Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.1 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE AT HYDERABAD FOR SPEEDY TRIAL
AND DISPOSAL OF CASES ON FRAUDULENT DRAWLS AND
MISAPPROPRIATION OF SCHOLARSHIP AMOUNTS IN SOCIAL WELFARE,
TRIBAL WELFARE AND BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENTS
(EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS IN SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT) – CUM –
II ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES : HYDERABAD.
Tuesday, the 12th day of March, 2024.
Present: MOHD. AFROZ AKTHAR, Prl.Spl.Judge for trial of SPE&ACB Cases, FAC-Special Judge at Hyderabad for Speedy Trial and Disposal of Cases on Fraudulent Drawls and Misappropriation of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare, Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Departments (Embezzlement of Funds in Social Welfare Department) – cum – II Addl.Spl.Judge for SPE&ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
CALENDAR CASE No. 3 of 2014
Name of the Complainant: The State through Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Medak District at Sangareddy, Nizamabad Range.
Crime No.: Crime No.16/ACB-NZB/2009.
Offence: Charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C.Act).
Name of the Accused Officer: G. Hanumantha Rao.
Plea of the Accused Officer: Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court: Accused is found guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248(2)Cr.P.C.
Result: Accusedis sentenced undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.2 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
Imprisonment for a period of two months. Similarly, accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.Total fine amount is
Rs.10,000/-.
Thesubstantivesentenceof imprisonment for both the offences shall run concurrently for the accused. The remand period already undergone by accused (ie., from 10.06.2009 to 16.06.2009) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO5 tainted currency of Rs.2,500/- shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time. MO1 to MO4, MO6 and MO7 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. The accused is informed of his right to appeal against this Judgment before the
Hon’ble High Court and on enquiry he
stated that he has means to engage Advocate for filing appeal.
Name and particulars of G.Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Late.Vasudeva Accused Officer Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ:V.R.O., Thornada village, Incharge of Irkoda village of Siddipet Mandal of Medak District.
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 20.02.2024 in the presence of Smt.N.Kavitha, learned Special Public Prosecutor, ACB and Sri.M.S.Prasad, Sri.I.N.H.Prasad, learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.3 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Medak District at Sangareddy, Nizamabad Range, laid charge sheet against accused in
Crime No.16/ACB-NZB/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Here-in- after referred to as ‘P.C.Act’).
2.The brief facts leading to the prosecution of accused can be summarized as follows:
2(a) Accused was working as Village Revenue Officer (VRO) of
Thornala village, Incharge Irkode village of Siddipet Mandal, Medak District from 08.02.2007 to 09.06.2009. He is a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act.
2(b)PW1 (Cherlapally Srinivas Reddy) is defacto complainant. PW2 (Smt.Shobha Rani), who is wife of PW1, inherited agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3-15 belonging to her mother Smt.D.Laxmi, in Survey
Nos.38/AA, 917/2A, 918/A, 931 and 981/A situated in the outskirts of
Irkode village, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District. Smt.Cheekoti Andalamma (LW5) and Smt.Mareddy Vijaya (LW6), who are sisters of PW2, also inherited equal share of land in the same survey numbers from their mother. Basing on the proceedings of the MRO, Siddipet in the year 2005,
Passbooks and Title Deeds were issued to all of them, which contain the signatures of the MRO, VRO except RDO.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.4 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
2(c)In May, 2009, PW1 approached Andhra Bank for agricultural loan on the land of his wife, for which they insisted for copies of Pahanis for the current year and updated title deeds. Then he met the Accused Officer (AO), being the VRO of Irkodu and requested for copies of pahanis for current year and title deeds, upon which AO asked to submit original title deed books and copy of proceedings issued by MRO, to get the signature of the RDO on the title deeds and for issuing copy of pahani. Accordingly
PW1 handed over original title deeds of PW2, LW5 and LW6 along with copy of proceedings issued by MRO.
2(d)Thereafter PW1 met the AO many times, but AO did not complete his work on one pretext or the other and on 06.06.2009 demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe to do the said work. On the request of PW1,
AO reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,500/- and instructed to come to his house at Siddipet along with bribe amount on 09.06.2009. Since PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by the accused, on 07.06.2009 he approached the DSP, ACB, Nizamabad Range and lodged report, which is marked as Ex.P1.
2(e)After verifying the genuineness and authenticity of the contents of the complaint and also ascertaining the reputation of accused, a case in
Crime No.16/ACB-NZB/2009 was registered against the accused under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act on 09.06.2009 at 04.00 AM and investigation was taken up.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.5 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
2(f)During the course of investigation, on 09.06.2009, he DSP, ACB (LW12-N.S.Karunanidhi) and PW6 (A.Laxminarayana, Inspector of Police,
ACB, Medak Range) secured the presence PW3 (Deepankar Pal) and
S.Srinivas Rao Sharma (LW3) to act as mediators in the trap proceedings.
