Smt N.Srividya

APKU160000042023

Presented on : 03-12-2022 Registered on : 06-01-2023 Decided on : 06-02-2026 Duration : 3 years, 2 months, 3 days C.C.4/2023ACB Crt., Knl.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES:

AT KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt.N.Srividya, Spl.Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

KURNOOL.

Friday, the 6th day of February, 2026

C.C.No.4/2023

Between:

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa Range, Kadapa.… Complainant

Vs.

Smt. Dr. Madabushi Seshadri Padmaja, 63 years, W/o Dr. H.K. Vasanta Madhava, District Co-ordinator of Hospital Services, Kadapa, Kadapa District. … Accused Officer

This case has been coming on 20.01.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of

Sri M.L. Srinivasa Reddy, and M. Anudeep Reddy, Advocates for accused officer, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

C.C.4/2023-2-ACB Crt., Knl.

The Accused Officer arraigned for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act 2018.

02.This is a case where one Junior Assistant by name

Smt. S. Radhika, who is working in the office of District Co-oridnator Health

Services (DCHS), APVVP, Kadapa approached DSP, ACB, Kadapa on 26.08.2019 and lodged written report complaining that she has been working in the said DCHS office as Junior Assistant since 30.06.2016 in the Nursing

Staff Establishment Wing. Her contention is that her annual increment was due in the month of February 2019 and for that purpose, she gave a requisition to her DCHS Dr. M.S. Padmaja/ accused officer on 19.02.2019 requesting to grant her annual increment and that the representation of the defacto complainant was received by the accused officer and demanded Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards bribe and that unless the said amounts are given, she will not grant increment and on that, several times though the defacto complainant made representations to the accused officer, she kept the representation with her and did not respond and that several times accused officer was asked by the defacto complainant about the increment, but it was not granted and that on 05.07.2019, again another representation in writing was submitted to the accused officer for grant of annual increment and also requested the accused officer for grant of increment and on that day also, accused officer clearly stated that unless the demanded bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is paid, increment will not be granted to the defacto complainant. It is the contention of the defacto complainant that since she is not willing to pay the bribe, she approached the ACB office on 26.08.2019 and lodged report with the DSP, ACB informing about the entire issue and sought for caught holding of accused officer for justice.

(a)As per the case of prosecution, DSP, ACB on the same day after receipt of said report of defacto complainant, directed S.I. of Police, ACB,

C.C.4/2023-3-ACB Crt., Knl.

Kadapa Sri J.V.R. Prasad to conduct discreet inquiry in respect of the contents of the written complaint given by the defacto complainant and to submit the report. It is also the contention of the prosecution that on 27.08.2019 at 8:00 A.M., the said S.I. of Police, ACB, Kadapa Sri J.V.R. Prasad endorsed on the report stating that he caused discreet inquiry in respect of the contents of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant and about the antecedents of the defacto complainant and the accused officer Dr.M.S. Padmaja and found that the contents of complaint are genuine and that nothing adverse was found against the defacto complainant and also the endorsement reveals that there are no financial obligations between the defacto complainant and the accused officer and that on verification of the antecedents of the accused officer, it is found that she is suffering from acute corruption allegations and also having ill reputation.

(b)The contention of the prosecution is that basing on the verification of genuineness of the contents of the complaint and endorsement made by the

S.I. of Police on 27.08.2019 at about 8.30 A.M., the DSP, ACB registered a case in Cr.No.4/RCT-KDP/2019 U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 2018.

03.The learned predecessor of this Court, has taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act 2018, against the Accused officer.

04.On appearance of the Accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to her as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

05.On 31.03.2023, this Court examined the Accused officer U/S. 239

Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation levelled against her in her mother tongue

Telugu and having understood the same, she denied and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, charges U/ Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act 2018 was framed against her.

C.C.4/2023-4-ACB Crt., Knl.

06.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 23 out of 25 listed witnesses. Prosecution exhibited Exs.P1 to P25 and MOs 1 to 8. Per contra, accused officer exhibited Ex.D1 to D5 in her support.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused officer was examined as required U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances and material appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in her mother tongue Telugu and having understood the same, she denied and reported that she will file written statement.

08.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused Officer for

the charges levelled against her, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

09.Heard both sides.

10.It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Spl.P.P. and learned counsel for accused officer submitted their written arguments. The learned Spl.PP also filed reply written arguments.

11.The learned counsel for accused officer filed written statement of accused officer. The contention of the accused officer was that she had spotless reputation earned by her through decades of unblemished public service and that she served department of medical and health services with utmost dedication and integrity by holding several responsible posts for over 30 years without any single adverse remarks in her service record and that as

District Co-ordinator Health Services, her duties were entirely administrative and supervisory in nature and that said work is allotted to her including verification, approval of annual increment and maintenance of service records

C.C.4/2023-5-ACB Crt., Knl.

of ministerial staff and that every incremental proposal is processed through a detailed procedure governed by FR-26 and that no individual officer can sanction or withhold the increment arbitrarily and that the complainant’s case was among several routine files placed before the accused officer and that it was dealt with strictly according to the established procedure and that service record of the complainant was not at all in order and had certain irregularities such as un-authorized absence, memos, deduction of pay and for those reasons, increment proposal was required to be carefully examined before it is sanctioned and that delay or non sanction of increment was purely administrative and never personal and it did not even involve any demand or any expectation from the complainant. It is also the contention of the accused officer through her written statement that verification in attendance register from 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018 and charge memo dated 02.08.2018 and the absence of complainant on 01.08.2018, clearly disclose about the legitimate administrative reasons which are glaringly appearing and for those reasons only, increment was kept pending and that accused officer had discharged her duty in accordance with rules and so the so called delay or non sanction of increment was done and that it was done not for illegal gratification from the complainant.

(a)It is also the contention of the accused officer that increments were sanctioned to four employees in the usual course without any applications and without any complaint of demand or irregularities against the accused officer and all these things goes to show that the complainant allegations are false and that submission of Ex.P1 and P2 is false and that demand of bribe by the accused officer is baseless. It is further mentioned that there was no necessity for the complainant to submit Ex.P1 on 19.02.2019 even before the increments of other co employees were sanctioned, but as a matter of fact, the increment was kept pending due to non regularization of her earlier absence and not because of any demand and further contended that

C.C.4/2023-6-ACB Crt., Knl.

the evidence of PW3 is clear wherein he deposed that four employees were initially included in the proposals for grant of increment, but on verification of complainant’s record, her name was temporarily excluded on the instruction of the accused officer until administrative clearance was obtained. It is contended that such exclusion was a routine official act within the powers of DCHS and cannot be considered as corrupt intent.

(b)It is urged that the trap was motivated and that when the complainant herself admitted that there are no prior animosity or financial transactions, there cannot be any motives for the accused officer to demand any gratification and there is no change or difference in between the statement of PW1 recorded U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. with that of statement recorded by ACB authorities and said statement was not at all corroborated by any one and further it is contended that there is no person who witnessed any such demand and there is no conversation and absolutely no evidence that accused officer demanded the bribe. Since Sec.7 of P.C. Act, mandates the proof of demand, in the absence of any such proof produced by the prosecution, the entire case of the prosecution collapses as there is no sufficient motive or grudge so that accused officer can be falsely implicated and that enquiry of the Inspector,

ACB is also not genuine. It is also the contention of the accused officer through written statement that there are contradictions and inconsistency evidence of prosecution witnesses much particularly PW1 and when there is no documentary proof to show that she submitted her Ex.P1 and P2 to the accused officer, her version cannot be believed. Further, it is mentioned that since PW1 herself admitted that there is no initial of accused officer on Ex.P1 and P2, it can be considered that these documents are created to strengthen the case of the ACB. It is also the contention of the accused officer that PW1 has knowledge that unless and until her un-authorized absence is regularized, one day salary was regularized, she cannot be sanctioned with the increment and as such, she foisted a false case and to settle her previous grievance, she

C.C.4/2023-7-ACB Crt., Knl.

spoke false before this Court. It is the contention of the accused officer that evidence of PW2 demolished the case of prosecution who categorically admitted that the trap party could not see what transpired inside the chambers of the accused officer which took ten minutes to the complainant to come out of the chambers to give signal and that they found bag of the accused officer on the floor by the side of her chair and not on the table and that these admissions strikes from root of the prosecution as false case and that PW2 also admitted that on the narration and dictation of DSP, the trap proceedings are prepared.

(c)It is also the contention of the accused officer through written statement that PW1 herself admitted that she had no documentary proof to show that Ex.P1 and P2 were filed on a particular day with the accused officer and that she herself admitted that she did not take endorsement from receiving clerk or acknowledgment from the office about the filing of the same and as such in the light of those admissions, Ex.P1 and P2 do not bear the signature of the accused officer and there is no official endorsement as such both documents cannot be relied upon and that there is every possibility of creating these two documents later on at the instance of ACB officials in order to strengthen the false complaint made by PW1. It is also the contention of the accused officer that one day salary of PW1 was not even regularized by the date of complaint and that she was aware of the fact that unless the un- authorized absence is regularized, her increment would not be granted and for that reason, she created a story that accused officer demanded bribe to grant increment and that the credibility of very complaint made by PW1 appears to be deliberate one and that PW1 is speaking falsehood in order to settle her previous grievances.

(d)The accused officer further contended that the evidence of PW2 who is mediator, demolished the entire case of prosecution by admitting that the third party cannot have vision of trap and what transpired inside the

C.C.4/2023-8-ACB Crt., Knl.

chambers of the accused officer and when it took ten minutes for PW1 to come out from the chambers of accused officer, it can be easily presumed that in the light of accused officer’s absence in the chambers and her presence in the washroom, clearly shows that in the back, PW1 might have placed the tainted currency and left the place soon after return of accused officer from washroom and stealthily keeping the tainted currency in the hand bag of the accused officer, PW1 wanted to create a story. Further, it is the contention of the accused officer that possibility of complainant in keeping the amounts stealthily in the hand bag of the accused officer is more probable than that of the alleged trap and the story of the prosecution and PW2 admitted that he prepared the trap proceedings under the dictation of DSP and that certain facts stated by the accused officer were not recorded in the proceedings because the DSP did not instruct them to write so. It is also the contention of the accused officer that the entire trap proceedings were not done in a fair manner and impartial manner, but prepared MR-II proceedings mechanically in order to suit the theory of the prosecution.

