution was able to prove tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the possession of Accused

No.2 at his instance under Ex.P11 post-trap proceedings in the presence of the mediators. The prosecution failed to establish that

Accused Officer-1 demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- for doing official favour and Accused Officer-1 accepted a sum of

Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 for doing official favour on 19.01.2012 at about 6.30 p.m.

83.POINT NO.IV:-

It is to be next seen whether Accused Officer-1 by abusing her official position and also by resorting to illegal and corrupt practices, obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable security either 55 for herself or for some other person. The demand of bribe is concerned, the prosecution did not putforth any acceptable evidence before the Court to prove the demand made by the

Accused Officer-1 to pay illegal gratification to get enter the remaining land of PW.1 in his pattadar pass book and title deed and also provide 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal by entering the remaining land of PW.1 in the revenue records. PW.1, who is material witness, did not support the prosecution case in his evidence in cross examination with regard to demand made by

Accused Officer-1 to PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe for doing official favour and thereby PW.1 did not support the prosecution case.

84. It is already stated supra that except the recovery of tainted money from the possession of Accused No.2, there is no other acceptable evidence on record to show that the demand was made by the Accused Officer-1 and the Defacto-complainant (PW.1) gave illegal gratification and accepted the same by AccusedOfficer- 1 through Accused No.2 on the date of trap, further PWs.2 and 9 are not eye witnesses to the aspect of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to establish that the Accused Officer-1 by abusing her official position and also by resorting to illegal and corrupt practices, obtained pecuniary advantage or valuable security either for herself or for some other person.

85. POINT NO.V:-

It is to be next seen whether Accused No.2 abetted the commission of offence by receiving bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from

PW.1 as per the instructions of Accused Officer-1. As per the prosecution, on 19.01.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. when PW.1 met

Accused Officer-1 in her chamber for his work , for which, Accused 56

Officer-1 enquired him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount, for which, he replied positively. Then Accused Officer-1 asked PW.1 to pay the bribe amount to Accused No.2 and on the instructions of Accused Officer-1 the said bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- was received by Accused No.2 from PW.1 and kept the bribe amount in his left side shirt pocket. On perusal of Ex.P2 report lodged to the

ACB police concerned, PW.1 did not say anything against Accused

No.2 and further there is no grievance against Accused No.2.

Moreover, PW.1 did not mention anything in his Ex.P2 report that

Accused No.2 demanded him to pay illegal gratification for entering his remaining land in his pattadar pass book and title deed and providing 1-B Namuna and copy of adangal by recording his remaining land in the revenue records.

86. Further, PW.1 in his earlier statements recorded under

Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. stated that he handed over a sum of

Rs.2,000/- to Accused No.2 on the instructions of Accused Officer-1 in her chamber on the date of trap. But PW.1 in his evidence before the Court stated that he handed over a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the

Accused No.2 on the date of trap at about 6.30 p.m. and later he met the Accused Officer-1 in her chamber and enquired whether she received the amount of Rs.2,000/- from Accused No.2 as he paid the said amount to Accused No.2. As per the said version of PW.1 in his evidence that PW.1 did not pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to accused No.2 in the chamber of Accused Officer-1. Therefore, the evidence of

PW.1 is contrary to his earlier versions recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C.

87. As per the version of the prosecution, Accused No.2 received an amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 on the instructions of

Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 kept the said amount of

Rs.2,000/- in his shirt pocket as per the instructions of Accused 57

Officer-1. It is already stated supra that PW.1 did not refer the role of

Accused No.2 in his Ex.P1 report. The entire Ex.P2-report of PW.1 does not reveal the presence of Accused No.2 in the said deal. It is contended on behalf of Accused No.2 that on the instructions of

Accused Officer-1 he received an amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 and he has no knowledge whether the said amount is bribe amount.

On the date of trap, Accused Officer-1 asked him to receive the amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 and accordingly he received the said amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 by obeying the instructions of his superior officer.

88. As seen from the material available on record, Accused

No.2 has no knowledge with regard to the purpose of receiving the amount of Rs.2,000/- by him from PW.1 on the instructions of

Accused Officer-1. Further, Accused No.2 claimed that he has no knowledge that the said amount of Rs.2,000/- received from PW.1 by him on the instructions of Accused Officer-1 is bribe amount and he received the said amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 on the instructions of Accused Officer-1 being Superior officer and Accused

Officer-1 asked him to keep the said amount of Rs.2,000/- with him .

Merely receiving of bribe amount from PW.1 on the instructions of

Accused Officer-1 without knowing the purpose of payment, it cannot be said that Accused No.2 has knowledge that an amount of

Rs.2,000/- received by him from PW.1 on the instructions of Accused

Officer-1 is bribe amount and that the amount was received by him from PW.1 on the demand made by Accused Officer-1 and thereby abetted the commission of offence.

89. Further, it is already stated supra that PW.1 in his Ex.P2 report stated that Accused Officer-1 only demanded him to pay bribe amount for doing official favour and he did not refer the presence of Accused No.2 in anywhere in Ex.P2 report. But PW.1 in 58 his evidence before the Court changed his version and stated that

Accused Officer-1 never demanded him to pay the bribe amount for doing official favour and on the other hand, he stated that Accused

No.2 alone demanded him to pay the bribe amount for doing official favour and it is not the case of PW.1 in his Ex.P2 report and also not the case of the prosecution and PW.1 stated entirely different version before the Court and therefore it is already stated supra that the evidence of PW.1 becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence. Having considered the material available on record, I am holding that the prosecution failed to establish that Accused No.2 abetted the commission of offence by receiving bribe amount of

Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 as per the instructions of Accused Officer-1.

90. POINT NO.VI:-

It is already stated supra that, the prosecution has established that Accused Officer-1 and Accused No.2 were public servants at the relevant time within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But the prosecution failed to establish that Accused Officer-1 demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the Defacto-complainant (PW.1) on the date of trap, which is other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour and the prosecution has also failed to establish that, Accused Officer-1 being public servant by adducing her official position as Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal obtained a sum of

Rs.2,000/- from the Defacto-complainant (PW.1) on the date of trap through Accused No.2 for herself which is pecuniary advantage and therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against Accused Officer-1 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the Accused Officer-1 is entitled for acquittal. Further, the prosecution failed to establish that Accused No.2 abetted the 59 commission of offence by receiving bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from

PW.1 as per the instructions of Accused Officer-1 and therefore, prosecution failed to establish the charge leveled against Accused

No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such Accused No.2 is entitled for acquittal.

91. From the fore-going reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against the

Accused Officer-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the Accused Officer-1 and Accused

No.2 are entitled for acquittal for their respective charges.

In the result, Accused Officer-1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the

P.C. Act, 1988 and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. for their respective offences. The bail bonds of Accused

Officer-1 and Accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day. The case property of M.Os.1 to 8, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Further, the case property of cash of Rs.2,000/- (MO.9) shall be returned to PW.1 and cash of Rs.100/- (MO.10) shall be returned to Accused No.2 after expiry of appeal time. Further, the case property of unaccounted cash of Rs.3,300/- (MO.11) shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 19th day of November,

2018.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases–cum–

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

60

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1:P. Srinivasulu,DW.1 B. Siva Rami Reddy Defacto-complainant.Agriculture, R/o Kaligiri village.

PW.2:M.V. Suresh Babu, DW.2 K. Mahesh, the then Assistant Executive Student, R/o Kavali Engineer in Panchayat Raj Musthapurma village. Institutions Division, Podalakur, Mediator.

PW.3:K. Leela, DW.3 Shaik Khalipha, the then Deputy Tahsildar, Carpenter, Kaligiri mandal. R/o Kaligiri village.

PW.4:N. Mallikarjuna, Junior Assistant, office of Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal.

PW.5:B. Rohini, Village Servant, Pedakonduru village.

PW.6:G. Simhadri Naidu, the then Junior Assistant, office of Sub Registrar, Vinjamur.

PW.7:Shaik Abdul Hameed, the then Senior Assistant, Revenue Divisional Office, Kavali.

PW.8:M. Venkateswarlu, the then RDO, Kavali.

PW.9:J. Bhaskar Rao, the then DSP, ACB, Nellore, first Investigating Officer.

PW.10:K. Venkateswarlu, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore, second Investigating Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

61

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1:is the application dated 17.01.2012-NIL - submitted by PW.1 to the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal. Ex.P.2:is the report dated 18.01.2012 lodged by PW.1 to the ACB Police concerned.

Ex.P.3:is the application of PW.1 addressed to Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal for pattadar pass book and title deed.

Ex.P.4:is the application of PW.1 addressed to the Tahsildar, Kaligiri mandal.