As per the instructions of the DSP, ACB, PW1 attended the ACB office at
Sangareddy and proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,500/-. DSP, ACB with the help of mediators completed the formalities ie., verifying the genuineness of the contents of complaint, noting down the currency note numbers, explaining the significance of the chemical test, giving instructions to PW1 to give a signal in case the accused demanded and accepted bribe amount, etc. Pre-trap Proceedings (Mediators Report-I) was drafted by
LW3-S.Srinivas Rao Sharma, which is marked as Ex.P5.
2(g) PW6 along with PW1, mediators and ACB staff proceeded to the house of accused, reached there at 8.15 AM, he reiterated the instructions given to PW1 and asked him to pay bribe amount only on demand of accused. PW1 entered the house of AO at 8.25 AM. PW1 met the AO and on the demand of AO, PW1 took out the amount and handed over to AO,
AO received the amount with his right hand, counted with both hands and then kept the same in the corner of wooden sofa, which was in the front room and place Eenadu Newspaper on the tainted currency notes. Five minutes thereafter AO came out and relayed the pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with handkerchief.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.6 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
2(h)DSP, ACB (LW12-N.S.Karunanidhi) along with trap party rushed to the house, asked PW1 to wait outside the office and introduced himself to the accused and ascertained his particulars. DSP, ACB got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers separately and made the accused rinse his both hand fingers separately in that solution, then the colourless solution turned into pink colour in both tumblers, which are marked as MO3 and MO4.
2(i)During the course of post-trap proceedings, when asked by he
DSP, ACB, accused produced the tainted currency notes from the Sofa covered with Eenadu newspaper. The mediators verified the currency note numbers with that of Ex.P5 Pre-trap proceedings, found them tallied and seized the tainted amount of Rs.2,500/-, which is marked as MO5. The chemical test conducted, on the contact portion of the Sofa with the help of a cotton swab, also yielded positive result. MO6 is the resultant solution of the contact portion of the Sofa. DSP, ACB has also seized the Eenadu newspaper, which is marked as Ex.P11 and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P12. PW3-mediator has drafted the Post-trap proceedings, which is marked as Ex.P13.
2(j)PW6-Inspector of Police, ACB, Medak has took up further investigation from the DSP, ACB (LW12-N.S.Karunanidhi), got collected service particulars of AO and proceedings of the District Collector, Medak
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.7 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
at Sangareddy, which are marked as Exs.P17 and P18 respectively, recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4, Lw3, LW5 to LW8, got recorded statement of PW1 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by LW10-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel. PW6 has collected prosecution sanction order G.O., which is marked as Ex.P14 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.Cognizance was taken in this case (as C.C.No.3 of 2014) for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act against the accused.
4.On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the accusation levelled against him. As he denied the accusation, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him.
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW6 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P18 and MO1 to MO7 were marked.
7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, accused was
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.8 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
examined under Section 313 CrPC. by explaining the incriminating evidence against him, in the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution.
Accused denied the same and filed Written Statement, however, he did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.
8(i).It is stated in the written statement that the accused denied charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act. He is not concerned with the failure of the VRO for not obtaining signature of RDO on the title deed passbooks of PW2 and LW4 and PW5.
8(ii).It is further stated that, in fact, PW2, LW4 and LW5 did not submit any application to the Tahsildar enclosing the title deed passbooks, wherein the signatures of the RDO are missing. Even on the date of trap, no such application was seized by the ACB officials and in the evidence of
PW1 there is no whisper that AO informed PW1 as to no application is required.
8(iii).It is further stated that even though PW4-the then Tahasildar,
Siddipet, stated in his chief-examination that there was no necessity for giving application to obtain signatures of RDO on the Title Deed
Passbooks, however, he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not state the same in his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement. In fact, PW2, LW4 and LW5 signed on the applications addressed to the Tahasildar, Siddipet for obtaining signatures of RDO on the Title Deed Passbooks, which is evident
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.9 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
to show that there were no applications filed by PW2, LW4 and LW5 to obtain the missed signatures of RDO.
8(iv).It is further stated that PW1-complainant did not support the case of prosecution, as such the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by AO from PW1 is absolutely false and baseless. That apart, PW3- mediator is a stock witness of the ACB, having acted as mediator in three
ACB cases. The ACB officials got manipulated and fabricated Exs.P5 and
P13 and implicated AO in this false ACB trap case.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
9(a). Smt. M. Kavitha, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases had filed her written arguments and also submitted her oral submissions, wherein she argued that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the
Investigation Officer proved the aspect of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused officer.
9(b). The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that as per Ex.P17 and G.O.Ms.No.1059 of 2007, the Village Revenue Officer is empowered to issue certified copies of pahanis for the current year and she further argued that there is no necessity for giving any application to obtain the signatures of RDO on the title deeds.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.10 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
9(c).The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that only with an intention to grab illegal gratification, the accused has not informed
PW.1 that pahani will be prepared later and kept PW.1 in dark. PW.1 do not know when the pahanies will be prepared and the he do not know the internal procedure of the office of accused officer.