(e)The evidence of PW3 further disproved the entire case of the prosecution who categorically deposed that he is the one who maintains the service register and also maintains the increment register and that the exclusion of name of PW1 from the increment order was for the sake of administration reasons and not due to demand of bribe and that when he produced the relevant proceedings of Ex.P10 and P11, the increment register,

Ex.P12 clearly shows that the complainant’s increment was processed later on by another officer after verification of the record. It is further contention of the accused officer that the documentary evidence nullify the allegations of illegal gratification and there is no entry anywhere in the service records showing any complaint or irregular part on the accused officer and if at all they have noticed any such irregularities, they too would not sanction the increment to the PW1

C.C.4/2023-9-ACB Crt., Knl.

and these records conclusively establish that the allegations made by PW1 that accused officer demanded bribe and accepted the bribe, is totally false.

(f)Further, it is also the contention of the accused officer that the receipt of tainted currency is myth and that there is high range of probabilities of placing the tainted currency in the hand bag of the accused officer in her absence by PW1 and that in catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court the demand and voluntary acceptance the bribe is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, there cannot be any case which could appreciate the prosecution case and that both these elements i.e., demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe are crucial and in its absence, no case could stand.

(g)It is also the contention of the accused officer that there are several procedural lacunas and lapses in the entire episode of pre trap and post trap proceedings and that the chemical test was all not at all videographed and photographed and as such it cannot be said even by any stretch of imagination that the pre trap and post trap proceedings are conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused officer.

(h)It is also the contention of the accused officer that as per the evidence of one of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the hand bag of the accused officer is on the table and other witness deposes that the hand bag was on the ground. All these crucial discrepancies should and must create doubt in the minds of the Court and such evidence if accepted, shall be accepted in entirety and if denied, it should be denied in total much less in corruption cases where standard of proof is extremely high.

(i)As far as the obtaining of sanction orders by the prosecution to prosecute the accused officer vide G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 17.11.2022, the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind and mechanically in a routine manner without applying its mind went on illegally granting the sanction orders and that the version of ACB officials and contents of sanction orders are

C.C.4/2023-10-ACB Crt., Knl.

literally one and same with few changes here and there and that it cannot form the basis of prosecution under P.C. Act, without proper sanction.

(j)It is the further contention of the accused officer that the prosecution miserably failed in producing fabricated motivated personal grudge complaint and ACB officials acted upon the said over jealous conduct oriented complaint and that the alleged demand and acceptance was not at all proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and sanction order when it being invalid and entire proceedings which are not at all in co-ordinance with rules and regulations, the benefit of doubt must and should be showered on the accused officer as she maintained throughout her service utmost honesty and integrity and that she is entitled to be honourably acquitted of all the charges and prayed this Court to acquit the accused officer from the charges levelled against her.

12.The Spl. P.P. filed written arguments projecting the entire case of the prosecution. The gist of the written arguments is as under:

(a)The written arguments reiterated the case of the prosecution that

PW1 was due of getting annual increment by February 2019 and that she is working under the accused who was the then District Co-ordinator of Hospital

Services, Kadapa. The written arguments disclose that PW1 though made representations on 19.02.2019 at first instance seeking for grant of annual increment and also on 05.07.2019 making another representation in writing seeking for grant of annual increment, the accused inspite of several oral representations did not choose to grant the annual increment and started demanding Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards bribe in order to sanction the annual increment after filing the first representation by the accused on 19.02.2019 and reiterated the same even after filing another representation by the defacto complainant /PW1 on 05.07.2019, and also stated that unless the bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is paid,

C.C.4/2023-11-ACB Crt., Knl.

her annual increment would not be sanctioned. As per the written arguments, the case of the prosecution was to the effect that since PW1 was not willing to give bribe, approached ACB officials and lodged a written report basing on which a trap was laid and after following the due procedure, regarding laying of trap much particularly pre trap proceedings, the ACB officials along with PW1 reached the office of the accused officer wherein PW1 entered the chambers and within ten minutes she came out giving her pre arranged signal to the ACB officials and immediately the accused officer was caught redhandedly by the

ACB officials and also seized relevant documents. The written arguments also disclose that the service register of the PW1, attendance register, several other crucial documents were all seized soon after the tainted currency was seized on the spot under cover of MR-II and that accordingly, accused officer was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody and finally after completion of investigation and receipt of sanction orders to prosecute the accused officer, charge sheet was filed.

(b)The written arguments of the prosecution show that the initial demand of bribe amount was clearly mentioned by PW1 both in her oral evidence and Ex.P1 which are corroborative in nature. Even in the evidence of

PW1 both chief and cross examination, she categorically deposed about filing of representations on 19.02.2019 addressing to the accused officer and also about the demand of the accused officer for want of bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), was clearly deposed. Further, the written arguments disclose that the evidence of PW1 regarding subsequent demand as mentioned in Ex.P1 was on 05.07.2019 and it was also deposed by PW1 in her evidence by filing another representation on 05.07.2019 and about reiteration of demand made by accused officer for want of bribe of

Rs.5,000/- from PW1 otherwise work of grant of annual increment to PW1 would not be done. The written arguments disclose that Ex.P3 and the evidence of PW1 clearly proves the demand made by accused officer and that

C.C.4/2023-12-ACB Crt., Knl.

her evidence was in corroboration with the report/Ex.P3. The written arguments further disclose that there was no slight deviation with regard to first demand made by the accused officer as well as second time repeating the same demand and that the further demand on the date of trap by the accused officer was also clearly mentioned by the PW1 in her evidence stating that on 27.08.2019 at about 2.45 P.M., when PW1 directly went into the office chambers of DCHS located in the office of DCHS, APVVP, New Collectorate,

Kadapa, accused officer was very much present and that when PW1 requested about the sanction of annual increment, accused officer again demanded for the bribe and also enquired whether she brought the same or not and upon the said demand, PW1 affirmed that she brought the amount and gave to accused officer and that accused officer took the said amounts with her left hand and counted with her both hands and kept the same in her wallet.

The written arguments further disclose that the evidence of PW1 as mentioned above was crucial with regard to further demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe by the accused officer on the date of trap and that all the aforesaid contents and situations what happened on the date of trap when PW1 enter the chambers of accused officer, were clearly mentioned in Ex.P9/MR-II. The written arguments disclose that since MR-II was noted down by the mediators, it should be believed as they are no way interested witnesses in any manner.

(c)The written arguments also disclose that one of the mediators/PW2 deposed in support of evidence of PW1 regarding proof of further demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused officer. It also disclose that during pre trap proceedings/Ex.P5 when PW1 produced the proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only), they were applied phenolphthalein powder which was placed in the hand back of PW1 and also after completion of pre trap proceedings, when the mediators and the

ACB officials took vantage position, PW1 going inside the office of accused officer and returning back by giving pre arranged signals to the officers who

C.C.4/2023-13-ACB Crt., Knl.

are outside the chambers of accused officer and the ACB officials asking PW1 stay back outside the office and also about the chemical test conducted on both the hands fingers of accused officer which resulted positively and later on accused officer producing the currency notes and tallying of the currency notes particulars with that of the currency notes particulars mentioned in Ex.P5, clearly disclose about the fact that on the date of trap accused officer once again demanded the bribe and it was paid by the PW1 and MR-II/Ex.P9 proceedings coupled with Ex.P5 proceedings and Ex.P1, MO-5, clearly disclose about the case of the prosecution and proof of the same by PWs 1 and 2. It is the contention of the prosecution through written arguments that with the help of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and coupled with Ex.P1, P5, P9 and seizure of MO-5 along with material evidence of the carbonate solution /MOs 3 and 4 goes to show that the prosecution proved about the demand, payment of bribe on demand successfully.

(d)The written arguments of prosecution further disclose that as far as the evidence in respect of pending official favour is concerned, both the evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1 clearly disclose that PW1 is due of annual increment by the month of February 2019 and that she made written representation on 19.02.2019 to the accused officer seeking sanction of annual increment. It is evidence of PW1 that when the representation was made to the accused officer in writing, she demanded for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards bribe in order to grant annual increment to PW1.

The evidence of PW1 also disclose that when on 05.07.2019 again the representation was submitted by PW1 to the accused officer, she again reiterated demand and clearly stated that unless amount is paid, work would not be done. On this aspect, the prosecution in its written arguments clearly mentioned that in this regard whether the official favour is pending or not, the evidence of PW3 is crucial in nature and that he being Junior Assistant in

Ministerial Section of DCHS, Kadapa working since 2017, deposed in his

C.C.4/2023-14-ACB Crt., Knl.

evidence that his duties to observe the due date of increment as per the service register entries and the increment watch register, and to prepare proceedings accordingly and to place the same before AFO i.e., the then

DCHS/ accused officer herein, deposed clearly that when he prepared the proceedings and placed the same before the accused officer regarding the annual increment of PW1 and three other persons i.e., Nagamanjula,

T. Srinivasulu and Bhumireddy who are due for increments for the month of

February 2019, accused officer instructed PW3 to take out the name of PW1 and prepare fresh proceedings deleting the name of PW1 and accordingly,

PW3 prepared fresh proceedings for three persons alone deleting the name of

PW1 and that accused officer sanctioned increment to said three persons basing on the second proceedings containing the names of three persons only.

(e)The written arguments disclose that the entire evidence of PW3 is crucial enough and that Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 which are the attested copies of first proceedings containing four names including the name of PW1 and

Ex.P11 attested copy of second proceedings containing the names of three persons excluding the name of PW1, are crucial documents which support the oral testimony of PW3. The written arguments also disclose that Ex.P12 which is Increment Watch Register and Ex.P12-A is the relevant entry with regard to the grant of annual increment to the aforesaid three persons and it clearly shows that accused officer intentionally did not grant annual increment to

PW1. It is the contention of the prosecution through written arguments that it is the accused officer who is having official capacity to grant annual increment to its staff and that there is official favour pending with the accused officer in granting annual increment in favour of PW1.