Ex.P.5:is the statement of PW.1 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.6:is copy of FIR in Crime No.1/RCT- NLR/2012 of ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore.

Ex.P.7: is the pre-trap proceedings dated 19.01.2012 in Mediators Report-I.

Ex.P.8:is the register of Registered post documents maintained by Tahsildars office, Kaligiri mandal.

Ex.P.9:is the Attendance Register of Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal.

Ex.P10:is the register Registered post applications maintained by Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal.

Ex.P11:is the post-trap proceedings dated 19.01.2012 in Mediators Report-II.

Ex.P12:is the receipt dated 17.01.2012 issued by the Tahsildar office, Kaligiri mandal in favour of PW.1.

Ex.P13:is the original FIR in crime No.1/RCT- NLR/2012 of ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore.

Ex.P14:is the memo dated 19.01.2012 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad permitting PW.9 to lay the trap against Accused Officer-1.

62

Ex.P15:is the rough sketch for the scene of offence.

Ex.P16: is the memo dated 20.09.2013 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad authorized PW.10 to conduct further investigation.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENSE

MO.1:is the sealed cover containing- NIL - sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in pre-trap proceedings.

MO.2:is sealed cover containing the sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre-trap proceedings.

MO.3:is sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post trap proceedings.

MO.4:is sealed bottle containing right hand wash of Accused No.2.

MO.5: is sealed bottle containing left hand wash of Accused No.2.

MO.6:is sealed bottle containing wash of upper portion of Rs.100/- currency note.

MO.7:is sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of the upper shirt pocket of Accused No.2.

MO.8:is shirt of Accused No.2.

MO.9:is cash of Rs.2,000/-.

MO.10:is cash of Rs.100/- seized from the shirt pocket of Accused No.2.

MO.11:is cash of Rs.3,300/- seized from the table drawer of Accused Officer-1 kept in her rest room.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES–CUM

– II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : NELLORE .

Friday, this the 16 th day of November, 2018

Present: Sri Mohammed Abdul Rafi,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE NO.5 OF 2014

1.Name of the Complainant: State represented by the Inspector of Police (SIT), Anti Corruption Bureau, Prakasam, Nellore Range.

2.Names of the Accused : A1) Chilukuri Satyanarayana, @ Satyam, s/o Sreeramulu, Persons. Aged 54 years, Sri Nagar, Addanki, leader of the Addanki Syndicate.

A2) Pavuluri Srinivasa Rao, s/o Seshaiah, Aged 41 years, Srinagar 1st lane, Addanki.

A3) Dammu Subba Rao, s/o late Nagaiah, Aged 59 years, Retired P & E Inspector, Addanki.

3.Crime Number: 04/RCO-NPK/2012 of ACB., Prakasam, Nellore Range.

4.Section of Law: under Sections 12 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC against Accused Nos.1 and 2 and under Sections 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sec.120-B of IPC against Accused No.3.

5.Plea of the Accused persons: Pleaded not guilty.

6.Finding of the Court: Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 12 and 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC, Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offencespunishableunder Sections 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sec.120-B of IPC.

7.Result: In result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 12 and 14 of 2 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Further, Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sec.120-B of IPC and he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt I. Neeraja, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri K.V. Suresh, counsel for A1 and A2 and that of Sri Sk. Mahaboob Basha, counsel for A3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The state represented by the Inspector of Police (SIT), Anti

Corruption Bureau, Prakasam, Nellore Range has laid a Charge

Sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.4/RCO-NPK/2012 charged under Sections 8, 12 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 34 and 109 of IPC with the following allegations:

2. That Accused No.1 is a resident of Addanki town, Ongole

District and he was operating the liquor syndicate office located at the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastri Street, Vasavi Nagar,

Addanki, Accused No.2 was employed as Accountant, maintained the books of accounts in which entries were systematically made showing the payments made to the officials of enforcement agencies. Accused No.3 worked as P & E Inspector, Addanki from 01.01.2010 to 22.02.2011 and retired from his services on 30.06.2011 and in connivance with Addanki wine syndicate received bribes and allowed irregularities in violation of Excise Act and Excise 3

Rules and abused his official position by omission of his lawful duties and not taken prompt action to control violations of Excise

Act/rules such as the sale of liquor at more than MRP rates, running of belt shops, sale of liquor beyond stipulated timings and sale of loose liquor for consumption at the wine shops in violation of licensing conditions and thereby caused pecuniary advantage to himself and to Accused No.1 of Addanki wine syndicate.

On credible information, a surprise check was conducted in

Karimnagar town on 13.12.2011 by intercepting a TATa Victa vehicle belonging to the officials of Prohibition and Excise department and an amount of Rs.3,62,640/- was recovered and seized under a cover of panchanama by the ACB officials in the presence of mediators. As the amount was suspected to be the amount collected towards bribe for favouring the owners of the wine shops, a case in Crime

No.15/RCO-ACB-KNR/2011 was registered on 14.12.2011

U/Sec.13(1)(a)(d) of the P.C. Act 1988, Secs. 34, 120-B of IPC and

Secs. 41(1)(a) and 102 of Cr.P.C., against the P & E officials. The investigation disclosed that money was collected illegally from some owners of wine shops of Karimnagar District, who formed themselves as a syndicate for favouring the wine shop licensees, who are in the syndicate for not taking any action mandated under the A.P. Excise Act for the commission of violations of Excise Laws,

Rules and license conditions, such as sale of liquor over and above

MRP Rates, selling of cheap liquor, operation of illegal belt shops, not maintaining the prescribed timings, sale of loose liquor for consumption at the shop premises etc.,

Consequent to the disclosure of the organized offence, on the request of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, City Range,

Hyderabad by name P. Jayapal (LW.81) to conduct searches in the office of similar syndicates in Addanki and other places. The 4

Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore by name V. Sudhakar Reddy (PW.32) conducted searches on 16.12.2011 in the syndicate premises located at the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastri

Street, Vasavi Nagar, Addanki and seized 9 Registers and the data contained in them consists of details of sales and expenditure, entries of DDs drawn in favour of APBCL limited by the syndicate office and monthly mamools paid to the Government officials and other entries relevant for running the business for the period from 01.07.2010 to 15.12.2011 in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report.

The seized records were analyzed and the analysis disclosed that the members of the Addanki town wine syndicate, who were running 9 wine shops in Addanki town formed themselves into an informal association/syndicate and Accused No.1 was designated as the leader of the said syndicate and Accused No.2, who was employed as Accountant/clerk maintained the seized records i.e. 9

Registers maintained for the period from 01.07.2010 to 15.12.2011 in which entries were systematically made showing the payments made to the Government officials, departments and others which are interspersed with the entries pertaining to various routine business transactions of these 9 wine shops under the said liquor syndicate. The entries disclosed that the mamools received by the

Excise and Police officials from the wine shops through the syndicate from 01.07.2010 to 15.12.2011. During the said period, the Excise officials have received Rs.21,23,936/- towards their mamools. Police officials have received Rs. 3,53,500/- towards their mamools.

All the 9 wine shops of the liquor syndicate are located in

Addanki town i.e. Yamuna wines, Sandhya wines, Friends wines,

Saraswathi wines, Kaveri wines, Godavari wines, Dolphine wines, 5

Srikrishna wines and Ganga wines. As the above seized documents disclosed collusive corruption, DSP, ACB, Nellore Range by name J.

Bhaskar Rao (LW.82), after obtaining necessary permission, registered the occurrence report as a case in Crime No.4/RCO-

NPK/2012 against Accused No.1 and others under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 34, 109 of IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, on 23.04.2012 Accused

No.2 voluntarily appeared before the Inspector of Police, ACB, City

Range-II,Hyderabad by name K. Chandra Sekhar (PW.31).Then the

Inspector of Police (PW.31) after recording his arrest proceedings in the presence of the mediators forwarded him to this Court for

Judicial remand. The investigation disclosed that Accused No.1 operated the syndicate by associating himself with other members of the syndicate to collectively control the law enforcing agencies and operated the syndicate from the premises located at the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastri Street, Vasavi Nagar, Addanki.

The 9 Registers which were seized from the syndicate office disclosed that the mamools were paid to the officers and they were entered in the records maintained in the syndicate office along with other day to day transactions of the syndicate.