9(d).The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that accused officer in his spot explanation, admitted about accepting the bribe amount and also told to DSP, ACB that he kept the bribe amount on Sofa and covered it with Eenadu Newspaper.
9(e).The learned Special Public Prosecutor also argued that the chemical test on both hand fingers of accused officer proved positive. She further argued that there is no cogent and convincing evidence to show that there was previous grudges or about the altercation took place between PW.1 and the accused officer.
9(f)The learned Special Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High
Courts and they are as under:
a) D. Velayutham Vs. State represented by Inspector of
Police, Salem Town, Chennai reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 105.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.11 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
b) Chaitanya Prakash Audichya Vs. CBI reported in (2016) 1
SCC (Cri) 186.
c) Indra Vijay Alok Vs. State of Madhyapradesh reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 540.
d) Reparla Venkata Gopala Ratnam Vs. State of A.P.
reported in 2014 (1) ALD Crl 434.
e) Raghubit Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1974 SC 1516.
f) B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 2007 (1) SCC Crl 711.
g) State Vs. Jhan Chand reported in 1984 Crlj NOC (104)
Delhi.
h) Shiv Raj Singh Vs. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1968 SC 1419.
i) Mukut Bihari & another Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
Crl.Appeal No.870 of 2012 SC.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED OFFICER:
10(a).Per Contra, Sri M.S.Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the accused officer argued that there is certain procedure for obtaining signature of RDO on the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and that an application should be made to the MRO, who in-turn will submit a report to the RDO. He argued that the accused officer cannot straight away go and
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.12 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
obtain the signature of RDO on the pattadar passbooks or title deeds. He further argued that an application is necessary for the above process and even for issue of pahani, an application is required.
10(b).The learned counsel for the accused further argued that in the absence of any such application, the accused officer has nothing to do with the aspect of obtaining signatures of RDO and therefore, the allegation of accused officer demanded bribe cannot be considered.
10(c).The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the pahani for the year, 2008-09 will be prepared and submitted only during
September, 2009 but whereas, in this case, trap was laid on 09.06.2009 and thus, pahani for the year, 2008-09 was not in existence till that time.
10(d).The learned counsel further argued that PW1 did not support the case of prosecution as he deposed that it is one Shankar Reddy, who demanded the bribe.
10(e).The learned counsel further argued that he planted the bribe amount in the house of accused officer on the Sofa and implicated the accused.
10(f).The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the accused officer gave his spontaneous explanation to the effect that he did
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.13 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
not demand bribe and same is incorporated in Mediators Report-II. The learned counsel further argued that PW3-Mediator is a stock witness, as he acted as mediator in three other cases.
10(h).In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the accused placed reliance on the following decisions;
a) P. Sirajuddien Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1971 SC 520.
b) K. Shanthamma Vs. The State of Telangana reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 192.
c) P. Chandra Sekharam Vs. State reported in 2022 (2) ALD (Crl.) 131 (AP).
d) Nuthalapati Singhaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 830.
e) Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 811 (SC).
f) K. Giri Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 821 AP.
g) N. Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021
SCC online SC 53.
h) S. Shanker Vs. State, ACB, Karimnagar reported in 2022 (1)
ALD (Crl.) 109 (TS).
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.14 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
i) Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2010 Crl.L.J 2419.
j) Between M.K.Harshan Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1996 (11) SCC 720.
h) State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhagavan Padurang reported in
Crl.A. No.171 of 2006.
By placing reliance on the above cited Judgments and by so arguing, the learned counsel for the accused prayed for acquittal of the accused officer.
11.This court has heard the arguments of either side, has given its thoughtful consideration to the submissions, carefully perused the record and now proceeds to advert to the rival submissions, evidence on record.
In the said process, the following point arises for determination:
“Whether the prosecution has been able to bring
home the guilty of the accused officer, beyond
all reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable
under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section
13 (2) of the Prevention of Corporation Act ?”
POINT:- 12.The allegations against the accused officer are that he being a public servant, employed as Village Revenue Officer of Tornala Village and in-charge of Irukodu Village, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District, in pursuance of his earlier demands, on 09.06.2009 at his house, demanded and
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.15 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
accepted bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- from the complainant (PW.1) for doing an official favour viz., issuing copy of pahani pertaining to the agricultural land of wife of PW.1 i.e., PW2 and her sisters i.e., LWs.5 and 6 namely
Andalamma and Vijaya and also for obtaining signature of RDO on the title deed books and pattadar passbooks of the above persons. Thus, the accused stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
13.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got is exhibited 18 documents as Exs.P1 to
P18 and also 7 material objects as MOs.1 to 7.