(f)The written arguments of prosecution further disclose that the evidence of PW3 was in consonance with the evidence of PWs 4, 16, 18 and 19 and that all the aforesaid four witnesses supported the version of PW3 and

C.C.4/2023-15-ACB Crt., Knl.

thereby it can safely be concluded that official favour of PW1 is pending with the accused officer and that it is not even disputed by the accused officer. The written arguments disclose that since the accused officer contends that due to un-authorized absence of PW1, annual increment was not granted to PW1, the accused officer has taken defence that PW1 lodged false case against her thinking that she is competent to grant all benefits including leave, increment as such in order to compel her to grant increment to PW1 by over looking administrative problems and that a false case is foisted against accused officer by keeping grudge by PW1 and lodged Ex.P3 and that accused officer never demanded and never accepted the bribe amount from PW1 and that due to un-authorized absence of PW1, annual increment of PW1 was kept pending.

(g)The written arguments of the prosecution disclose that the defence put up by the accused officer that increment cannot be granted by over looking the administrative problems and that PW1 bore grudge and lodged false case against the accused officer and that accused officer never demanded any bribe or never received any bribe, is totally false for the reason that accused officer when she was examined as required U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., accused officer did not state that there is quarrel between her and PW1 and that PW1 insisted her for undue favour and accused officer did not even state that there is recommendations or complaint by accused officer against PW1 to the superior officers about negligence or dereliction of duties by PW1. It is also the version of prosecution that none of the prosecution witnesses much particularly the staff of the accused officer did not state about the aspects of grudge between accused officer and PW1 or PW1 against accused officer or accused officer complaining against PW1 to the superior officers. It is also the version of the prosecution that when the mediators report that the contents of complaint of PW1 along with FIR and confronted to PW1 and when questioned

PW1 about genuineness of complaint, they came to know that there were no grudges or disputes between the accused officer and PW1 and after going

C.C.4/2023-16-ACB Crt., Knl.

through the same, Ex.P4 was signed. It is also the contention of the prosecution that when PW3 was deposing, he categorically deposed that he has no knowledge as to what action was taken against PW1 as shown in

Ex.D1 to D5 and the successor of accused officer sanctioned the increment to

PW1 as there were no allegations against her as per service register and that during re-examination this PW3 deposed that Ex.D4 is not at all there in their office and that Ex.D1 to D4 do not contain his initial or signature and that he has no personal knowledge about its contents and that HOD or Prl. Secretary to the Government only can exercise power to withhold or postpone the increment as per CCA Rules.

(h) It is also the contention of the prosecution that none of the witnesses much particularly PWs 4 to 10 and PW18 deposed that they have knowledge whether memos were issued to PW1 for her un-authorised absence or not. It is also the contention of the prosecution that PW16 deposed that soon after taking the post of accused officer as full additional charge after trap of the accused officer, he perused the service register of the

PW1 and found no adverse remarks at nowhere against the PW1 and hence he felt that there are no charge memos issued to the PW1 as per service register/Ex.P6 and therefore he sanctioned the annual increment to PW1 under Exs.P13, 14, 21 and 22. Further it is the written arguments that PW16 deposed that no charge memos were issued to PW1 based on Ex.D1 to D4.

Prosecution contends that the staff of accused officer would definitely have knowledge about the alleged issuing of memos and recommendations if any made by accused officer to her higher officials and that even PW1 would have knowledge about the said aspect and that in the absence of all these things it can safely be presumed that PW1 has no enmity and grudge and that it is the reason why the increment was allegedly granted by the successor of accused officer as such defence of the accused officer shall not be believed. It is the condition of the prosecution that accused officer has no power to withhold or

C.C.4/2023-17-ACB Crt., Knl.

postpone the increment of PW1 and that when there are no allegations against

PW1 in service register/Ex.P6 and recordedly accused officer kept pending the increment only for want of bribe amount and that there is no enmity or grudge between PW1 and accused officer.

(i)The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW19 wherein during the cross examination by the Spl.PP towards re-examination, PW19 categorically deposed that if enquiry has to be conducted, accused officer has to inform the same to the Commissioner and then unilaterally accused officer cannot stop granting of annual increment or one day or two days absence cannot be treated as un-authorized absence provided if reasons are shown for the absence in a satisfactory manner and accepted by the authorities concerned and that it will not come under the aspect of disobedience of the higher authorities and one or two days absence alone cannot be considered as dereliction of duties. The prosecution through its written arguments contends that basing of all the aforesaid aspects, it can safely be concluded that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused officer that accused officer being public servant which is evident by Ex.P20, committed the offence and was caught redhandedly and should be punished as per law.

(j)It is the contention of the prosecution that since the prosecution proved about the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused officer from

PW1, by adducing the evidence of PW1 along with corroborative evidence of oral and documentary evidence, presumption U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act would come in to play and that guilt of the accused officer proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the accused officer could not rebut the presumption.

13.The learned Spl.PP relied on the following judgments to support his case:

(i) Pillimarri Venugopala Krishna Murthy Vs State 2011 (2) ALD Crl 438 A.P.

(ii) B. Vittalaiah vs. State of A.P.

C.C.4/2023-18-ACB Crt., Knl.

(iii) 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 378 (SC) Ramesh Harijan Vs State of U.P. (July, 2013)

(iv) ShivRaj singh V/s Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 1419.

(v) C.K. Damodara Nair Vs Government of India 1997 CRLJ 739:-S.20

(vi) State of U.P. V/s Zakrullah AIR 1998 SC.1474.

(vii) AIR 1984 SC 63 State of Maharashtra V/s Narasinga rao Gangaram Pimple

(viii) The State V/s A.Parthiban 2008 Crl.L.J.4772 SC.

(ix) Subash Parbat Sonrane V/s State of Gujarat.AIR 2003 S.C.2169.

(x) Ramesh Kumar Gupta V/s State of Madhya Pradesh. 1995 Crl.L.J.- S.C.

(xi) 2011 SCC (Crl) (1) 214 B.Nagul Sharief Vs.State of A.P.

(xii) 2011 Crl,LJ SC 975 CM Sarma Vs. State of AP

(xiii) 2006 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 346 Shanker bhai Laljibhai Rot V/s State of

Gujarat.

(xiv) Dhanvanth Rai Bhalvantha Rai Desai Vs State of Maharashtra 1964 SC 575.

(xv) State of Maharashtra Vs Mahesh G.Jain’ reported in 2013(8) SCC 199.

(xvi) Neeraj Dutta Vs State dated: 15.12.2022.

(xvii) Vinod Kumar Garg vs State (Govt. Of National Capital) Dt 27 November, 2019.

(xviii) The State of AP Vs P.Subash Chandra Reddy 2003 CrLJ 4776.

(xix) Prakash Chand Vs State (Delhi Admin) AIR 1979 (SC) 400.

(xx) Raghubir Singh V/s State of Haryana 1974 (4) SCC 560.

14.On the other hand, the defence counsel filed written arguments stating that the defence put up by the accused officer is to the effect that PW1 developed grudge and enmity against the accused officer leading her to file a false case. In order to support the said defence, written arguments of the accused officer disclose that PW22 who is S.I. of Police working in ACB alleged to have been conducted discreet inquiry and that his discreet inquiry reveals that there is nothing adverse found against PW1 and no disputes between PW1 and the accused officer and that even PW1 also did not disclose any manner of disputes or unpleasant things happened between PW1 and accused officer either in Ex.P1 or in her chief examination, but it was

C.C.4/2023-19-ACB Crt., Knl.

projected that during the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that she applied leave under Ex.D1 on 01.08.2018 and that the accused officer endorsed that “Deduct salary for one day as allotted work not done” and that even PW1 admitted that she received Ex.D2 charge memo dated 02.08.2018 from the accused officer for which PW1 gave explanation under Ex.D3 on 08.08.2018 and on the said explanation, accused officer endorsed that “Not satisfactory, frame charges. (1) Reply is not given in time (2) Reply is not satisfactory”. Further, it is the contention of the accused officer that PW1 also admitted that when she applied for leave under Ex.D4 from 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018, accused officer made an endorsement on it “Refused, issue memos for not attending allotted work”. It is also the written arguments that

Ex.D5 attendance register shows a line for 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018 showing un-authorized absence of PW1.

(a)It is the contention of the accused officer that PW3 who is concerned officer who prepares annual increment file categorically admitted in the cross examination that when a person is absent un-authorizedly without leave or salary is deducted, unless it is regularized, annual increment will not be granted in time and also admitted that if any irregularities are mentioned as per Ex.D1 to D5 are present, unless they are regularized by the higher authorities, annual increment of PW1 will be kept pending. It is further the written arguments of the accused officer that accused officer can wait for reasonable time till her service for un-authorized absence and salary deduction are regularized for grant of annual increment and that after framing of charges, result will be entered in the service register, if found, guilty and also that as per FR 24 to 27, 31-A, 10-D, 13 of State and Subordinate Service

Rules, the increment may be withheld from a Government servant by the State

Government or by any authority, to whom the State Government may delegates its power if towards conduct is not good or his work is not satisfactory. It is the contention of the accused officer through written

C.C.4/2023-20-ACB Crt., Knl.

arguments that it is not uncommon to keep grant of increment pending when allegations as per Ex.D1 to D5 are present. The written arguments further disclose that PW1 in her cross examination categorically deposed that her one day salary was not regularized by the date of complaint in this case and that attendance register dated 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018 shows blank as she did not sign on said dates.

(b)It is also the contention of the accused officer that PWs 4 and 5 whose increments were due by the month of February 2019 along with PW1, they both admitted in their cross examination that unless the un-authorized absence was regularized, increment will not be granted and it is also the evidence of PWs 3, 6 to 10 who categorically admitted that un-authorized absence is to be regularized.