On comparison of the DDs paid by Addanki syndicate for all 9 wine shops with the entries in the seized records, 92 entries out of 579 entries were tallied. This shows that the amount for DDs is being paid from the pooled up amounts of the wine syndicate. On comparison with the statement of CC charges paid by the syndicate shop owners with the entries made in the seized records, it is found that 79 entries out of 253 entries were tallied with the records seized at Addanki syndicate office. Thus, it is clear that the 6 electricity bills are being paid by the syndicate office for all the 9 shops. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file Under Sections 8, 12 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 34 of IPC against Accused Nos.1 and 2 and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a)

(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against Accused No.3. On appearance of all the accused before this Court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. On appearance of the all accused before this Court they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, wherein, they denied the commission of offence, whereupon charges Under Sections 12 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of

IPC were framed against Accused Nos.1 and 2, charges U/Secs.8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC were framed against Accused No.3 read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 32 and got marked Exs.P1 to P34. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Nadendla Sudhakar Rao(LW.3), Makkineni

Ranganayakulu(LW.4), Chinnamraju Subbaraju @ Ramasubba Raju (LW.5), Kavuri Nageswara Rao(LW.7), Kooli Veeraraghavaiah (LW.10),

Thatikonda Nageswara Rao(LW.14), Mothukuri Chandraiah (LW.16),Dulipalla Sreenivasa Rao (LW.17), Sudanagunta Sreenivasa

Rao(LW.18),Pentyala Ramesh Babu(LW.20), Narrisetty Rama Rao (LW.21), Karri Krishna Chaithnya(LW.23),Vadlamudi Chiranjeevi (LW.25), Mungamudi Balaswamy (LW.26),Thenali Ananda Kumar (LW.29), Sanka Kondalu(LW.30),Addanki Venkateswarlu (LW.31),

Kotapati Raghavaiah(LW.33), Khaza Nayab Rasool (LW.37), Desu Hari 7

Babu(LW.42),Kothamasu Venkateswarlu (LW.55), Dulipalla Koteswara

Rao(LW.58),C.JanardhanReddy(LW.77)andMadira

Sreemannarayana (LW.79).

6. The prosecution has failed to examine the following witnesses namely Motupalli Rajyalakshmi @ Lakshmi Rajyam @

Rajyam(LW.1), Pentyala Srinivasa Rao (LW.6), Narra Raghavaiah (LW.15), Addanki Venkateswarlu(LW.31), Bandaru Hari Babu (LW.40),

Palla Sreeramulu (LW.43), Golla Malyadri (LW.44), Kundeti

Bramhaiah(LW.45), Chinni Sudhakara Rao (LW.47), Guntupalli

Nagaiah (LW.49), Shaik Eliyaz (LW.50), Manukonda Anjaiah(LW.51),

Medikonda Raghava(LW.52), Matha Govindaiah (LW.53), Pogula

Drakshayamma (LW.54), Pasupuleti Srinivasa Rao(LW.56),

Dharmavarapu Babu Rao(LW.57), Sriram Thirupataiah (LW.60),

Pomba Anjaiah (LW.61), Chilikuri Srikanth (LW.63),Pallam Anji Reddy (LW.64),Shaik Mastan(LW.65), Patan Mastan (LW.66),Sanka Venkata

Ramanayya(LW.68),Tatiboyana Narasimha Rao (LW.70), Shaik

Sandhani Johny Basha(LW.74), Paritala Ramanjeneyulu @ Kolla

Ramanjeneyulu(LW.80), P. Jayapal, DSP, ACB, City Range, Hyderabad (LW.81) and DSP, ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore by name J. Bhaskar

Rao (LW.82) inspite of giving sufficient time and several opportunities.

7. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, Accused

Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, they denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.

9. Now the points for determination are:- 8

I) Whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of Accused No.1 with the

assistance of other A4 licensees in Addanki town

of Prakasam District?

II) Whether the liquor syndicate selling the liquor over

and above the MRP rates, opening of shops beyond

stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose

sales

at the shop counters etc., with the co-operation of

Accused No.3 and others in violation of provisions

of A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Excise Rules?

III) Whether Accused No.1 paid regular mamools as

illegal gratification to the officials of Excise and

police department including Accused No.3 so as to

facilitate the conduct of liquor business in violation

of the provisions of A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Excise

Rules for the purpose of making unlawful gain?

IV) Whether Accused No.1 habitually committing the

offences in furtherance of the common intention and

pre-arranged plan and abetting the public servants

inorder to overlook the violations committed bythem?

V) Whether Accused No.3 being a public servant having

conspired with Accused No.1 liquor syndicate with

common intention and received the monthly mamools

as illegal gratification from the liquor syndicate of

Addanki led by Accused No.1 to do the official favour

of overlooking the contravention of Excise Laws and

Excise Rules committed by the liquor syndicate?

VI) Whether the prosecution has proved its case against

Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable

under Sections 12 and 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, and

Sec.120-B of IPC, and against Accused No.3 for the

offence punishable under Sections 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)

(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sec. 120-B of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, Accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired among themselves having common intention in which under the leadership of Accused No.1 with the assistance and connivance of Accused Nos.2 and 3 into a syndicate and paid illegal gratification by pooling the bribe amounts of 9 wine shops by forming a syndicate for inducing the public servants by corrupt and illegal means to show official favour in overlooking the contravention of the Excise Laws and Rules and for abetting the offence by the public servants and as such A1 and A2 are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 12 and 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC and A3 is liable for 9 punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC. On the other hand, the defence of Accused Nos.1 to 3 is one of the total denial of the prosecution case.

11. In order to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined as many as 32 witnesses, among them, owners of the wine shop premises namely Bandaru Usha Rani,

Sandireddy Srinivasa Rao and Boddapati Ravi Babu were examined as PWs.1 to 3 respectively, nowkarnamadars of A4 wine shops namely Kukkapalli Sivanarayana, Yenaganulla Anjeneyulu, Makkena

Hari Babu, Bachina Krishna Murthy, Gopisetty Koteswara Rao,

Sampath Sreenivasa Rao and Thati Sreenivasa Rao were examined as PWs.4 to 10 respectively, neighbouring shop owners of A4 wine shops namely Muvvala Seshagiri Rao, Pulikati Naga Anjaneyulu,

Puligadda Murali, Maram Venkata Pulipi Reddy, Dhesu Hari Babu,

Guntipalli Nageswara Rao, Garlapati Hanumantha Rao and Macha

Govindaiah were examined as PWs.12 to 19 respectively, consumers of liquor shops namely Khasim Sydulu, Singararakonda

Singaiah, Mallempudi Nageswara Rao, Rudru Kotaiah, Challa Eswara

Rao and Kooli Srinivasa Rao were examined as PWs.20, 21, 23 to 26 respectively, Biyyapu Suresh, the then Superintendent in the office of P & E Superintendent, Ongole was examined as PW.11, one of the mediators namely N. Chandra Sekhar Rao, the then planning co- ordinator, Rajiv Vidya Mission, Ongole, who is said to be present at the time of inspection of office of P & E Superintendent, Ongole was examined as PW.22, another mediator namely Srikanth Sridhar,

Shroff in Sub Treasury office, Addanki, who is said to be present at the time of search of Addanki liquor syndicate in the house of M.

Lakshmi Rajyam was examined as PW.27, Gorantla Venkata Rao, who is the then Head Constable, P & E Station, Addanki was 10 examined as PW.28, another mediator namely Karri Syam Sundar

Reddy, the then Deputy Executive Engineer, in the office of

Nagarjuna Sagar canal Sub Division, Ongole, who is said to be present at the time of recording confession statement of A2 in ACB

Office, Ongole was examined as PW.29, T.V.V. Prathap Kumar, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole, who conducted part of the investigation in this case was examined as PW.30, K. Chandra

Sekhar, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range, Hyderabad, who is 2nd Investigating Officer in this case and laid a charge sheet against accused persons was examined as PW.31, V. Sudhakar

Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole, who conducted search in Addanki syndicate located in the house of M. Lakshmi

Rajyam was examined as PW.32.

12. In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents.

Ex.P1 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 recorded by the ACB Police concerned, Ex.P2 and P3 are relevant contradictory portions in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.2 and 3 recorded by the ACB police concerned, Exs.P4 to P15 are Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PWs.4 to 10, 12 to 16 respectively recorded by the

ACB police concerned, Exs.P16 to P20 are relevant contradictory portions in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.17 to 21 respectively recorded by the ACB police concerned, Exs.P21 to P24 are Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.23 to 26 respectively recorded by the ACB police concerned, Ex.P25 is the Section 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW.28 recorded by the ACB police concerned,

Ex.P26 is the signature of PW.29 on confession statement of

Accused No.2 dated 23.04.2012, Ex.P27 is the letter dated 05.03.2012 from P & E Superintendent office, Ongole, Ex.P28 is the 11 letter dated 12-03-2012 from District Supplies officer, Prakasam

District at Ongole, Ex.P29 is the letter dated 10.04.2012 from

Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ex.P30 is the letter

dated 16.03.2012 of SDPO, Darsi, Ex.P31 is the letter dated

13.03.2012 of P & E Superintendent, Ongole, Ex.P32 is the letter

dated 13.03.2012 of Superintendent Engineer (Operations),

APSPDCL, Prakasam, Ex.P33 is the letter dated 05.03.2012 of P&E

Superintendent, Ongole, Ex.P34 is the letter dated 05.04.2012 of P & E Supervisory officer, APBCL, IMFL Depot, Pernamitta, Ongole.