14.Among the witnesses so examined, PW.1-Ch. Srinivasa Reddy, is the Defacto Complainant and PW.2-Ch. Shoba, is the wife of PW1, PW3-
Deepankar Pal, is the Mediator for pre-trap and post-trap proceedings,
PW4-D. Srinivas Reddy, was the Tahsildar and PW5-M.P. Janardhan Reddy, was the Section Officer of the Telangana Secretariat, who deposed about the issue of the Sanction Orders, PW6-A. Laxmi Narayana, is the DSP(ACB) and he is the trap laying officer.
15.At this juncture, it is appropriate to narrate the evidence of above prosecution witnesses, in brief, to the extent necessary.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.16 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
16.PW.1-Ch. Srinivasa Reddy is the defacto complainant and he deposed that in the month of May, 2009, he went to Andhra Bank, Siddipet
Branch, for obtaining crop loan and bank people advised him to get pahani copies and title deeds with signature of RDO. Then, he went to the house of the accused officer, who was the Village Revenue Officer of Irukodu Village,
Siddipet Mandal and requested him to get the signatures of RDO on the title deeds and pahanies. PW.1 further deposed that accused officer asked him to bring three title deeds, MRO proceedings and the Encumbrance
Certificate and that on 25th of the same month, he has handed over those required documents to the accused officer. PW.1 further deposed that he went to the office and house of the accused officer for 5 to 6 times and on 06.06.2009, when he went to the house of accused, at that time, the assistant of accused officer namely Shankar Reddy was also present there and the said Shankar Reddy asked PW.1 to pay Rs.3000/- and so also accused officer asked him (PW.1) to pay Rs.3000/-. PW.1 further deposed that he agreed to pay Rs.2500/- but as he was not willing to pay the bribe, he approached ACB officials at Nizamabad on 07.06.2009 and he wrote complaint and gave it to the DSP, ACB, which is marked as Ex.P.1.
17.PW.1 further deposed that then the DSP, ACB asked him to come to his office at Sangareddy on 09.06.2009 in the morning hours along with the demanded bribe amount and accordingly, PW.1 went to the office of
DSP ACB, Sangareddy at 05.00AM on 09.06.2009 along with the proposed bribe amount. PW.1 further deposed that at that time, the DSP ACB,
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.17 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
Inspector and the mediators were present and he gave wad of currency notes of Rs.2500/-. The people, who were present there noted down its numbers and all the instructions of DSP, ACB (LW12). One of the persons present there applied powder to the currency notes and kept the amount in his left side shirt pocket.
18.PW1 further deposed that at about 06.00AM, they all proceeded to Siddipet in a TATA Sumo vehicle and reached there at 08.00AM. PW.1 went to the house of accused officer, whereas the trap party members, were standing around the house. PW.1 further deposed that he went inside the house, called the accused, accused officer came out and called him inside. When he asked about his that, the accused officer informed that his work is not completed and then PW.1 gave the amount to the accused officer. PW1 further deposed that the accused officer received the amount, then he (PW1) came out of the house of accused officer, gave a signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief. Then, the trap party rushed to that place and the DSP ACB asked PW.1 to wait outside. After an hour, he (PW1) called inside the house and his version was incorporated.
19.The learned Special Public Prosecutor declared the witness as hostile and sought permission to cross-examine him and during such cross- examination by the said learned Special Public Prosecutor, PW.1 admitted that the mediators, who were present in the DSP ACB office, enquired him
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.18 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
by going through the copy of complaint and also about DSP ACB demonstrating the chemical test. PW.1 also admitted that the DSP ACB gave instructions to him (PW.1) not to touch the amount and in case the accused officer accepts the amount, to come out and give a signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief.
20.During cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited by the counsel for the accused officer that PW.1 has not stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement or in his Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement that he handed over three title deed passbooks, MRO proceedings and Encumbrance Certificate to the accused officer probably on 25.05.2009. PW.1 denied a suggestion that when he asked the accused officer about the signature to be obtained on the title deeds, the accused officer informed that it is not his job and
PW.1 has to file an application to the Tahsildar for that purpose and on that there was some altercation and exchange of words between him (PW.1) and the accused officer and that PW.1 became wild and abused the accused officer. PW.1 also denied a suggestion that deliberately he gave a false complaint against the accused officer at the instance of ACB officials.
PW.1 also denied a suggestion put by the defence counsel that after planting the tainted amount and the documents, he called the accused officer, who came from inside the house, and questioned PW.1 the purpose of his visit to his house, then PW.1 under the pretext of apologizing accused officer, caught hold of his both hands and requested him to see that RDOs signatures are obtained on the title deed passbooks.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.19 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
21.PW.2-Ch. Shoba, is the wife of PW.2 and her evidence is to the effect that her parents gave her some landed property to her and also to her two sisters and that they intended to obtain crop loan from the bank and in that connection, she (PW.2) and PW.1 went to Andhra Bank, Siddipet branch and the Bank Manager told them to bring the required documents i.e., pahanies. Then, PW.1 approached the Village Revenue Officer, i.e., the accused officer herein. At this stage, this witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution.