(c)It is also the contention of the defence through written arguments that PW16 who was successor of accused officer as FAC, after the trap incident, categorically deposed in his chief examination that “I also perused the service register of PW1, there are no adverse remarks and no charge memos were issued to PW1 as per her service register/Ex.P6. Therefore, I have signed annual increment to PW1 under Ex.P13”. It is the contention of the accused officer that in the cross examination, PW16 categorically deposed that “I do not know personally what happened earlier to the trap. If any employee is absent un-authorizedly, a charge memo is issued. It is true that when there is salary deduction for un-authorised absence, unless it is regularized, increment will be postponed. The employee has to send an application for regularizing for un-authorized absence and unless it is regularized, employee is not entitled to grant of increment. In general, I too would have granted not increment unless unauthorized absence and salary deduction period is regularized. There is no need for separate application for grant of annual increment by any of the employee and it applies even to PW1.

I granted annual increment of PW1 as I have no knowledge about her un-

C.C.4/2023-21-ACB Crt., Knl.

athorized absence and also about salary deduction. If unauthorized for three days and salary deduction of PW1 for one day was brought to my notice, I would have called her explanation and thereafter satisfying with the explanation and regularizing the unauthorized absence, increment would have been granted. I never discussed with PW1 about case facts. Since I succeeded accused officer after trap, I came to know case facts. I do not know why accused officer sanctioned annual increment of three others and kept pending for PW1. It is true that if there is unauthorized absence and salary deduction for PW1, accused officer keeping grant annual increment of

PW1 in abeyance is correct”

(d)The written arguments of accused officer further disclose that

PW18 who was incharge of Assistant Finance Officer, O/o DCHS, Kadapa in his cross examination admitted that “If any leave is refused by the competent authority, one has to attend duty otherwise it is deemed unauthorized absence and his work is deemed to be not satisfactory and conduct not good. Till the absence is regularized, grant of increment will be kept in abeyance. Through an application by the employee, the service when regularized will be eligible for grant of increment. I do not know about Ex.D1 to D4. It is true that if unauthorized absence is brought to the notice of sanctioning authority, annual increment should not have been granted to PW1 till it was regularized by competent authority. It is true that since we were not aware of about unauthorized absence/Ex.D5 and other irregularities as shown in Ex.D1 to D4, grant of increment would have been deferred. If any punishment is given, it will be entered in service register. When any enquiry or proceedings are pending, it will not be entered in service register. It is not true to suggest that though we have knowledge about Ex.D1 to D5, at the instance of ACB authorities, annual increment was granted to PW1 though she was not eligible by then. It is true that when such irregularities are pending about the work of PW1 and since it is

C.C.4/2023-22-ACB Crt., Knl.

in the knowledge of accused officer, keeping grant of increment pending for

PW1 is legal”.

(e) The written arguments further disclose that PW19 Joint

Commissioner in his cross examination categorically admitted that “Under

Rule 24 of FR Rules, grant of increment can be withheld if the conduct of the employee is not good and or his work is not satisfactorily”. It is the written arguments that in case of awarding punishment, it will be entered in service register and it will be the result of proper enquiry only and that pendency of the enquiry will not be entered in service register. The defence relied upon the FR

Rules 67 i.e., “Leave cannot be claimed as of right. When the exigencies of the public service to require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it”. It is further urged through written arguments that FR-24 is available in Ex.P21 which reads:

Fundamental Rules 24:“An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a

Government servant by (the State Government), or by any authority to whom the State Government may delegate this power if his conduct has not been good, or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment the withholding authority shall state the period of which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments”.

(f)The written arguments further disclose that PW1 deposed that “There is no strained relationship between us. But, in view of issuing of charge memos by the accused officer concerned to Ex.D1 to D5, PW1 must have ill feelings/strained relationship with accused officer.” The written arguments also disclose that even PW2 in her cross examination deposed that “It is true that there will be ill feelings between higher and lower cadres if their increments

C.C.4/2023-23-ACB Crt., Knl.

are not granted and if any memos are issued by higher officials to his subordinate”. Even PW2 who conducted discreet inquiry, also admitted in the cross examination that “There is possibility of maintaining ill feelings by the staff if their superior officer issues memos regarding irregularities in their work.

I have no knowledge whether any such memos were issued by the accused officer to PW1”. It is urged in writing that PW1 who have received charge memo from accused officer, must have developed grudge and animosity against the accused officer but she is denying the same shows that she is suppressing the truth and that her sole evidence in the absence of corroboration with regard to demand and acceptance, cannot be believed.

(g)Further, it is urged in writing that basing on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses and FR-24, if the conduct of the employees has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory, the concerned authority can withheld the annual increment of the employee and so in case of PW1, since enquiry was not completed regarding allotted work and un-authorized absence, deducting salary for one day, PW1’s annual increment cannot be sanctioned by the accused officer, but it was pending rightly and that since enquiry was not completed, question of awarding the punishment and entering the same in the service register, does not arise and further contended that accused officer being concerned officer, and having personal knowledge regarding Ex.D1 to D5, she was right by sanctioning the annual increment to

PWs 4, 5 and LW19 in due course and did not sanction increment to PW1 as the enquiry was not completed against her. It is further contended that though

PW16 deposed that he granted increment as he did not find any enquiry pending, subsequently, in the cross examination deposed PW16 that “I granted annual increment to PW1 as I have no knowledge about un-authorized absence and also about salary deductions. If un-authorized absence for three days and salary deductions of PW1 for one day was brought to my notice, I

C.C.4/2023-24-ACB Crt., Knl.

would have called her explanation and thereafter satisfactory explanation and regularizing the un-authorized absence, increment would have been granted”.

(h)It is further urged in writing that mere grant of increment by PW16 does not mean that there are no enquiries pending and that PW1 is legally entitled for annual increment as non sanctioning of the increment by the accused officer is tenable either under law or on the facts and that PW1 having knowledge about all these things very well, falsely foisted a case and that PW1 developed grudge and animosity against the accused officer and thereby created Ex.P1 and P2.

(i)The second defence put by the accused officer was to the effect that whether Ex.P1 and P2 are expected to be given to the accused officer by

PW1 and whether those are with the accused officer and seized from the accused officer or planted by the prosecution. The gist of the written arguments on this aspect of the accused officer is to the effect that PWs 3, 4 and LW19 are also due of getting annual increment along with PW1 and that when these three persons did not file any application for grant of annual increment, filing of Ex.P1 and P2 by PW1 is something strange which shall not be believed at all and it can safely be concluded that they are planted by the prosecution and only to foist a false case against the accused officer, PW1 created those documents.

(j)It is also the contention of the accused officer on this aspect that

PW3 while deposing evidence before this Court admitted that “Any application received in office will be entered in inward register. When an application is given to accused officer after she puts her initial, it will be sent to the clerk concerned. To my knowledge, PW1 also did not apply for grant of her increment”. The contention of the accused officer is to the effect that PW1 has no explanation as to why Ex.P1 and P2 applications were directly given to the accused officer and that PW1 categorically deposed that “I did not inform regarding the date of submission of my applications to the clerk concerned or

C.C.4/2023-25-ACB Crt., Knl.

any other staff as the application will reach the clerk concerned”. The written arguments further disclose that on enquiry, PW3 deposed that “Though he received my application under Ex.P1 and P2, he did not process my increment amount as accused officer did not order for it. But, PW3 deposed that “To my knowledge, PW1 also, did not apply for grant of her increment”. The accused officer urged in writing that if said version of PW1 that though PW3 received applications under Ex.P1 and P2, he did not process the same is believed, then question of availability of Ex.P1 and P2 becomes doubtful and seizure of the same also becomes doubtful as they are supposed to be with PW3 but

PW3 deposed that PW1 did not apply for grant of increment. Due to these two versions of PWs 1 and 3, accused officer urged that the very seizure of Ex.P1 and P2 from the possession of accused officer, is doubtful point and should not be believed at all and that none of the staff were examined by prosecution to corroborate with the evidence of PW1 that accused officer made any demand for bribe in order to sanction annual increment of PW1.

(k)The third defence put up by the accused officer was to the effect that whether the accused officer demanded and accepted the bribe from PW1 and bribe amount is whether seized from accused officer in the manner claimed by the prosecution or whether the version of the defence is more probable. As per the contentions of the accused officer, PW1 when entered chambers, accused officer was in the wash room and that when accused officer came out from the wash room, PW1 was inside the office chambers and she left the chambers. The defence is when accused officer came to her chambers from outside just before the incident, she kept her hand bag on the table and went into the wash room which is adjacent to her chambers and she was in the wash room, PW1 kept tainted currency in the hand bag of the accused officer which was on her table and that when accused officer came out from wash room, PW1 went away from the chambers of accused officer and gave signal to the DSP, ACB and accordingly they rushed into the

C.C.4/2023-26-ACB Crt., Knl.

chambers and during that period PW1 informed to ACB officials that she placed tainted currency in the hand bag of the accused officer and so the DSP who knows that the tainted amount was in the handbag of accused officer, asked accused officer to open the bag and counted the notes and as such accused officer counted the same by taking out the amount from her bag as directed by DSP and solution of test of both hands of the accused officer fingers and inner linings of her bag resulted positive. The written arguments further disclose that if accused officer was present in her chair by the time

PW1 entered into her chamber, she should have come out immediately after giving the bribe amount to accused officer, but she would not have taken ten minutes of time for coming out of chambers of accused officer, by giving tainted amounts to the accused officer. It is also urged in writing that since the accused officer was in wash room, PW1 was forced to wait in the chambers of accused officer till she came out from the wash room, for that ten minutes of time took and that is the reason PW1 waited in the chambers of the accused officer for ten minutes. It is also urged in writing by the accused officer that on careful perusal of Ex.P9, which is MR-II, PW2 was questioned wherein he categorically deposed that “ I cannot give any reason for writing the same sentence twice in Ex.P9”. It is urged in writing that it shows that this must have occurred while the contents were being written as per the independent evidence as he is part and parcel of ACB riding party and so the evidence of PW2 shall be scrutinized in serious manner with due caution.