13. In order to establish the charges leveled against the

Accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 32, among them PWs.22, 27, 30, 31, 32 are the main witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution has relied upon.

In addition to the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 32, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 32 and the documentary evidence is to be appreciated by the Court.

14. POINT NO.I

It is to be first seen whether there was any liquor syndicate formed under the leadership of Accused No.1 with the assistance of 9 wine shops licensees in Addanki town of Prakasam District. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that Accused No.1 was operating the liquor syndicate office located at the house of M.

Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastri Street, Vasavi Nagar, Addanki, and

Accused No.2 was employed as Accountant maintained the books of accounts in which entries were systematically made showing the payments made to the officials of enforcement agencies. Accused

No.3 worked as P & E Inspector, Addanki from 01.01.2010 to 22.02.2011. The Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole by name V.

Sudhakar Reddy (PW.32) conducted search on 16.12.2011 in 12

Addanki syndicate office premises located in the house of M.

Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastri Street, Vasavi Nagar, Addanki, and seized documents in the presence of mediators under the cover of search proceedings. Further, the scrutiny of the aforesaid seized record/material revealed that the licensed owners of 9 wine shops in and around Addanki town of Prakasam District had formed themselves into an informal association or syndicate. Accused No.1, who was having business interest in the said syndicate, was designated as the leader of the said syndicate. Accused No.2, who was employed as Accountant for book keeping and maintaining regular accounts of all business transactions relating to said syndicate, which were seized during the searches. 9 wine shop owners have formed such a syndicate headed by Accused No.1 with the sole aim of making huge profits in the liquor business and with the object in mind and with a view to win over the enforcement agencies namely the officials of Excise, police and others in order to induce the officials to overlook various omissions and commissions, violation of conditions of license etc., committed by the wine shop owners/members of the said syndicate paid various amounts as mamools/bribes to Accused No.3 and others in systematic manner recurrently.

15. In order to prove the formation of Addanki liquor syndicate under the leadership of Accused No.1 with the sole aim of getting huge profits in liquor business, the prosecution has examined the then Inspector of Police ACB, Ongole by name V. Sudhakar Reddy, who is said to be search the Addanki wine syndicate as PW.32, who stated in his evidence that on 16.12.2011 he secured the presence of mediators namely Shaik Sandani Jani basha (LW.74) and Srikanth

Sridhar (PW.27) and proceeded to the Addanki and reached the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam situated at Ramasastri Street, Addanki 13 at about 03.30 pm and found four persons in the said house. Then he approached the said persons and disclosed his identity and the identity of other staff and the mediators and ascertained the identity of the said four persons. They disclosed that they belong to

Addanki liquor syndicate office. Accused No.2 is one among the said four persons and the other three persons were Kolla

Ramanajaneyulu, Immaneni Ramakrishna and G. Koteswarara Rao.

He prepared search proceedings U/s 165 of Cr.P.C and served on

Accused No.2 and obtained his acknowledgement on it. Then he asked the said persons to produce the account books/Registers maintained by the said liquor syndicate. Accused No.2 produced nine ledger account books pertaining to the wine shops and the same were seized by him in the presence of the mediators. P.W27 scribed the mediators report wherein the description of the ledger account books seized from the possession of the Accused No.2 were incorporated and the said proceedings was concluded by 11.45 pm in the night. Copies of mediators report were furnished to Accused

No.2 and others and obtained their acknowledgments on it. The seized records were deposited before the Special ACB Court at

Hyderabad.

16. As seen from the evidence of PW.32 he stated that he conducted search in the Addanki liquor syndicate office located in the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastri Street, Vasavi Nagar,

Addanki, and seized ledger account books/registers maintained by the said liquor syndicate office 9 in number in the presence of the mediators namely Shaik Sandani Jani basha (LW.74) and Srikanth

Sridhar (PW.27) under the cover of mediators report. This part of testimony made by PW.32 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.27, who is one of the mediators said to be present at the time of conducting search in Addanki wine syndicate office. But the 14 prosecution did not choose to produce the said ledger account books and also mediators report and mark them through PWs.27 and 32. Further, PW.32 did not follow the procedure in conducting search in Addanki syndicate office located in the house of M.

Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastri Street, Vasavi Nagar, Addanki.

17. As per Sec.100(1) of Cr.P.C. “Whenever any place liable to search or inspection is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein”. But in the instant case no search warrant was obtained by the ACB raid party led by Inspector of police, ACB,

Ongole by name V. Sudhakar Reddy (PW.32) from any competent court to search the premises of the alleged Addanki wine syndicate office located in the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastri

Street, Vasavi Nagar, Addanki and even no search proceedings prepared under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. was produced and marked the same through PW.32.

18. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution with regard to contravening the procedure contemplated under Sub

Section (1) of Sec. 100 of Cr.P.C. Further, the prosecution did not choose to mark the ledger account books seized from the liquor syndicate office by filing before the Court and also did not choose to mark the mediators report by filing before the Court wherein documents/registers were seized, which are material documents to prove that Accused No.1 was running liquor syndicate office at

Addanki. Non-production of material documents like account books and mediators report are fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19. PW.22, the then Planning Co-Ordinator, Rajiv Vidya

Mission, Ongole, who is one of the mediators said to be present at 15 the time of inspection of office of Superintendent, P & E, Ongole, in his evidence stated that on 06.03.2012 at about 10.30 AM he and another mediator namely C. Janardhan Reddy, worked as Senior

Assistant in the office of DEO, Ongole accompanied the inspector of police ACB, Ongole along with his staff to the office of

Superintendent P & E, Ongole situated in the premises of

Collectorate building, Ongole and at about 10.45 AM, they reached the said office and found the office superintendent and another staff and they were discharging their duties. The inspector of ACB,

Ongole disclosed his identity and the identity of other raid party members to the office superintendent and purpose of their visit to the said office. The inspector prepared search notice and served on the office superintendent and then the Inspector asked the office superintendent to produce certain records. Accordingly, the office

Superintendent secured the said records and produced before the

Inspector of police which were 6 files relating to confirmation register, IML issue license register, tender-cum-license file, register for signatures tenderers, gazette notifications and tender form of second and third highest tenderers (five bundles). The said

Inspector seized the said files/registers and himself and another mediator attested the said files/Registers along with the Inspector.

In this regard, mediators report was prepared by incorporating the description of seizure files/registers. The second mediator namely

Janardhan Reddy scribed the said mediators report on his dictation.

The said proceedings was concluded by 07.00 PM.

20. As seen from the evidence of PW.22, he stated that on 06.03.2012 at about 10.45 a.m. the Inspector of Police along with his staff in their presence raided the office of P & E Superintendent,

Ongole and seized 6 files relating to tender process under mediators report. But the prosecution did not choose to examine the said 16

Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole, who conducted search in the office of Prohibition and Excise Suerintendent, Ongole. The evidence of

PW.22 is not corroborated by any other evidence. Further, the prosecution did not choose to produce the files/Registers alleged to be seized from the office of P & E Superintendent, Ongole and also the alleged mediators report which are material documents. The non production of records/files seized from the office of P & E

Superintendent, Ongole and also non production of mediators report

before the Court are fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even the

prosecution did not choose to produce the search notice prepared under Section 165 of Cr.P.C.

21. Further, the prosecution has examined nowkarnamadars of A4 wine shops namely Kukkapalli Siva Narayana, Yenaganulla

Anjaneyulu, Makkena Haribabu, Bachina Krishnamurthy, Gopisetty

Koteswara Rao, Sampath Srinivasa Rao and Thati Srinivasa Rao as

PWs.4 to 10. PW.4 in his evidence stated that in the year, 2011 he worked as Nowkarnamadar in Sandhya Wines, Addanki for a period of one year and one Bobburi Ravindra Babu was the License holder of the said Wines shop. The said Wine shop was located opposite to

Bus-station, Addanki. He does not know the Liquor Syndicate at

Addanki and its affairs. PW.5 in his evidence stated that in the year, 2011 he worked as Nowkarnamadar in Friends Wines, Addanki for a period of one year and one Dama Hanumantha Rao was the License holder of the said Wines shop. The said Wine shop was located at

Old Bus Station, Addanki. PW.6 in his evidence stated that in the year, 2011 he worked as Nowkarnamadar in Friends Wines, Addanki for a period of one year and one Dama Hanumantha Rao was the

License holder of the said Wines shop. The said Wine shop was located at Old Bus Station, Addanki. He does not know the liquor syndicate and its affairs.