22.PW.3 is the mediator for pre-trap and post-trap proceedings.
PW.3 deposed that on 09.06.2009 at 04.45AM, he went to ACB office,
Sangareddy, where DSP ACB introduced him to his staff members and another mediator Srinivas Rao Sharma (LW.3) and also introduced PW.1.
PW.3 further deposed that copy of complaint was shown to them, they have gone through the contents of complaint and another mediator by name Srinivasa Rao and they enquired PW.1 about the correctness of the contents of complaint and that PW.1 admitted the contents of the complaint as true and correct. The attested copy of complaint is marked through this witness as Ex.P.4. PW.3 further deposed that PW.1 produced
Rs.2500/- which were 4 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and 5 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and they have noted down the currency note numbers. PW.3 further went on to depose each and every
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.20 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
detail as contained in Mediator Proceedings-I (Ex.P.5). He (PW.3) also deposed in detail testified about the all the events that transpired during post-trap proceedings and which are incorporated in Mediator Proceedings-
II (Ex.P.13). PW.3 further specifically deposed that the accused officer produced 3 pattadar passbooks vide Nos.926, 927 and 928 and DSP (ACB) seized the same as Ex.P.6. PW.3 also deposed about accused officer producing the pahani for the year, 2007-08 and xerox copy of
Encumbrance Certificate and copy of proceedings of the MRO and about
DSP (ACB) seizing the same. They are marked through this witness as
Exs.P.7 to P.10.
23.During cross-examination, PW.3 denied suggestion that in their presence the accused officer told that when PW.1 approached him and asked for the pahani for the year, 2008-09, he informed PW.1 that the pahani was not prepared and it will be prepared in September, 2009 and told PW.1 to come after September, 2009 and in this connection, there was an altercation between PW.1 and the accused officer. This suggestion was denied by PW.3. It was also suggested to this witness by the defence counsel that on the date of trap, PW.1 planted Exs.P.6, P.9 and P.10 and also the tainted amount, underneath a news paper on the Sofas of entrance room of the accused officer in the absence of the accused officer and without his knowledge and then PW.1 called the accused officer. This suggestion was also denied by PW.3. PW.3 further denied a suggestion that
PW.1 caught hold of the hands of the accused officer under the pretext of
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.21 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
saying thanks and went out from the house and immediately, the ACB officials came and caught hold the accused officer. This suggestion was also denied by PW.3. PW.3 also denied a suggestion that the above version of accused officer was deliberately suppressed by the DSP (ACB) in the post-trap proceedings.
24.PW.4-D. Srinivas Reddy, is the then Tahsildar of Siddipet Mandal and he deposed about accused officer being placed in-charge of Irukodu
Village and actually, he was working as Village Revenue Officer of Tornala
Village. He deposed that as per the job chart, the Village Revenue Officer of the concerned area used to maintain pahanies and he is empowered to issue certified copies of the pahanies for the current year. PW.4 further deposed that there was no necessity for giving application to obtain signature of RDO on the title deed and also to obtain copies of pahanies of the current year.
25.PW.5-M.P. Janardhan Reddy, is the Section Officer of Telangana
Secretariat, the Government issued GO and accorded sanction to prosecute the accused officer and same is marked as Ex.P.15.
26.PW.6-A. Laxmi Narayana, is the then DSP ACB, Medak Range and he did part of the investigation by recording the statements of the witnesses and he filed the charge sheet. In the instant case, LW.12-N.S.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.22 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
Karunanidhi, the then DSP ACB, Nizamabad Range was the trap laying officer and since he died, PW.6 deposed about the investigation done by
LW.12-N.S. Karunanidhi, the then DSP ACB. PW.6 deposed about LW.12-N.S.
Karunanidhi registering the case by issuing the First Information Report, which is marked as Ex.P.16. PW.6 is also a trap party member along with the said DSP ACB i.e., LW.12-N.S. Karunanidhi. PW.6 deposed that on 07.06.2009 at 03.00PM, LW.12-N.S. Karunanidhi, the then DSP ACB received Ex.P.1 from PW.1 and entrusted the same to him for verification and he verified the genuineness of Ex.P.1 and informed to the DSP ACB orally. PW.6 further deposed that on 09.06.2009 at 04.45AM, PW.1 was called to his room by the LW.12-N.S. Karunanidhi and introduced to the mediators and vice-versa. PW.5 deposed about all the other aspects and events turned out at ACB office and which were incorporated in Mediator
Proceedings-I i.e., Ex.P.5.