(l)It is further urged in writing by the accused officer that during the course of cross examination PW2 deposed that “The handbag of accused officer was on the floor by the side of the chair of the accused officer”. It is also urged that DSP did not ask accused officer to keep her bag on the table and it can be presumed that in Ex.P9, it is not mentioned that hand bag of the accused officer was found by the side of her chair on the floor when trap party entered into the chamber. During the course of cross examination of PW2, he

C.C.4/2023-27-ACB Crt., Knl.

deposed that “It is not true to suggest that by the time we went inside, bag was on the table and not on the floor by side of chair of accused officer.” It is urged that PW2 completely ruled out that the bag was found on the table of accused officer, but PW20 in his cross examination, to the question “where did you find the handbag of accused officer in her chamber soon after you entered” he stated that “on the table” and in Ex.P9 it is not at all mentioned where the handbag was found, except mentioning the currency notes were produced by the accused officer by taking out from her hand bag. It is the contention of the accused officer that these defences of the accused officer are more probable than that of the case of the prosecution and that the spontaneous explanation of the accused officer was that, she has not demanded and received any bribe from PW1 and she kept the bribe amount in the hand bag in her absence when she was in the wash room but the same was not incorporated in Ex.P9 and that the so called spontaneous version of the accused officer which is nothing but confession incorporated in Ex.P9 by pachayatdar in the presence of ACB authorities and that it can safely be hit U/Sec.26 of Indian Evidence Act and that it becomes inadmissible in evidence.

(m)It is further urged through written arguments that preponderance of probabilities are looked into which are placed by the accused officer but not a total proof and that the presumption U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act, cannot be drawn as there are two views possible wherein the view which is favouring the accused officer is to be taken into consideration and that prosecution miserably failed in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt so that

Sec.20 can be used by it.

(n)As per the written arguments of the accused officer, the contention of the accused officer was to the effect that whether Ex.P3 was prepared by PW1 in her own. As per the written arguments of the accused officer, it is her contention that basing on Ex.P3 written report received from

PW1 by PW20, Ex.P25/FIR was registered, but as per the evidence of PW1 in

C.C.4/2023-28-ACB Crt., Knl.

her chief examination, she deposed that “I gave report to ACB, DSP.” She did not say that it was prepared in the police station, but in her cross examination she deposed that “First I informed DSP orally and on his instructions, I myself scribed complaint as to what happened infront of his table”. It is the contention of accused officer that knowing the said admission of PW1, PW20 in his cross examination deposed that PW1 initially complained orally and immediately reduced her complaint into writing and lodged Ex.P3 and said fact was mentioned in case file. It is the written arguments of the accused officer that as this Court has ample power to peruse and verify the Part-I C.D., and if it is found, the inference can be drawn that Ex.P3 must have been prepared on the dictation of DSP, ACB only and that as per the Police Training Orders 468, if complainant comes to the police station and gives oral report, that should be reduced into writing by SHO.

(o)The other defence put up by the accused officer was that whether sanction accorded to prosecute the accused officer or not and that as per the evidence of PW17 who is Section Officer who spoke about the issuance of sanction order under Ex.P24, dated 17.11.2020, in the cross examination he clearly deposed that on 17.11.2022, G.S. Naveen Kumar scrutinized the file received by him and as per note file in their record, it is mentioned that on 17.11.2022, he scrutinized the file and as per his file, on 16.11.2022, the Dy.

Secretary sent the file to the Prl. Secretary at 4.30 P.M. and at 10.42 A.M.

Secretary to Government/G.S.Naveen Kumar approved the file. It is also the contention of the accused officer in writing that draft sanction order was approved by issuing Ex.P24 and digital signed by the Chief Secretary and as per evidence of PW17, their office received draft sanction order from the ACB on 14.11.2022 and it is available in their office and except G.O. number, date and a few corrections, wherever necessary, was made and otherwise model sanction order and Ex.P24 contents are one and the same. It is the contention of the accused officer that when the file sent to Prl. Secretary at 4.30 PM on

C.C.4/2023-29-ACB Crt., Knl.

16.11.2022, how the Secretary to Government/Naveen Kumar approved the file at 10.42 A.M. on 16.11.2022 and admitted draft sanction order was approved before issuing of Ex.P24. So, there is ambiguity when the file was scrutinized and sanction was accorded by the Secretary to the Government and that it clearly shows that basing on the draft sanction orders received from

ACB officials on 04.11.2022, Ex.P24 was issued without applying its mind by copying the draft sanction order, dated 14.11.2022.

(p)It is urged in writing that sanction accorded under Ex.P24 is not at all valid in the eye of law and that basing on the said orders, prosecution cannot be done. Finally, the accused officer through written arguments contend that the evidence of PW1 being defacto complainant is interested and inimical witness, harbouring ill feelings due to issuance of memos and pending enquiry regarding her un-authorized absence and that her evidence cannot be wholly reliably or her version does not inspire any confidence much particularly in the absence of corroboration from any witness and the recovery of tainted currency throws serious doubts from the case of prosecution which fully failed to establish its case and that sanction orders under Ex.P24 are invalid and under these two views and in the reasonable probabilities projected by the accused officer in her defence mandates that the view favourable to the accused officer is to be prevailed and prayed this Court to acquit the accused officer.

15.For the aforesaid written arguments of the accused officer, the prosecution filed reply written arguments with regard to Ex.D1 that Ex.D1 is casual leave letter of PW1 dated 01.08.2018 and that PW1 deposed that

Ex.D5 Attendance Register disclose that PW1 attended duty on 01.08.2018.

As per Ex.D2, it is a memo issued by accused officer for un-authorized absence on 01.08.2018. The reply written arguments further disclose that

C.C.4/2023-30-ACB Crt., Knl.

Ex.D2 is not at all valid and basing on Ex.D2, accused officer cannot take any further action.

(a)As far as Ex.D3 is concerned, it is the explanation of PW1 which disclose that she attended work entrusted by accused officer inspite of stomach pain due to her periods on 31.07.2018 and that she also attended duty on 01.08.2018 and requested accused officer that inspite of her no fault, she apologized that she will more careful in attending duties which will be entrusted to her by accused officer and as such not to take any action against her.

(b)The reply written arguments further disclose that Ex.D2 was not implemented by the accused officer either by way of issuing memo to PW1 or by way of informing to the superior officers or by way of ordering enquiry against PW1.

(c)The reply written arguments of the prosecution with regard to

Ex.D4 and D5 are concerned, was to the effect that PW1 applied leave on 20.12.2018 to grant leave from 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018 as per Ex.D4 and that it is very important endorsement of accused officer on Ex.D4 that look after by Krishna Reddy/ASO (LW6). Further, in her cross examination by the accused officer volunteers that before PW1 apply for leave, she took endorsement from one of the clerks to look after work on Ex.D4 and hence it cannot be said that leave was not sanctioned by accused officer based on

Ex.D4 leave application of PW1 for the said period. As such, accused officer cannot take any action. Further, it is urged in writing by the prosecution that with respect to endorsement of accused officer on Ex.D5 i.e., written issue memo for not attending allotted work, it is submitted that the said endorsement was not implemented by the accused officer either by way of issuing memo or by way of informing the same to the superior officers of accused officer or by way of ordering enquiry against PW1. The reply written arguments further disclose that all the Ex.D1 to D5 clearly establish that there is no fault of PW1,

C.C.4/2023-31-ACB Crt., Knl.

but still accused officer wanted to harass her always endorsing issue memo, not satisfactory etc., and though PW1 applied leave for operation of her husband, inspite of allowing the same on humanitarian grounds, accused officer endorsed that “Refused, issue memo” for attending allotted work and that all these things clearly establish that ulterior and hidden motive of accused officer harassing in PW1.

(d)The reply arguments of the prosecution goes to show that accused officer prepared ground work in extracting the bribe amount from

PW1. It is further urged in writing that PW1 did not quarrel that accused officer and did not even complain against her to her superior authorities and that if at all PW1 intended to give false complaint, she would have given complaint on the ground that accused officer was demanding bribe amount for not issuing any memos and for not taking any further action on her and since PW1 did not complaint in such a manner and projected the case with real fact that accused officer was demanding bribe for granting annual increment. It is also urged that PW1 has not grudge against the accused officer and that if at all she maintained any grudge, she would have complained against the accused officer to the superior authorities of the accused officer. Further reply arguments disclose that PW19 categorically deposed about the powers of accused officer to withhold annual increment and during the course of re- examination by the Spl.PP., PW19 categorically deposed that accused officer has to inform the Commissioner i.e., PW19 himself and that unilaterally she cannot grant the increment and one day or two days absence cannot treated as un-authorized absence provided that giving reasons for the absence satisfactorily and that when the authorities accepts the said absence, it will not come under disobedience of higher authorities and also not considered as dereliction of duties. It is urged that accused officer has no power to take any action basing on Ex.D1 to D5 and she cannot stop the increment and that all

Ex.D1 to D5 clearly disclose that there is no fault on PW1 and there is no

C.C.4/2023-32-ACB Crt., Knl.

necessity to develop animosity by PW1 on the accused officer and that accused officer also did not taken any stringent action by ordering for enquiry or by framing charges or by addressing letter to the superior authorities much particularly to PW19 and basing on these things, it can presumed that there is no necessity for PW1 to develop animosity on the accused officer. Further, it is urged that the endorsements made by accused officer on Ex.D1 to D5, disclose her ulterior motive to demand bribe amount to keep her employees under pressure by showing the reason as issuance of memos and seeking for explanation and thereby demanding bribe for sanction of annual increment and that in that case of non payment of bribe amount, withholding the grant of increment and for that reason PW1 lodged report with ACB and that if at all complaint was not lodged by PW1 against the accused officer to the ACB authorities, action would have been set aside by the accused officer on Ex.D1 to D5 and would have granted annual increment peacefully to PW1 by receiving the bribe amount. Finally, the Spl.PP urges that defence put up by the accused officer that amount was planted in the hand bag of the accused officer for which PW1 took ten minutes, should not be believed for the reason that in order to plant amount in the hand bag by PW1, it would have taken one or two minutes, but not ten minutes and that accused officer demanded and accepted the bribe from PW1, it took some time for PW1 to be in the room of the accused officer. Finally, the ACB, Kurnool through its Spl.PP sought for considering the written arguments and prayed to convict the accused officer as per law.