17

22. PW.7 in his evidence stated that in the year, 2011 he worked as Nowkarnamadar in Godavari Wines, Addanki for a period of one year and one Majeti Narendra Babu was the License holder of the said Wines shop. The said Wines shop was located at Bhavani

Centre, Addanki. He does not know the Liquor Syndicate and its affairs. PW.8 in his evidence stated that in the year, 2011 he worked as Nowkarnamadar in Ganga Wines, Addanki for a period of one year and one Mannam Adi Babu was the License holder of the said

Wines shop. The said Wine shop was located opposite to V.N.S.

Theater, Addanki. He does not know the liquor syndicate and its affairs. PW.9 in his evidence stated that in the year, 2011 he worked as Nowkarnamadar in Srikrishna Wines, Addanki for a period of one year and one Kakani Radhakrishna Murthy was the License holder of the said Wines shop. The said Wines shop was located at

Bhavani Center, Addanki. He does not know the liquor syndicate and its affairs. PW.10 in his evidence stated that in the year, 2011 he worked as nowkarnamadar in Yamuna Wines, Addanki for a period of one year and one Chilukuri Anil was the License holder of the said Wines shop. The said Wines shop was located in State Bank

Road, Addanki. He does not know the liquor syndicate and its affairs.

23. As seen from the evidence of PWs.4 to 10, they did not speak any incriminating circumstances in respect of Addanki wine syndicate headed by Accused No.1 and thereby they did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor sought the permission of the Court to declare PWs.4 to 10 as hostile subjected to cross examine them. Even after their cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited as against

Accused No.1 wine syndicate at Addanki. PWs.4 to 10 who gave incriminating statements against Accused No.1 wine syndicate at 18

Addanki before the ACB police concerned, when they were examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. turned hostile , while they were giving evidence before the Court. At the instance of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, PWs.4 to 10 were declared as hostile and their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as

Exs.P4 to P10 respectively.

24. Further, the prosecution has examined owners of the shops leased out license holders of A4 wine shops for running wine shops namely Bandaru Usha Rani, Sandireddy Srinivasa Rao and

Boddapati Ravi Babu as PWs.1 to 3 for establishing that they received the rents from A1 liquor syndicate at Addanki. PW.1 in her evidence stated that she and her younger sister by name Vinatha

Madhavi have got joint shop located at SBI road, Addanki which was gifted by their father, who is no more now and he died about three years ago. During the lifetime of her father, he was looking after the said shop. She was informed by her father that the said shop was leased out to somebody for running liquor shop. Her father used to collect the rents from the said tenants.

25. PW.2 in his evidence stated that he has got one zinc roofed shed at Narasaraopet Road, Addanki. In the year, 2010 the said Zinc roofed shed was leased out for running Dolphin wine shop to his syster-in-law by name Sandireddy Bharathi and she used to pay monthly rent @ Rs.1,000/-. He has no knowledge with regard to the Liquor Syndicate at Addanki. PW.3 in his evidence stated that he has got one zinc roofed shed in Narasaraopet Road at Addanki. In the year, 2010 the said zinc roofed shed was leased out for running

Srikrishna wines to one Kakini Radhakrishna Murthy @ Rs.500/- per month. He has no knowledge with regard to the Liquor Syndicate at

Addanki.

19

26. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, they did not speak any incriminating circumstances against Accused No.1 wine syndicate at Addanki and thereby they did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought the permission of the Court to declare PWs.1 to 3 as hostile subjected to cross examine them. Even after their cross examination nothing incriminating was elicited as against Accused

No.1 wine syndicate at Addanki. PWs.1 to 3, who gave incriminating statements against Accused No.1 wine syndicate at Addanki before the ACB police concerned, when they were examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. turned hostile, while they were giving evidence before the Court. At the instance of the learned Special Public Prosecutor,

PWs.1 to 3 were declared as hostile and their Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements were marked as Exs.P1 to P3 respectively.

27. PW.11, who is the then Office Superintendent in the office of Superintendent P & E, Ongole in his evidence stated that the

Government appointed the District Collector to conduct auction for the lease hold rights of the wine shops of Prakasam District. The

District Collector of Prakasam at Ongole conducted lease hold rights of wine shops of Prakasam District in the month of May, 2010 for the Excise years 2010-2012 and a Notification was issued for calling the Tenders and on receiving the applications, they thoroughly examined the suitability of getting license and their tenders were confirmed as they became highest bidders. The office of the Excise

Superintendent P& E, Ongole examined all the necessary certificates and affirmed them and the shops were allocated to the highest bidders. As seen from the aforesaid evidence of PW.11, he stated the procedure was adopted for allocation of lease hold rights of the wine shops in Prakasam District. There is no dispute from the side of the accused persons on this aspect.

20

28. As seen from the aforesaid evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are said to be owners of the shops wherein A4 wine shops were running, PWs.4 to 10, who are said to be nowkarnamadars, PW.11, who is superintendent in the office of P & E Superintendent, Ongole,

PW.22, who is said to be mediator present at the time of inspection of office of P & E Superintendent, Ongole, they did not speak any incriminating circumstances in respect of Addanki wine syndicate located in the house of Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastry street, Vasavi

Naar, Addanki headed by Accused No.1 was running with the assistance of licence holders in Addanki area. Further, PW.32 who conducted search in Addanki wine syndicate in the presence of

PW.27 and another, did not produce the relevant registers/ledger accounts showing that Addanki wine syndicate was running by the

A4 wine shops licensees headed by Accused No.1. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish that

Addanki wine syndicate was formed under the leadership of

Accused No.1 with the assistance of 9 licensed owners of wine shops in and around Addanki toiwn of Prakasam District.

29. P O I N T No.II:

It is to be next seen whether the liquor syndicate selling the liquor over and above MRP rates, opening of the wine shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co-operation of Accused No.3 and others in violation of provisions of A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Excise

Rules. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that Addanki liquor syndicate with a view to win over the enforcement agencies namely the officials of Excise and police and in order to induce the officials to overlook the various omissions and commissions, violations of conditions of licences etc., by the wine shop owners/members of the said syndicate paid various amounts as 21 mamools /bribes to Accused No.3 and others in systematic manner recurrently. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 who are the owners of shops leased out to A4 licensees and PWs.4 to 10, who are said to be nowkarnamadars of A4 license holders, did not speak in their evidence with regard to the activities of 9 wine shops in and around Addanki town. These witnesses did not speak in their evidence that any of the wine shops among 9 wine shops said to be formed liquor syndicate selling the liquor over and above

MRP rates, opening of the wine shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters etc., with the co-operation of Accused No.3 and others in violation of provisions of A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Excise Rules.

30. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1 to 10, the prosecution has examined neighbouring shop owners of A4 wine shops namely

Muvvala Seshagiri Rao, Pulikati Naga Anjaneyulu, Puligadda Murali,

Maram Venkata Pulipi Reddy, Dhesu Hari Babu, Guntipalli

Nageswara Rao, Garlapati Hanumantha Rao and Macha Govindaiah as PWs.12 to 19 respectively. PW.12 in his evidence stated that there are 8 shops intervened in between his vegetable shop and

Ganga Wines. He does not know the activities of Ganga Wines Shop in the year, 2010 and 2011. PW.13 in his evidence stated that he does not know the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam, located in his street. He is residing in the house D.No.32/188 of Ramasastry

Street, Addanki. He does not know the activities of Addanki wine syndicate.

31. PW.14 in his evidence stated that he is running Electrical

Shop in Old bus-stand of Addanki Town. He does not know Yamuna

Wine Shop and its location. He does not know the activities of the said Wine Shop. PW.15 in his evidence stated that he is running a medical shop in old bus stand center, Addanki. There was a Kaveri 22 wines situated in the lane towards southern side of main road. He does not know the activities of the said wine shop. PW.16 in his evidence stated that he is running Venkata Hanuman General

Stores which is situated opposite to bus stand, Addanki. Long ago there was M/s. Sandhya Wines at some distance from his Kirana shop, he does not know the owner of said wine shop and its activities.

32. PW.17 in his evidence stated that earlier he run Tiffin centre at Bhavani Centre, Darsi road of Addanki. There were two wine shops i.e. Godavari wines and Saraswathi wines near to his

Tiffin centre. He does not know who are the owners of the said wine shops and activities of the said wine shop. PW.18 in his evidence stated that he is running General Stores, opposite to R.T.C. bus stand, main road, Addanki. There were two shops intervened his

Kirana Shop and Sandhya Wines. He does not know who was the owner of the said wine shop and activities in the said wine shop.