27.In his chief-examination, PW6 also deposed about all the events that took place subsequent to Ex.P5-Mediators Report-I, including the happenings during the course of trap and also the events after the trap, as mentioned in Ex.P13-Mediators Report-II. During the course of cross- examination, it is elicited from him that PW1 did not submit any explanation to the Tahasildar, Siddipet for issuance of pahanis for the years 2008-09 in respect of land of his wife. It is also elicited from the
Investigating officer that they did not seize any covering letter of PW1 showing the submission of three title deed books, copy of proceedings of
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.23 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
Tahasildar and copy of Encumbrance Certificate. Investigating Officer pleaded ignorance about the alleged altercation took place between PW1 and AO or any exchange of words between them. The Investigating Officer denied suggestion that the version of AO during the post-trap proceedings was not properly incorporated in the Ex.P15 Mediators Report-II. He also denied the theory of planting the tainted amount and the documents by
PW1 to implicate the accused.
28.Thus, above is precisely, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. Now, it has to be seen whether the above narrated oral and documentary evidence is cogent and convincing and whether the same is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for which he stood charged.
29.At the outset, it is relevant to observe that the accused officer was working as Village Revenue Officer of Tornala Village and in-charge of
Irukodu Village of Siddipet Mandal and thus, he was a public servant within the meaning Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and there is no serious dispute with regard to the accused officer being a public servant on the date of alleged offence.
LAW ON THE POINT:
30.Before delving into the discussion, it is apposite to discuss the
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.24 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
law governing the field, to know what ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution.
31.To prove the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, the prosecution shall establish that the accused officer, being a public servant, had accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or agreed to obtain illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour. To prove the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that a public servant by a corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
32.Demand and acceptance of bribe to do an official favour is a sine qua non to establish the above offences.
33.Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can only follow if there is proof of demand. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The District
Inspector of Police and Anr., (2015 (10) SCC 152) a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“21. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. 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 the Act.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.25 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
22. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”
34.In recent decisions also ie., in Sk.Hussain vs. State of A.P.
reported in 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 917 and in RajeshGupta vs. State
through CBI decided on 29.03.2022 in Crl.Appeal No.1769 of 2014
by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and our Hon’ble High Court reiterated that the prosecution has to establish both the twin requirements of demand and acceptance which are sine qua non to prove the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act.
35.In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under
Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not for the offences under
Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In any event, 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.
36.Keeping in view the law and guided by the above enunciation of legal proposition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High
Courts, now this court proceeds to see whether the prosecution could establish those aspects, beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.26 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
37.At the outset this court proceeds to discuss about the aspects of demand and acceptance of bribe. For this purpose the evidence of PW1,
PW3 and PW6 is very much relevant to be discussed coupled with documentary evidence, Ex.P6, P9 and P10, Mediators Reports I and II ie.
Exs.P5 an P13.
38.PW1 deposed that in May, 2009 he went to Andhra Bank
Siddipet for obtaining crop loan and the bank officials asked him to obtain copies of pahanis and title deeds with the signature of RDO and in that connection he approached the VRO of Irkode village where the lands of
PW2 and her sisters are located. AO is the said VRO. It is his further evidence that AO asked Pw1 to bring three title deeds ie, of PW2 and her two sisters, copy of MRO proceedings and copy of Encumbrance
Certificate. It is his further evidence that when he went to the house of AO, at that time one Shankar Reddy was present there and the said Shankar
Reddy asked him to pay Rs.3,000/- and at that time AO also asked PW1 to pay Rs.3,000/-, but PW1 agreed to pay Rs.2,500/-. No doubt, the name of
Shankar Reddy does not find place either in the complaint or in his previous statement and Pw1 stated the name of Shankar Reddy for the first time in his chief examination. But at the same time, PW1 also deposed that AO also demanded to pay Rs.3,000/-.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.27 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
39.The further evidence of PW1 is that as he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to AO, he approached ACB officials, lodged complaint and the DSP, ACB, Sangareddy asked him to come on 09.06.2009 along with tainted amount and accordingly on 09.06.2009 at wee hours, PW1 went to the office of ACB at Sangareddy at 5.00 am along with tainted amount and then all the events as unfolded in EX.P5-Mediators Report-I took place. The evidence of PW1 to that extent is very much consistent even in his cross-examination. Though his evidence as regards the demand of bribe by the AO is little bit shaky, however, it is settled proposition of law that a fact may be proved either by direct testimony or by indirect testimony, such as, circumstantial evidence. The subsequent facts ie., PW1 approached the ACB officials, making complaint-Ex.P1, taking the proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- with him, handing over the same to the ACB officials, who smeared the same with Phenolphthalein powder and noting down its numbers in Mediators Report-I, the official of the rank of DSP, ACB, ie. LW12 making arrangements for trap and all the trap party going to the house of AO from Sangareddy to Siddipet, are all the factors which are indicative that there was a prior demand for payment of bribe by the AO herein and all such facts were consistently deposed by PW1 and corroborated with the evidence of PW2 and PW6.
40.Coming to the evidence of PW3 mediator, he, in great detail, deposed about all the events that happened right from the time when first he went to the office of DSP on the instructions of his superior till effecting
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.28 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
arrest of AO. He gave full account of all the events narrated under Ex.P5-
Mediators Report-I and Ex.P13-Mediators Report-II. All the material facts contained in Mediators Report-I and Mediators Report-II ie., Exs.P5 and
P13, are consistent even in his cross-examination and were not at all shaken.