16.Perused the record. Charge levelled against the accused officer is:

Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 2018 defines :

Offence relating to public servant being bribed:- Any public servant who, -

C.C.4/2023-33-ACB Crt., Knl.

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear perforamnce of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

17.In order to establish its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW23 out of 25 listed witnesses and exhibited Ex.P1 to P25 and MO1 to MO8.

PW1:Defacto complainant by name S. Radhika who lodged report with

ACB authorities complaining against the accused officer that accused officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- for granting annual increment to her.

PW2:One of the mediators for pre and post trap proceedings and working as Revenue Officer.

PW3:Who was working as Junior Assistant dealing with maintenance of service registers and increment watch register of DCHS, Kadapa working under accused officer.

PWs 4Working as Junior Assistants during the said case in the office of & 5:accused officer who were also due of increments by February 2019 along with PW1 and supported the version of PW1 and PW3

C.C.4/2023-34-ACB Crt., Knl.

with regard to pendency of increment to PW1 along with them.

But reported “No knowledge about application of PW1 seeking increment”.

PW6Staff of different cadres working under the accused officer in toDCHS, Kadapa during the relevant period of time. They all

PW10,deposed that they came to know about the trap on accused officer

PW11,and stated that they have no knowledge about details. But, PW10

PW13deposed that he came to know about submitting of application by andPW1 seeking increment to accused officer.

PW14:

PW12:Driver of accused officer who depose that at 11.00 A.M., he dropped accused officer at Hospital and just prior to trap, he dropped accused officer at office/Hospital again after outside work.

PW15:Outsourcing employee working at National Health Machine since

February 2014 and deposes about his knowledge about trap on accused officer and no knowledge about application of PW1 for increment. Later admits about knowledge of Ex.P1 and accused officer demanding bribe of Rs.5,000/-.

PW16:Officer who hold the post of DCHS soon after the trap and suspension of accused officer and the person who sanctioned increment to PW1 and furnished the service particulars and job chart of accused officer as well as sanction proceedings of increment in favour of PW1.

PW17:Section Officer authorized from A.P. Secretariat, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department and deposed about sanction orders to prosecute the accused officer.

PW18:District Medical Officer and speaks about his knowledge regarding

C.C.4/2023-35-ACB Crt., Knl.

the trap of accused officer by ACB authorities and also explains about the procedural aspect regarding granting of increment to PW1 of his knowledge.

PW19:Joint Commissioner who explained about grant of increment.

PW20:DSP who acted upon the report of PW1 and laid trap.

PW21:Inspector, ACB who also part and parcel of investigating officer investigating the case.

PW22:The officer working in ACB, Kadapa who conducted discreet inquiry as per the instructions of PW20 regarding report given by

PW1 against the accused officer and submitted his report.

PW23:Inspector who worked at ACB, Kadapa and who received sanction orders.

18.The accused officer being examined as required U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., submitted her written statement and reported no defence evidence, but during the course of cross examining the prosecution witnesses, exhibited

Ex.D1 to D5.

Ex.D1 is a letter seeking grant of one day E.L. to PW1 on private affairs i.e., on 01.08.2018.

Ex.D2 is the memo, dated 02.08.2018 seeking explanation from PW1 to submit the same within two days as to why she did not attend the work.

Ex.D3 is the explanation dated 08.08.2018 submitted by PW1 for the issuance of Ex.D2.

Ex.D4 is the leave letter dated 20.12.2018 submitted by PW1 seeking 3 days casual leave.

Ex.D5 is the attendance extract of August and December 2018.

19.As projected supra, this is a case where the defacto complainant /PW1 who was working as Junior Assistant in the office of District

C.C.4/2023-36-ACB Crt., Knl.

Co-ordinator Hospital Services, Kadapa under the accused officer, lodged

Ex.P3 before the ACB authorities complaining that accused officer demanded

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to sanction annual increment which was due by February 2019 and that unless the demanded amount is paid, accused officer categorically stated that increment would not be granted to her and that since she submitted two applications i.e., one application on 19.02.2019 and another application on 05.07.2019, even then also, she was not sanctioned with the increment and that PW1 is not willing to pay the bribe and lodged report with ACB authorities and sought for appropriate action and to do justice to her.

20.Prosecution examined PW1 in order to prove the contents of

Ex.P3.

21.The defence put up by the accused officer was to the effect that discreet inquiry conducted by PW22, is baseless besides being false and that his report regarding the observations made by him in writing on Ex.P3 dated 27.08.2019 at 8 A.M., is to support the version of PW1 but there is no reality and that the very discreet inquiry conducted by PW22 is not with the full- fledged information and as such, it shall not be considered. It is also the defence that since the very discreet inquiry is false in the light of Ex.D1 to D4, the very case of the prosecution suffers from standing on its legs and thereby registering of FIR is totally illegal.

22.On careful perusal of the entire evidence let in by the prosecution on this aspect and Ex.D1 to D4 as well as Ex.P3 and the written arguments of both prosecution and the accused officer along with written statement submitted by the accused officer, this Court observed that PW1 was questioned during the course of cross examination by confronting Ex.D1 to D4.

Ex.D1 is the document which was confronted to PW1, was admitted by PW1

C.C.4/2023-37-ACB Crt., Knl.

and she clearly deposed that she applied for casual leave and that it shows endorsement of the accused officer that allotted work was not done by PW1 and hence deduct salary for one day. Ex.D2 is also confronted to her dated 02.08.2018, which is a memo issued to the PW1 so also Ex.D3 which was explanation given by PW1 in reply to Ex.D2. In this aspect, PW1 categorically admitted that she was not paid one day salary for 01.01.2018 and that on

Ex.D3, it was the endorsement by the accused officer that “Reply was not given in time, and reply was not satisfactory and therefore order to frame charge”. Ex.D4 was also confronted to her wherein PW1 admitted that she applied for 3 days casual leave from 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018.

23.It is the serious defence and arguments put by the accused officer that PW1 suppressed the issuance and submissions of Ex.D1 to D4 in her

Ex.P3 and so also PW22 miserably failed in eliciting or finding out any sort of information with regard to said maintenance under Ex.D1 to D4 and that if those facts were elicited during his discreet inquiry, this case would have not been registered. It is also the argument of the accused officer that when the discreet inquiry is totally false, basing on the said false report, a case cannot be registered and investigated into much particularly under P.C. Act and that the prosecution case can be treated as false case.

24.It is observed by this Court that PW22 who was one who conducted discreet inquiry was questioned that whether he met PW1 directly after the endorsement of the complaint, by DSP, ACB to make discreet inquiry, for which PW22 categorically stated that he did not met PW1 and also deposed that he has no knowledge whether any such memos were issued to

PW1 by the accused officer but stated that there is possibility of maintaining ill feelings by the staff if their superior officers issues any memos regarding irregularities in their work. This court is of the view that the scope of discreet

C.C.4/2023-38-ACB Crt., Knl.

inquiry is only to check whether the information under Ex.P3 reveals commission of offence is cognizable offence or not. Discreet inquiry is not to ascertain the veracity of the information. In this aspect, this Court is of the view that the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State of

Karnataka vs T.N. Sudhakar Reddy dated 17.02.2025 and another case in CBI vs T.H. Vijayalakshmi reported in AIR online 2021 SC 869, in detail discussed that preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in criminal cases involving corruption.

It was observation that if information disclosed the commission of cognizable offence at the outset, no preliminary inquiry is required and that the scope of discreet inquiry or preliminary inquiry is not to check the veracity of information, but only to know whether it discloses the commission of cognizable offence or not.

25.This Court further is of the view that in many offices memos will be issued for not attending the work by the employees working under them and it is highly impossible to lodge a case with ACB official unnecessarily by keeping in view the grudge about issuance of memos.

26.This Court also is of the view that PW1 in the present case categorically admitted about the issuance of Ex.D1 to D4. It is not the complaint of PW1 to the ACB officials that in order to drop further action regarding of endorsements made by the accused officer on Ex.D1 to D4, accused officer demanded the bribe. In the present case on hand, the alleged incident occurred in the year 2018 in the month of August and in the month of

December as far as Ex.D1 to D4 are concerned. PW1 through her Ex.P3, categorically mentioned that her increment was yet to be sanctioned by the accused officer by February 2019 and that even after receipt of Ex.P1 and P2 applications filed in the month of February and July respectively, she was not sanctioned with the increment and as such for sanction of the same, accused

C.C.4/2023-39-ACB Crt., Knl.

officer was constantly demanding for bribe of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only).

27.The point for consideration before this Court is whether the official favour is pending with the accused officer and whether demand of bribe was made and whether the demand was made on the date of trap and accepted the bribe by the accused officer. The concept of grudge and enmity, cannot be attributed to PW1 in the light of Ex.P10 and P11. This Court also observed that the evidence of PW3 who was also working under the accused officer, categorically deposed that he is the person to look after the grant of increment, service register and increment watch register of the office and this witness categorically deposed before this Court that “Accused officer instructed us to take out the name of PW1 and prepare fresh proceedings only for the three persons and accordingly, I prepared and accused officer also signed on it”.

On careful perusal of Ex.P10 and P11, it is evident that proceedings were prepared in casual and routine manner when Ex.P10 was prepared by PW3, but due to the instructions of accused officer, proceedings under Ex.P11 were prepared and accordingly, accused officer affixed her signature sanctioning the increment for the candidates appearing in Ex.P11. The Increment Watch

Register also disclose about the same. This Court also observed that PW3 in his cross examination categorically deposed that when an application is given to the accused officer, after she puts her initial, it will be sent to the clerk concerned.

28.Considering the aforesaid material, this Court is of the view that the discreet inquiry conducted by PW22 need not discuss or need not elicit about the issuance of Ex.D1 to D4 as the fact remains important to the effect that whether accused officer was demanding bribe for sanctioning the increment or not.

C.C.4/2023-40-ACB Crt., Knl.