PW.19 in his evidence stated that he is running a tea stall at

Bhavani centre, Dharsi road, Addanki. Earlier there was Godavari wines nearby his tea stall and he does not know the name of its owner and the activities of the said wine shop.

33. As seen from the evidence of PWs.12 to 19, they did not speak the activities in A4 wine shops which are situated nearby their shops and thereby they did not support the prosecution case.

Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought the permission of the Court to declare PWs.12 to 19 as hostile subjected to cross examine them. Even after their cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited as against Addanki wine syndicate headed by Accused No.1. PWs.12 to 19, who gave incriminating statements in respect of activities of A4 wine shops before the ACB police conternced, turned hostile, while they were giving evidence 23

before the Court. At the instance of the learned Special Public

Prosector, PWs.12 to 19 were declared as hostile and their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P11 to P18 respectively.

34. Further, the prosecution has examined the consumers of the wine shops namely Khasim Sydulu, Singararakonda Singaiah,

Mallepudi Nageswara Rao, Rudru Kotaiah, Challa Eswara Rao and

Kooli Srinivasa Rao as PWs.20, 21, 23 to 26 respectively. PW.20 in his evidence stated that there was a Godavari wines in Bhavani centre, Addanki. He does not know the name of its owner and the activities in the said wine shop. PW.21 in his evidence stated that he is not having the habit of consuming liquor. He does not know M/s

Sandhya wines at Addanki, its owner and activities in the said wine shop.

35. PW.23 in his evidence stated that then and there he consumes liquor. He does not know Saraswathi wines at Addanki and its owner and its affairs. PW.24 in his evidence stated that he does not know Sri Krishna wines at Addanki and he does not know its owner and its affairs. PW.25 in his evidence stated that he used to consume the liquor in happy occasions like festivals. He does not know Ganga wines at Addanki and he does not know its owner and its affairs. PW.26 in his evidence stated that he is not having the habit of consuming liquor. He does not know Ganga wines at

Addanki and its owner and its affairs.

36. As seen from the evidence of PWs.20, 21, 23 to 26, they did not speak any activities in A4 wine shops and thereby they did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor sought the permission of the Court to declare

PWs.20, 21, 23 to 26 as hostile subjected to cross examine them.

Even after their cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited in respect of the activities in A4 wine shops before the ACB 24 police concerned, when they were examined under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C., turned hostile, while they were giving evidence before the

Court. At the instance of the learned Special Public Prosecutor,

PWs.20, 21, 23 to 26 were declared as hostile and their Section 161

Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P19 to P24 respectively.

37. Having considered the material available on record I am holding that the prosecution failed to establish that 9 licensees of

A4 wine shops in and around Addanki said to be formed as liquor syndicate and selling the liquor over and above MRP rates, opening of the shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters and thereby violated the AP Excise Laws and Excise Rules.

38. P O I N T No.III:

It is to be next seen whether Accused No.1 has been paid regularly mamools as illegal gratification to the officials of Excise and police department including Accused No.3 so as to facilitate the conduct of liquor business in violation of the provisions of AP Excise

Act and AP Excise Rules for the purpose of making unlawful gain. As per the prosecution, 9 wine shop licensees in and around Addanki formed themselves into an informal association or syndicate and doing business by violating the provisions of AP Excise Act and AP

Excise Rules with the co-ordination of Accused No.3, who was

Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station, Addanki and that certain fixed amounts for various ranks of public servants that seemed to have been agreed upon in advance were paid on recurrent basis periodically and entries to that effect were made in the books of accounts and all the entries that were made in the books of accounts pertaining to illegal amount of money that was paid to the public servants on different dates during the period from July 2010 to December 2011 were complied and an abstract of the amount 25 paid to the department wise. Systematic entries have been made in the books of accounts mentioning the designations of the officials, departments and others.

39. In order to prove the payment of illegal gratification to the officials of Excise and police department including Accused No.3, the prosecution has examined one of the mediators namely, Karri

Syamsundar Reddy as PW.29, who stated in his evidence that on 23.04.2012 at about 12.00 noon he received a phone call from ACB office, Ongole with a request to attend ACB office, Ongole to act as mediator. Accordingly, on the same day at about 2.15 pm he went to ACB office, Ongole where he found the 2nd mediator namely

Srimannarayana (LW.79), who worked as Junior Assistant in the office of Joint Director, Agriculture, Ongole. They both met K.

Chandrasekhar, Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole and they introduced themselves with the said inspector and also his staff vice-versa. The said inspector namely K. Chandrasekhar shown

Accused No.2 who was in their custody and his confessional statement was recorded. On his dictation, the 2nd mediator namely

Srimannarayana typed the said confessional statement of Accused

No.2 in the computer available in ACB office, Ongole. Copy of the said confessional statement was furnished to Accused No.2 and obtained his acknowledgement on it. Ex.P26 is his signature on confessional statement of Accused No.2 dated 23.04.2012.

40. As seen from the evidence of PW.29, Accused No.2 is confessed to have formed Addanki wine syndicate under the leadership of Accused No.1 with the assistance of A4 licensees with the co-operation of Accused No.3 and other officials, violated the provisions of A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Excise Rules by selling the liquor over and above the MRP rates, opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop 26 counters and payment of regular mamools as illegal gratification to the officials of Excise and Police department including Accused No.3 so as to facilitate to conduct of liquor business for the purpose of making unlawful gain. The admission of guilt by Accused No.2

before ACB officials concerned is inadmissible in evidence for the

simple reason that it is a confession made to the ACB official and therefore it is liable to be excluded from consideration. Accused

No.2 cannot be held guilty only on the basis of his confessional statement because extra Judicial confessions are inadmissible in evidence as per the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

There is no acceptable evidence on record to show that Accused

No.1 has been paid mamools as illegal gratification to the officials of

Excise and police department including Accused No.3 so as to facilitate the conduct of liquor business in violation of provisions of

AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules for the purpose of making unlawful gain.

41. Having considered the material available on record, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish that Accused

No.1 paid regular mamools as illegal gratification to the officials of

Excise and police department including Accused No.3 so as to conduct of liquor business for the purpose of making unlawful gain.

42. P O I N T No. IV:

It is to be next seen whether Accused No1 habitually committing the offences in furtherance of common intention and pre-arranged plan for abetting the public servants in order to over look the violations committed by them. In this regard, the prosecution did not produce any acceptable evidence before the

Court in respect of activities of Accused No.1, who was said to be formed Addanki wine syndicate under his leadership with the assistance of 9 license holders of A4 - wine shops with the aim of 27 making huge profits in liquor business and arranged payments of illegal money to various public servants including Accused No.3 in the connected enforcement agencies. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that Accused No.1 habitually committing the offences in furtherance of common intention and pre-arranged plan for abetting the public servants in order to overlook the violations committed by them.

43. P O I N T No. V:

It is to be next seen whether Accused No.3 being public servant having conspired with A4 licensees with common intention and received monthly mamools as illegal gratification for the liquor syndicate of Addanki led by Accused No.1 to do the official favour of overlooking the contravention of Excise Laws and Excise Rules committed by the liquor syndicate. In this regard, the prosecution has examined V. Sudhkar Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, ACB,

Ongole as PW.32, who stated in his evidence that he conducted the search in Addanki wine syndicate located in the house of M.

Lakshmi rajyam situated at Ramasastry street, Addanki on 16-12- 2011 from 3.30 p.m. to 11.45 p.m. in the presence of mediators namely Shaik Sandani Jani basha (LW.74) and Srikanth Sridhar (PW.27) and seized 9 ledger account books pertaining to the wine shops. This part of testimony made by PW.32 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.27, who is one of the mediators said to be present at the time of conducting search in Addanki wine syndicate. It is already stated supra that the prosecution neither produced ledger account books pertaining to the wine shops for perusal of the Court and so also the mediators report wherein the said 9 ledger account books pertaining to the liquor syndicate were seized.

44. PW.28, who is the then Head Constable, P & E Station,

Addanki, in his evidence stated that he worked under Accused No.3 28 for a period of 3 months at P & E Station, Addanki. Accused No.3 never received any illegal gratification through him. As seen from the evidence of PW.28, he did not speak any incriminating circumstances against Accused No.3 and thereby he did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor sought the permission of the Court to declare PW.28 as hostile subjected to cross examine him. Evenafter his cross examination, nothing incriminating was is elicited as against

Accused No.3. PW.28,who gave incriminating statement against

Accused No.3 before the ACB police concerned when he was examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., turned hostile, while he was giving evidence before the Court. At the instance of the learned

Special Public Prosecutor, PW.28 was declared as hostile and his

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked as Ex.P25.