41.PW6 is the then Inspector of police, ACB and he is one of the trap party members along with DSP, ACB (LW12). He also deposed all the details beginning from PW1 approaching the ACB officials for lodging complaint till the arrest of AO, subsequent to the post-trap proceedings.
42.It is the case of the learned counsel for accused that there is a procedure that whenever any signatures are found missing on title deed book or any pattedar passbook, such person has to file an application to the MRO and thereafter the other official procedure will be followed. He argued that in the instant case there is no such application filed by PW1,
PW2 or the sisters of PW2 and the AO herein is not at all competent to obtain the signatures of RDO on the title deed books. Learned counsel also argued that the said procedure was admitted by PW1 himself and therefore, in the absence of such application by PW1, there is no question of his approaching the AO for the said work or ultimately AO demanding bribe. In this regard, this court is of the opinion that in villages, whenever any person has any work in the revenue office, such person would
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.29 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
naturally approaches a field level officer and the AO herein being the
Village Revenue Officer is a field level officer, available to the farmers and seek redressal of their grievance oblivious of the procedure prescribed. In the instant case also, PW1 approached the AO seeking redressal of his grievance ie., to obtain the signature of RDO on the title deed books and for issuance of pahanis. Further a common man in the village would be hardly aware whether the current year pahani will be completed only in the month of September and such knowledge cannot be attributed to PW1.
The AO being a VRO of the concerned Irkode village, in all possibility, every villager whoever has any work in the revenue office would certainly approaches the AO. Therefore, such contention of the AO, does not merit consideration.
43.It is the further case of the AO that PW1 planted the tainted amount-MO5 and also planted the Ex.P6-title deed books, Ex.P9-copy of
Encumbrance Certificate and Ex.P10-copy of proceedings, in the front room of the house of AO. It is the case of the AO that PW1 entered into the first room, kept the amount on the Sofa underneath the Eenadu
Newspaper and also planted Exs.P6, P9 and PW10. Then he called AO and when AO came out, under the pretext of apologizing him for the earlier altercation, PW1 touched the hands of AO and thereafter gave a signal to trap party. Such a defence put forth by AO does not appear to be probable.
It is difficult to imagine that anyone can enter into the house of another person and put tainted amount under a newspaper and also plant Exs.P6,
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.30 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
P9 and P10 and till such activity is done the inmates of the house will not notice or observe. The said contention of implanting by PW1 by stealthily entering into the house of AO, does not strike the judicial conscience by any stretch of imagination. The fact remains is that AO has had accepted the bribe amount MO5 from PW1 on th date of trap and prior to that itself,
PW1 handed over Exs.P6, P9 and P10 to the AO for doing his official faour and after accepting the bribe, PW1 came out and relayed prearranged signal, then the ACB officials raided the house of AO and apprehended him and chemical tests conducted proved positive. It is not in dispute that three title deed books, copy of MRO proceedings, copy of Encumbrance
Certificate, which are marked as Exs.P6, P9 and P10 were produced by the
AO in the post-trap proceedings under Ex.P13 and in this regard the defence of planting put forth by the AO is not satisfactory. Therefore, it can be presumed that PW1 had handed over Exs.P6, P9 and P10 to the AO for doing his official favour. The evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW6 with regard to the Ex.P13-Post-trap proceedings is very much cogent and convincing.
44.Thus the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the aspects of demand and acceptance of bribe is held to be satisfactory and acceptable. Therefore, by invoking the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act, it can be presumed that the AO has received such gratification for doing the official favour mentioned above.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.31 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
45.As regards the rebuttal of AO, defence put forth by him, to the effect that an application has to be submitted for obtaining the signature of RDO on the title deed books and pahani was not at all prepared till the date of trap, were already answered in the preceding paragraphs. There is another stand taken by the AO and it is with regard to the altercation that took place between PW1 and AO. It is suggested during the cross- examination of PW1 and to the Investigating Officer-PW6 that earlier an altercation took place between PW1 and the AO and having bore grudge against AO, PW1 implanted Exs.P6, P9 and P10 and the tainted amount and falsely implicated the AO. The said stand taken by the accused does not appear to be satisfactory, as except a suggestion given in the cross- examination, there is no other independent evidence produced by the accused to prove that there was prior altercation between the PW1 and
AO. Therefore, the stand taken by the AO in rebuttal to the above presumption is held to be not satisfactorily proved by the AO.
46.For the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary, is cogent, convincing and trustworthy and hence this court concludes that the AO being a public servant demanded illegal gratification / bribe of Rs.2,500/- from PW1 for showing official favour viz., for obtaining the signature of RDO on Exs.P6 and also for issuance of pahanis. This court also holds that the AO failed to rebut the presumption raised against him under Section 20 of the P.C.Act. Accordingly this court
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.32 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
holds that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt of the AO beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act. The raised point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution.