29.In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the scope of discreet inquiry, this Court hereby does not consider the defence of accused officer that the discreet inquiry is false and in turn the entire case and the defence that PW1 bore grudge against the accused officer is totally false. This Court came to conclusion for the reason that none of the staff members disclosed in their evidence before this Court that accused officer and

PW1 had strained relationship and that any galata took place in their presence or else they came to know that there was some disturbances between PW1 and the accused officer. Even PWs 4 to 14 deposed that having they came to know about trap of accused officer and about topic of grant of increment.

30.By examining PW20, prosecution proved the registering of

Ex.P25. It also projected the pre trap proceedings through the evidence of

PW2 and PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW20. Ex.P5 is pre trap proceedings which followed after the preliminary inquiry done by PW2 and

LW2/Subramanyam. In order to establish and prove Ex.P5 proceedings, when

PW2 was examined by the prosecution, PW2 categorically deposed about his presence along with the presence of LW2/Subramanyam before DSP, ACB office, Kadapa on 27.08.2019 at 9.30A.M. and after they met the DSP, introduction of PW1 to them and vice-verse took place and that the copy of complaint lodged by PW1 along with copy of FIR/Ex.P4 were handed over to them and that after going through its contents, PW2 and LW2/Subramanyam questioned about the genuineness of the contents of complaint as well as disputes of any kind between the accused officer and PW1 and on that PW1 stated that there was no disputes of any kind and as such Ex.P4 was attested by them. PW2 also deposed about the production of proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and its denominations as Rs.2,000/- currency notes of 2 in number and Rs.500/- currency notes 2 in number and in

C.C.4/2023-41-ACB Crt., Knl.

total Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and about their noting down the details of the currency notes and about handing over the said currency notes to one Constable by name Subramanyam and about preparation of sodium carbonate solution and entire proceedings of dipping the hands in the said solution which did not change its colour and after applying phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, and then placing in the hand bag of PW1 after it is made empty and after that giving instructions to PW1 not to meddle with the said currency notes and then handing over the bag to her and after said act, dipping the hands in the said solution and changing of liquid into pink colour, were all the particulars in detail deposed by PW2. PW2 deposed about giving of instructions to PW1 by DSP, ACB and about informing her regarding pre arranged signals and its manner of mentioning the same and about seizure of phenolphthalein powder /MO1 and sodium carbonate powder/MO2 and also about discarding the used material at the office of ACB. The particulars of the pre trap proceedings were in detail mentioned in Ex.P5, was the evidence of

PW2 in his chief examination. Regarding the said Ex.P5 proceedings, this witness deposed that he typed Ex.P5 to the dictation of

LW2/Subramanyam/mediator. Apart from the suggestion that the contents of

Ex.P5 was prepared to the instruction of DSP, which was denied by this PW2, nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW2 regarding the contents of Ex.P5 is negative manner. It was the other point which was elicited that PW1 did not inform them that memos were issued to her by the accused officer about deduction of one day salary from her salary by the accused officer. The evidence of PW2 was in corroboration with the evidence of PW20 regarding the contents of Ex.P5. The suggestion was posed to PW20 that on his dictation Ex.P5 proceedings were prepared, was totally denied by this witness.

As such, this Court is of the view that Ex.P5 contents were clearly established by the prosecution.

C.C.4/2023-42-ACB Crt., Knl.

31.The prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 as well as PW20 with regard to post trap proceedings. In that connection, prosecution also examined PW18, PW4, PW3. The evidence of PW1 before this Court was to the effect that in between 9.30 A.M. to 10.30 A.M., after the pre trap proceedings are concluded, DSP asked her to go to her office and also to inform him the arrival of the accused officer and as such PW1 went to her office and when accused officer came after some time, she again left her office and then came in the afternoon and when the same was informed to DSP, at about 2.45 P.M., DSP and his trap party came to Collectorate, ‘O’ block in the first floor and at that time PW1 met him. She also deposed that DSP instructed her to go to the office and ask the accused officer about her increment and that if accused officer again demands and reiterates her earlier demand, PW1 should give the proposed bribe amount but not otherwise. PW1 also deposed that after taking the said instructions, she went into the chambers of accused officer at 2.50 P.M., and accused officer was alone in her chambers and when PW1 requested accused officer for grant of annual increment, accused officer asked her whether she brought bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and when PW1 answered in affirmative, accused officer demanded to give amounts of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and that PW1 handed over the said amounts by taking from her purse and accused officer received the same with her left hand and counted the said amounts with her two hands and kept in her yellow purse.

PW1 also deposed that accused officer promised her to grant her increment and then PW1 came out of the office chambers and gave pre arranged signal to one Constable Prathap.

32.PW2 deposed that a separate kit was taken before starting from

ACB office and PW1 was sent to attend her office. He further deposed that at 2.30 P.M., they all started at ACB office and reached new Collectorate,

C.C.4/2023-43-ACB Crt., Knl.

Kadapa at 2.45 P.M., and after parking the vehicle infront of the office, they all took vantage position and PW1 came to DSP at 2.45 P.M., and that DSP reiterated earlier instructions to PW1 and also informed PW1 that one

Constable by name Prathap will follow her to the entrance of the office of accused officer and that PW1 should give signal to said Prathap and in turn said Prathap will pass the signal to remaining trap party by raising his hands.

33.PW20 who is DSP, ACB deposed that he received information from PW1 about the presence of accused officer in the office and that immediately, he along with mediators and staff left the ACB office at 2.30 P.M., and reached near the office of accused officer in Govt. vehicle and that the office of the accused officer is in the first floor of ‘O’ block at Kadapa collectorate and that they all reached the spot at 2.45 P.M., and at that time

PW1 joined the trap party and proceeded to the office of DCHS and that he reiterated earlier instructions to PW1 and HC 139. Further, this witness deposed that HC 139 remained at vantage-1 position near employment office and on his instructions to remaining trap party, others took vantage position and that at about 2.55 P.M., HC 139/Prathap relied signal to them by using his both hands and that immediately they all rushed to the office of DCHS.

34.It is the crucial contention of the accused officer that there was no demand of bribe by the accused officer to PW1 and that since Ex.D1 to D5 are not at all disclosed by PW1, it is suppression of material fact to the ACB officials and that she mislead the ACB authorities and by boring grudge, foisted a false case against the accused officer. It is also the contention of the accused officer that the sole testimony of PW1 should never be believed and that accused officer never demanded any bribe amount much particularly

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in order to sanction annual increment to PW1. Further, it is the contention of the accused officer that it is the

C.C.4/2023-44-ACB Crt., Knl.

evidence of PW1 that when any inward is received, accused officer will put her initial and sent to Tappal and that it will reach the concerned and that even the seizure of Ex.P1 and P2, are not at all genuine documents and that they are planted. It is further the contention of the accused officer that when it is the evidence of PW1 that there is no documentary proof that Ex.P1 and P2 are filed or submitted to the accused officer, the version of PW1 that they are filed, shall not be believed and moreover, PW1 clearly deposed that she did not inform regarding submission of said applications to any one in the office or the clerk concerned.

35.After careful perusal of cross examination of PW1, this Court observed that PW1 clearly deposed that there is no documentary proof to show that she submitted Ex.P1 and P2 on its dates respectively to show the date of its submissions and also deposed that she did not inform regarding the submission of said applications to any one in the office, staff. But at the same time PW1 deposed that when she enquired PW3, the clerk concerned stated that though he received her applications under Ex.P1 and P2, he did not process her increment amount as the accused officer did not order for it.

When the evidence of PW3 is perused, this Court observed that PW3 categorically deposed that he is one who was dealing with the maintenance of service register, increment watch register of the office of DCHS, Kadapa and his duty is to observe the due date of increment as per service register entries and increment watch register and to prepare proceedings accordingly and to submit before the AFO and then before the accused officer and when accused officer verifies the service register, she affixed her signature on the proceedings. This PW3 categorically deposed that along with PW1, PW4,

PW5 and one person by name T. Srinivasulu were also due of annual increment by February 2019 and that when he prepared proceedings for four of them, and affixed his initial, and when placed before the accused officer,

C.C.4/2023-45-ACB Crt., Knl.

after AFO signed it, accused officer instructed PW3 to take out the name of

PW1 and prepare fresh proceedings for the rest of three deleting PW1. This

PW3 exhibited Ex.P10 and P11 wherein Ex.P10 was the first proceeding containing the names of four persons including the name of PW1 and Ex.P11 is the second proceeding containing the names of rest of three persons excluding the name of PW1.

36.The contention of PW1 and the case of prosecution is that the accused officer was demanding bribe from PW1 for sanctioning the annual increment. Instructing PW3 to delete the name of PW1 from the proceedings appearing in Ex.P10 and thereby instructing PW3 to prepare Ex.P11, clearly goes to show that what could be the reason behind ordering for deleting the name of PW1 from the proceedings. At this juncture, it is the contention of the accused officer that there are departmental enquiries pending against the PW1 and that one day salary was deducted i.e., for the day 01.08.2018 and that in the light of Ex.D1 to D4, her annual increment should not be granted and that it is the authority of the accused officer to stop the increment unless the alleged un-authorized absence is regularized and that there was no demand of bribe by the accused officer from PW1.

37.On careful perusal of Ex.D1 to D4, this Court observed that Ex.D1 is an admitted document by PW1 that it was she who submitted the same addressing to the accused officer /DCHS. On careful perusal of Ex.D1, this

Court noticed that she sought for sanction of Earned Leave for one day i.e., on 01.08.2018 saying that “I am unable to attend my duties on 01.08.2018 for one day”. On the said Ex.D1, the endorsement of accused officer was to the effect that “Deduct salary for one day”, “Allotted work not done”, the initial of the accused officer was placed. When the legality of such endorsement is looked into, this Court noticed that without following the procedure, one day salary

C.C.4/2023-46-ACB Crt., Knl.

cannot be deducted. No enquiry was put on against PW1 and no other material was placed by accused officer to support her version and defence.