45. Further, the prosecution has examined PW.29, who is one of the mediators in whose presence the confessional statement of

A2 was recorded at ACB office, Ongole. As seen from the evidence of PW.29, Accused No.2 is confessed to have formed Addanki wine syndicate under the leadership of Accused No.1 with the assistance of A4 licensees with the co-operation of Accused No.3 and other officials violated the provisions of A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Excise

Rules by selling the liquor over and above the MRP rates, opening of shops beyond stipulated hours, operation of belt shops, loose sales at the shop counters and payment of regular mamools to the officials of Excise and Police department including Accused No.3 so as to facilitate to conduct of liquor business for the purpose of making unlawful gain. It is already stated supra that the admission of guilt by Accused No.2 before ACB officials concerned is in admissible in evidence for the simple reason it is a confession made to the ACB officials and therefore it is liable to be excluded from 29 consideration. Accused No.3 cannot be held guilty only on the basis of confession statement of A2 because extra Judicial confessions are in admissible in evidence as per the relevant provisions of the

Indian Evidence Act.

46. Further, there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that A4 licensees formed Addanki liquor syndicate headed by

Accused No.1 made the payments to the enforcement agencies namely officials of Excise and police in order to induce the officials to overlooking the various omissions and commissions including A3 being public servant having conspired with A1 and other A4 licensees with common intention received monthly mamools as illegal gratification from the liquor syndicate of Addanki led by A1 to do official favor of overlooking contravention of Excise laws and

Excise Rules committed by the liquor syndicate.

47. P O I N T No.VI:

PW.30, who conducted part of the investigation in this case stated in his evidence that the Director General, ACB,

Hyderabad vide his memo dated 08.05.2012, he was authorized to conduct further investigation in this case. On 11.05.2012 he received CD file in this case from PW.31 and perused the entire file and found that there was Addanki wine syndicate at Addanki comprising 9 wine shops and the syndicate was headed by Accused

No.1 and the said syndicate used to operate from the house of Smt

Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasasthri street, Vasavi nagar, Addanki. The syndicate people used to give monthly mamools to police and

Excise officials and Accused No.2 was the accountant and writing the account books in respect of the said syndicate.

48. PW.30 in his evidence further stated that on 04.06.2012 he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.14, 15, 18, 19, Bandaru Hari babu (LW.40), D.Hari babu (LW.42), Palla Sriramulu 30 (LW.43), Golla malydri (LW.44), K. Bramhaiah (LW.45), Chinni

Sudhakar Rao(LW.47), G. Nagaiah(LW.49), Shaik Eliyaz(LW.50), M.

Ankaiah(LW.51), M. Raghava(LW.52), M. Govindaiah (LW.53), P.

Drakshayamma (LW.54), K. Venkateswaralu (LW.55). On 05.06.2012 he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.20,21,23 to 26, P. Venkateswara Rao (LW.56), D. Babu Rao (LW.57), D. Koteswara

Rao (LW.58), S. Tirupathaiah (LW.60), P. Anjaiah (LW.61), C. Srikanth (LW.63),P. Anji Reddy (LW.64), Shaik Mastan (LW.65), Pattan Masthan (LW.66), S. Venkata Ramanaiah (LW.68) and T. Narasimha Rao (LW.70). On 08.06.2012 he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3, N. Sudhakar Rao (LW.3), M.

Ranganayakulu (LW.4), Ch. Subba Raju (LW.5), P. Srinivas Rao (LW.6),

K. Nageswara Rao (LW.7), K. Veera Raghavaiah (LW.10). On 10.06.2012 he has examined and recorded the statement of P.

Ramanjaneyulu @ Kolla Ramanjaneyulu (L.W.80). On 14.06.2012 he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.28. Subsequently, on his transfer from ACB office, Ongole, further investigation was entrusted to PW.32.

49. As seen from the evidence of PW.30, who conducted part of the investigation in this case, he speaks with regard to procedural aspects only. PW.30 in his evidence further stated that PWs.1 to 10 stated before him as in Exs.P1 to P10 respectively, PWs.12 to 21 stated before him as in Exs.P11 to P20 respectively. PWs.23 to 26 stated before him as in Exs.P21 to 24 respectively. PW.28 stated

before him as in Ex.P25. The said claim of PW.30 was denied by

PWs.1 to 10, 12 to 21, 23 to 26 and 28 in their evidence. Further,

PW.30 in his evidence further stated that he was authorized to conduct further investigation in this case as per the memo dated 06.05.2012 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad. But the said authorization memo was not filed before the Court.

31

50. PW.31, who conducted the remaining part of the investigation in this case and filed a charge sheet against the accused persons, in his evidence stated that on 27.02.2012 he received a letter dated 27.02.2012 from the Director General, ACB,

Hyderabad, wherein he was authorized to conduct the investigation in this case. On 03.03.2012 he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.4 to 10, T. Nageswara Rao (LW.14), N.

Raghavaiah (LW.15), M. Chandraiah (LW.16), D. Srinivasa

Rao (LW.17), S. Srinivasa Rao (LW.18), P. Ramesh Babu (LW.20), M

Rama Rao (LW.21), K. Krishna Chaintanya (LW.23), V. Chiranjeevi (LW.25), N. Balaswamy (LW.26) at ACB office, Ongole. Further, on 24.03.2012 he has examined and recorded the statements of PW.11 and T. Ananda Kumar (LW.29). On 27.03.2012 he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.12, 15 to17, S. Kondalu (LW.30), A.

Venkateswarlu (LW.31),K. Raghavaiah (LW.33), Khaja Nayab Rasool (LW.37). On 28.03.2012 he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.13. Further, on 23.04.2012 at about 01.00 pm

Accused No.2 voluntarily surrendered before him at ACB office,

Ongole and he effected the arrest of Accused No.2 and he secured the presence of mediators namely K. Syamsundar Reddy (PW.29),

M. Srimannarayana (LW.79), in their presence recorded the confessional statement of Accused No.2 on perusal of ledger accounts, vouchers and registers maintained by Addanki liquor syndicate which were seized.

51. PW.31 in his evidence further stated that on the dictation of PW.29, the 2nd mediator namely Srimannarayana recorded the confessional statement of Accused No.2 by typing on the laptop and later Accused No.2 was produced before this court and he was remanded to judicial custody. He filed a requisition before this court with a request to get the specimen hand writings of Accused No.2 32 and accordingly this court obtained specimen hand writings of

Accused No.2. He prepared letter of advice and filed a requisition

before this court seeking to forward the disputed hand writings of

accused No.2 in the registers maintained by him as accountant in

Addanki wine syndicate along with specimen handwritings of

Accused No.2 to the Hand Writing Expert i.e., APFSL, Hyderabad for comparison. Accordingly, this court forwarded the disputed handwritings of Accused No.2 along with letter of advice to the

APFSL, Hyderabad for comparison and report.

52. PW.31 in his evidence further stated that as per memo

dated 08.05.2012 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad

he handed over the CD file to PW.30 for conducting further investigation and he was also authorized to assist PW.30 in conducting further investigation and also for filing charge sheet. On 12.10.2012 he prepared draft final report and submitted the same to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad. On further oral instructions of the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, after completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against accused persons on 14.03.2013.

53. PW.31 in his evidence further stated that during the course of his investigation, on 05.03.2012 he received a letter (Ex.P27) from P & E superintendent office, Ongole pertaining to remittance particulars of 9 wine shops of Addanki syndicate. On 12.03.2012 he received a letter (Ex.P28) from District Supplies

Officer, Prakasam, wherein giving the details of license cards held by the wine shop owners of Ongole syndicate. On 10.04.2012 he received a reply (Ex.P29) from superintendent of police, Prakasam at Ongole furnishing particulars of police constables who worked between 01.07.2010 to 31.12.2011 in the police stations of their 33 jurisdiction. He received a letter dated 16.03.2012 (Ex.P30) from

Sub Divisional Police officer, Darsi pertaining to Nil cases booked against wine shops. He received a letter dated 13.03.2012 (Ex.P31) from Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Ongole pertaining to nominal cases registered against wine shops. He received a letter

dated 13.03.2012(Ex.P32) from Superintendent, Engineer

(Operations), APSPDCL, Prakasam, wherein furnished the electricity consumption charges paid by 9 wine shops of Addanki. He received a letter dated 05.03.2012 (Ex.P33) from Prohibition and Excise

Superintendent, Ongole, wherein furnished nowkarnama license and challan remittance particulars of Addanki syndicate. He received a letter dated 05-04-2012 (Ex.P34) from Prohibition and Excise

Supervisory officer, APBCL, IMFL Depot, Pernamitta, Ongole, wherein furnished transport permits issued to Addanki syndicate wine shops.