47.In the result, this court finds the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I of Prl.ACB Court, transcribed and typed by
him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases
FAC - Special Judge at Hyderabad for Speedy Trial and
Disposal of Cases on Fraudulent Drawls and Misappropriation
of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare, Tribal Welfare and
Backward Classes Departments (Embezzlement of Funds in
Social Welfare Department) – cum - II Addl. Spl. Judge for
trail of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
48.Accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that may be imposed against him. He submitted that he is about for retirement and his family and children are depending on him. He also stated that he is suffering from health ailments and hence prayed to take lenient view.
49.Having regard to the facts and circumstances and considering the nature of offences, its seriousness and impact and also keeping in view
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.33 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts which recommend for a condign sentence to discourage the evil practice of corruption and also taking into account the plea of accused, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.
50.Similarly, accused is sentenced to undergoRigorous
Imprisonment for a period of One year and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/-.
51.The substantive sentence of imprisonment for both the offences shall run concurrently for the accused.
52.The remand period already undergone by accused (ie., from 10.06.2009 to 16.06.2009) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
53.MO5 tainted currency of Rs.2,500/- shall be confiscated to the
State after expiry of appeal time. MO1 to MO4, MO6 and MO7 shall be
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.34 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.
54.The accused is informed of his right to appeal against this
Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court and on enquiry he stated that he has means to engage Advocate for filing appeal.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I of Prl.ACB Court, transcribed and typed by
him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases
FAC - Special Judge at Hyderabad for Speedy Trial and
Disposal of Cases on Fraudulent Drawls and Misappropriation
of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare, Tribal Welfare and
Backward Classes Departments (Embezzlement of Funds in
Social Welfare Department) – cum - II Addl. Spl. Judge for
trail of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION
PW1 : Ch.Srinivas Reddy (defacto complainant)
PW2 : Ch. Shobha (wife of PW1)
PW3 : Deepankar Pal (Mediator for Pre-trap and Post-trap proceedings)
PW4 : D. Srinivas Reddy (the then Tahasildar, Siddipet Mandal)
PW5 : M.P.Janardhan Reddy (Section Officer, Revenue Department,
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.)
PW6 : A.Laxminarayana (the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Medak)
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NIL.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Original Complaint / Report of PW1 dated 07.06.2009.
Ex.P2 : Relevant portion of statement of PW1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
dated 09.06.2009.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.35 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
Ex.P3 : Relevant portion of statement of PW2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
dated 09.06.2009.
Ex.P4 : Copy of complaint dt.07.06.2009.
Ex.P5 : Pre-trap proceedings (Mediators Report-I) dated 09.06.2009.
Ex.P6 : Three Pattadar Passbooks of PW2, LW5 and LW6.
Ex.P7 : Relevant entry pertaining to Survey No.38/ ఆ in Vol.No.I.
Ex.P8 : Relevant entry pertaining to Survey No.917/2A, 918/A, 931 and 981/A of Shoba Rani, Sridhar and Andalamma in Vol.No.II.
Ex.P9 : Xerox copy of Encumbrance Certificate (3 sheets).
Ex.P10 : Copy of proceedings of MRO dated 16.11.2005.
Ex.P11 : Eenadu Newspaper edition dated 09.06.2009.
Ex.P12 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence dated 09.06.2009.
Ex.P13 : Post-Trap Proceedings (Mediators Report-II) dated 09.06.2009.
Ex.P14: Authorization letter dt.11.07.2022 authorizing PW5 Section Officer to depose evidence before this court.
Ex.P15 : Sanction Order in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 10.03.2010 of the
Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.
Ex.P16 : Original First Information Report dt.09.06.2009.
Ex.P17 : Service Particulars along with Pay Drawn particulars of AO along with covering letter dt.20.06.2009.
Ex.P18 : Proceedings of the District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy
dated 20.06.2009.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NIL.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :
MO1 : Sample of sodium carbonate powder used in Mediators Report-I.
MO2: Sample of Phenolphthalein powder used in Mediators Report-I.
MO3: Resultant Solution of right hand wash of accused.
MO4: Resultant Solution of left hand wash of accused.
MO5: Tainted amount of Rs.2,500/-.
MO6: Resultant Solution of the contactportion of the wooden Sofa.
Judgment in C.C.No.3/2014 Page No.36 Spl.Judge under P.C.Act – cum – II ACB Court, Hyd.
MO7: Sample of sodium carbonate powder used in Mediators Report-II.
Sd/-
Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases
FAC - Special Judge at Hyderabad for Speedy Trial and
Disposal of Cases on Fraudulent Drawls and Misappropriation
of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare, Tribal Welfare and
Backward Classes Departments (Embezzlement of Funds in
Social Welfare Department) – cum - II Addl. Spl. Judge for
trail of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.