54. As seen from the evidence of PW.31, he stated that he was authorized to conduct further investigation in this case by the

Director General, ACB, Hyderabad through his letter dated 27.02.2012 but no such authorization latter was marked either through PW.31 or any other investigating officers. In the absence of production authorization letter dated 27.02.2012 issued by the

Director General, ACB , Hyderabad, there is no sanctity to the investigation conducted by PW.31. Further, PW.31 in his evidence stated that during the course of interrogation, A2 has confessed to have formed liquor syndicate under the leadership of A1 with the assistance of A4 license holders with the co-operation of A3 violated the provisions of AP Excise Act and AP Excise Rules. It is already stated supra that the admission of guilt by A2 before PW.31, who is

ACB official is in admissible in evidence for the simple reason that it is a confession made to the ACB official and therefore, the said confession is liable to be excluded from consideration.

34

55. PW.31, in his evidence further stated that he got obtained specimen hand writings of A2 before the open Court by filing a requisition and forwarded disputed hand writings of A2 in the registers maintained by him as accountant in Addanki wine syndicate along with specimen handwritings of A2 for comparison along with letter of advise to the hand writing expert in AP State

Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad through this Court. But the prosecution did not choose to produce the such material before the

Court . No opinion of the Hand Writing Expert was marked either through PW.31 or any other Investigating Officers. There is no explanation from the prosecution on this aspect.

56. PW.31 in his evidence further stated that PW.30 was authorized to conduct further investigation in this case and file a charge sheet through the memo dated 08.05.2012 issued by the

Director General, AC B, Hyderabad and he was also authorized to assist PW.30 in conducting further investigation. But PW.31 filed the charge sheet against the accused persons even though authorizing to file a charge sheet against the accused persons was given by the

Director General, ACB, Hyderabad in favour of PW.31. Therefore, the charge sheet was filed by PW.31 against the accused persons without any authorization from his superior Officer and therefore, the charge sheet was filed by PW.31 is not maintainable as it was authorized to PW.30 by the competent authority but not PW.31. The remaining evidence of PW.31 with regard to his receipt of letters from the officers concerned, there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PW.31. Further, the authors of the reply letters were not cited as witnesses and the prosecution did not choose to examine them to establish the said reply letters i.e. Exs.P27 to P34 and information thereon.

57. It is already stated supra that the prosecution failed to 35 establish that A1 was operating the liquor syndicate office located at the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam, Ramasastry street, Vasavi

Nagar, Addanki with the sole aim of making huge profits in the liquor business and with a view to win over the enforcement agencies i.e. the officials of Excise and police in order to induce the officials to overlooking various omissions and commissions committed by the wine shop owners/members of the said syndicate paid various amounts as mamools/bribes to Accused No.3 and others in systematic manner recurrently and thereby it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to establish the charges leveled against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 12, 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC beyond reasonable doubts and therefore A1 and A2 are liable to be acquitted for the said charges.

58. It is already stated supra that the prosecution failed to establish that A3 being a public servant having conspired with A1 and other license holders in Addanki liquor syndicate with common intention received monthly mamools as illegal gratification from the said Addanki liquor syndicate headed Accused No.1 to do official favour of overlooking contravention of Excise Laws and Excise rules committed by the owners/members of the said syndicate and therefore it is unsafe to convict Accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)© of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sec.120-B of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and as such A3 is liable to be acquitted for the said charges.

59. From the fore-going reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against

Accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the

Accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal for the charges leveled against them.

36

In result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 12 and 14 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Further,

Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sec.120-B of IPC and he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The bail bonds of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 16th day of November, 2018.

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1:Bandaru Usha Rani, - NONE - owner of the wine shop premises.

PW.2:Sandireddy Srinivasa Rao, owner of the wine shop premises.

PW.3:Boddapati Ravi Babu, owner of the wine shop premises

PW.4:Kukkapalli Sivanarayana, nowkarnamadar of A4 wine shop

PW.5:Yenaganulla Anjeneyulu, nowkarnamadar of A4 wine shop

PW.6:Makkena Hari Babu, nowkarnamadar of A4 wine shop

PW.7:Bachina Krishna Murthy, nowkarnamadar of A4 wine shop 37

PW.8:Gopisetty Koteswara Rao, nowkarnamadar of A4 wine shop

PW.9:Sampath Sreenivasa Rao nowkarnamadar of A4 wine shop

PW.10:Thati Sreenivasa Rao nowkarnamadar of A4 wine shop

PW.11:Biyyapu Suresh, the then Superintendent, office of P & E Superintendent, Ongole.

PW.12:Muvvala Seshagiri Rao, neighbouring shop owner of A4 wine shop.

PW.13:Pulikati Naga Anjaneyulu, neighbouring shop owner of A4 wine shop.

PW.14:Puligadda Murali, neighbouring shop owner of A4 wine shop.

PW.15:Maram Venkata Pulipi Reddy, neighbouring shop owner of A4 wine shop.

PW.16:Dhesu Hari Babu, neighbouring shop owner of A4 wine shop

PW.17:GuntipalliNageswaraRao, neighbouring shop owner of A4 wine shop.

PW.18:Garlapati Hanumantha Rao, neighbouring shop owner of A4 wine shop.

PW.19:Macha Govindaiah, neighbouring shop owner of A4 wine shop.

PW.20:Khasim Sydulu, consumer of liquor shop

PW.21:Singararakonda Singaiah, consumer of liquor shop

PW.22:N. Chandra Sekhar Rao, the then planning co-ordinator, 38

Rajiv Vidya Mission, Ongole. Mediator in respect of search of office of Superintendent P & E , Ongole.

PW.23:Mallempudi Nageswara Rao, consumer of liquor shop

PW.24:Rudru Kotaiah, consumer of liquor shop

PW.25:Challa Eswara Rao consumer of liquor shop.

PW.26:Kooli Srinivasa Rao, consumer of liquor shop.

PW.27:Srikanth Sridhar, the then Shroff, Sub Treasury office, Addanki, Mediator in respect of search of A1 Syndicate office at Addanki.

PW.28:Gorantla Venkata Rao, the then Head Constable, P & E Station, Addanki,

PW.29:Karri Syam Sundar Reddy, the then Deputy Executive Engineer, office of Nagarjuna Sagar canal Sub Division, Ongole. Mediator in respect of confessional statement of A2.

PW.30:T.V.V. Prathap Kumar, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole, conducted part of the investigation.

PW.31:K. Chandra Sekhar, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range, Hyderabad, 2nd Investigating Officer.

PW.32:V. Sudhakar Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole. conducted search in Addanki syndicate located in the house of M. Lakshmi Rajyam, Addanki.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

39

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:is the Section 161 Cr.P.C. -NIL - statement of PW.1 recorded by the ACB Police concerned.

Ex.P2is a relevant contradictory portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P3:is a relevant contradictory portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P4:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 recorded by the ACB police concerned. Ex.P5:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P6:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P7:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P8:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P9:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P10:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P11:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P12:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.13 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P13:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.14 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P14:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.15 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

40

Ex.P15:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.16 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P16:is a relevant contradictory portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.17 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P17:is a relevant contradictory portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.18 recorded by the ACB police concerned. Ex.P18:is a relevant contradictory portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.19 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P19:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.20 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P20:is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.21 recorded by the ACB police concerned. Ex.P21:is the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.23 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P22:is the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.24 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P23:is the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.25 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P24:is the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.26 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P25:is the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.28 recorded by the ACB police concerned.

Ex.P26:is the signature of PW.29 on confessional statement of Accused No.2 dated 23.04.2012.

Ex.P27:is the letter dated 05.03.2012 from P & E Superintendent office, Ongole.

Ex.P28:is the letter dated 12-03-2012 from District Supplies officer, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Ex.P29:is the letter dated 10.04.2012 from Superintendent of Police, Prakasam 41

District.

Ex.P30:is the letter dated 16.03.2012 of SDPO, Darsi.

Ex.P31:is the letter dated 13.03.2012 of

P & E Superintendent, Ongole.

Ex.P32:is the letter dated 13.03.2012 of SuperintendentEngineer (Operations), APSPDCL, Prakasam.

Ex.P33:is the letter dated 05.03.2012 of P&E Superintendent, Ongole.

Ex.P34:is the letter dated 05.04.2012 of P & E Supervisory officer, APBCL, IMFL Depot, Pernamitta, Ongole

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENSE

-NIL - -NIL-

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.