Ex.D2 is the memo dated 02.08.2018 seeking the explanation from the PW1 within two days from the date of receipt of memo as to why cannot disciplinary action be taken against PW1 and to furnish the work performance on 01.08.2018 done by her (PW1). Ex.D3 is dated 08.08.2018 and it is addressed to the accused officer referring Ex.D2 in the reference column stating that she is submitting her explanation that she has prepared SNCU

Doctors recruitment file on special instructions of accused officer was handed over to DCHS/ accused officer from time to time for approval of members and

District Collector, though she is Junior Assistant and has no sufficient knowledge in preparing the said note and that she explained the said problem to the accused officer sympathetically and that when PW1 on 31.07.2018, due to periods and due to ill health was with stomach pain, accused officer instructed her to bring the file to Collectorate and that she brought the file at 7 P.M., to the Collectorate on 31.07.2018 and on the next working day this

PW1 requested for handing over the file to another staff member by requesting the accused officer and placed the file before the accused officer on her table and returned to her table. The explanation further goes to say that though she discharged her duties in the pleasant manner, she did not commit any mistake intentionally, but however she will be more careful in performing her duties and to excuse her as her first mistake. The explanation further goes to show that under the said circumstances mentioned in the explanation, she requested the accused officer to kindly drop the memo and excuse her.

38.Ex.D3 further disclose the endorsement of the accused officer as “Not satisfactory”. Under the said expression in writing, the signature of the accused officer was mentioned. Underneath the entire explanation, “Frame charges (1) Reply is not given in time (2) Reply is not satisfactory”. When this

C.C.4/2023-47-ACB Crt., Knl.

was endorsement on Ex.D3, framing of charges was mentioned by the accused officer, then as per the Subordinate Service Rules and CCA Rules, charge memo is to be issued by allotting disciplinary enquiry number. Under a separate proceedings charges are to be framed and copy of the same is to be given to PW1. An Inquiry Officer is to be appointed. Then a detailed enquiry takes place wherein PW1 should appear and then defend herself as per the rules and after conclusion of entire enquiry, enquiry report finding PW1 guilty of the charges is to be placed by the Inquiry Officer before the Disciplinary

Authority. Then, the Disciplinary Authority would take appropriate action by way of imposing punishment as per CCA Rules. Then, it can be said that a detailed departmental enquiry was put on and that PW1 faced enquiry and was punished as per CCA Rules that her one day salary was deducted or censured or any other punishment as per CCA Rules.

39.But, in the present case on hand, basing on Ex.D2 when the explanation was given under Ex.D3, an endorsement that frame charges went on and without even launching any departmental enquiry, directly on Ex.D1, accused officer mentioned “Deduct salary for one day”. Nowhere in CCA

Rules, such endorsement is permissible. More over, this Court observed that endorsing to deduct one day salary was on Ex.D1 dated 01.08.2018 and

Ex.D2 is of 02.08.2018 and Ex.D3 is of 08.08.2018 and endorsement of not satisfactory from charges etc., on Ex.D3 was dated 09.08.2018. But, accused officer without launching any Departmental Enquiry even by the date of 01.08.2018, gave punishment to PW1 endorsing on Ex.D1 “Deduct one day salary”. It is quiet illegal. Though PWs 4 to 11, PWs 13 to 15 deposed that unless un-authorized absence is regularized, increment can’t be granted,

PW16 clearly deposed about the procedural aspect in taking action and explained that memo and charge memo are two different things. This Court observed that even then, nothing was mentioned by PW1 either by way of

C.C.4/2023-48-ACB Crt., Knl.

complaining about the same to the superior authorities of the accused officer or before any other redressal. As such, this Court is of the view that attributing vengeance or animosity or grudge to PW1 in lodging Ex.P3 before ACB officials, is a futile attempt of accused officer in order to escape from the very trap case wherein she was alleged to have been caught redhandedly receiving bribe.

40.As far as Ex.D4 is concerned, it is dated 20.12.2018, wherein

PW1 mentioned that her husband has undergone surgery on 20.12.2018 at

M.M. Hospital, Kadapa and that she may be granted three days casual leave from 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018. On the said Ex.D4 leave letter, the endorsement of the accused officer was “Refused. Issue memo for not attending allotted work”. Then the initial of the accused officer is placed. Again another endorsement was “Look after P. Divyarjun Reddy and Elias Khan”. If this is the endorsement on Ex.D4, it cannot be said that there are some departmental enquiries pending and that for the said reason, increment is not sanctioned to PW1. Moreover, it is the evidence of PW3 that Ex.D1 to D4 do not contain his initial or signature and he has no personal knowledge about its contents. In the light of initial of PW1 in Ex.D5 containing extract of attendance register, dated 01.08.2018, it can safely be concluded that there are no departmental enquiries. Had it been the situation where departmental enquiries are pending, what prevented the accused officer in not placing those documents before this Court when she was at liberty in filing Ex.D1 to D5 is crucial point. This Court also observed that said P. Divyarjuna Reddy was also not examined before this Court by the accused officer towards her defence evidence. When another person Eliaz Khan who was examined as

PW14 by the prosecution, he also did not speak anything with regard to Ex.D4, and he just deposed before this Court that he came to know about the trap of

C.C.4/2023-49-ACB Crt., Knl.

accused officer by ACB authorities for receiving the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) from PW1.

41.For the forgoing reasons, very defence placed by the accused officer in the light of Ex.D1 to D5, there is possibility of PW1 boring grudge against the accused officer and thereby lodging Ex.P3, is totally false. So also, when this Court believed the existence of Ex.D1 to D5 produced by the accused officer, this Court also believes the existence of Ex.P1 and P2. It is the contention of PW1 that she submitted the same to the accused officer directly. It is the evidence of PW20 that Ex.P1 and P2 are produced by the accused officer at the time of Ex.P9. PW2 also deposed in the cross examination that “Applications of PW1 that we saw after accused officer took out her from table draw contain the seal of the office”. PW2 is not from the same department of the accused officer and PW1, so that he can be termed as interested witness. Ex.P9 clearly disclose about the handing over of Ex.P1 and P2 by the accused officer to the ACB officials. The same was mentioned by PW2 as well.

42.When the futile attempt of grudge, animosity and vengeance are totally baseless, it is now for the accused officer to explain how this Court should believe that she never demanded bribe and never received bribe. As per the evidence of PW1, when she entered the office chambers of accused officer, accused officer was sitting in her chair and PW1 requested for sanctioning of annual increment and on that accused officer enquired whether she brought the demanded bribe or not and when PW1 stated in affirmation that she brought the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), then accused officer demanded to give the said amounts and then PW1 took the said amounts and handed over the same to the accused officer and accused officer received the said amounts with her left hand, counted with her

C.C.4/2023-50-ACB Crt., Knl.

both hands and then placed in yellow purse. As per the evidence of PW1, she came out of the chambers and gave the pre arranged signal, accordingly, all the ACB officials within no time rushed into the chambers of the accused officer instructing PW1 to stay outside.

43.The evidence of PW2 was also on the same lines that DSP instructed to PW1 to wait outside till she was called and they all entered into the office and observed that accused officer sitting in the chair and when DSP introduced him and rest of the team to her, she became panic and that DSP enquired her details and immediately got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two tumblers and asked accused officer to rinse her fingers of both hands separately in two tumblers and that resultant solution turned into pink and it was transferred into two separate bottles and seized. It is also the evidence of

PW2 that when the accused officer was questioned by DSP in their presence, accused officer produced Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) worth tainted currency notes from her hand bag and handed over the same to them and this

PW2 tallied the particulars of the currency notes with that of the particulars in

Ex.P5 and found them to be same currency notes. The inner linings of the said valet was also tested which resulted into pink. The evidence of PW20 was also to that effect on the same lines of evidence of PW2. Ex.P9 was the post trap proceedings wherein it is clearly mentioned that DSP seized the tainted currency from the valet of the accused officer which is in yellow colour.

44.At this juncture, the defence which was projected by the accused officer was to the effect that accused officer was in washroom and that PW1 placed the tainted currency in the bag of the accused officer and stood there in the chambers until the accused officer came out of the washroom and accused officer questioned PW1 and PW1 answered and went away and that immediately, ACB authorities entered the chambers and asked her to take out

C.C.4/2023-51-ACB Crt., Knl.

the amounts from the bag. The vehement arguments of the learned defence counsel in writing was that as per criminal jurisprudence, two different views that is when there is possibility of PW1 placing the amounts in the bag of the accused officer, the analogy which would support the defence to some extent and support the prosecution case to the some extent, the extent of probabilities which would support the accused officer should be taken into consideration and thereby disbelieve the very case of the prosecution and prayed this Court to acquit the accused officer.

45.As far as the said defence is concerned, assuming for a moment that PW1 thrusted the amounts in the bag of the accused officer, the sodium carbonate solution would have not changed its colour, when accused officer dipped her both hands fingers. If at all the version of accused officer is believed that she was forced to take out the amounts from her bag, and then her hands were tested, that would be the response given by her during Ex.P9 which was being recorded by the independent mediator in the presence of another independent mediator, but that was not the response of the accused officer in Ex.P9. This Court also observed that accused officer went to the extent of projecting the defence that her version was not recorded by the independent mediator/PW2 and LW2/Subramanyam and that the contents of

Ex.P9 are totally dictated by the DSP/PW20. The learned defence counsel stressed upon mentioning of one sentence twice in mediators report and questioned PW2 as to why it was recorded twice, when once it was already recorded i.e., PW2 answered as: “I cannot give any reason for writing some sentence twice in Ex.P9 that “Left ACB office, Kadapa at 2.30 P.M., in Govt.

vehicle and reached new Collectorate at Kadapa at 2.45 P.M., proceeded to first floor ‘O’ block, Kadapa”. Taking the defence that amount was thrusted in the bag of the accused officer and then when the immediate response of the accused officer is completely different and why the response is not in co relation with the defence put up during the time of trial with that of the

C.C.4/2023-52-ACB Crt., Knl.

response mentioned in Ex.P9, is questioned, again shifting to another defence that her response was not at all recorded in Ex.P9 and again taking the plea that the contents of Ex.P9 are totally dictated by DSP, but true facts are not mentioned in Ex.P9, will not help the accused officer in any manner. This

Court also observed that Ex.P9 clearly disclose that “We mediators, DSP,

ACB, Kurnool Range, Kadapa incharge, Inspector S.K. Ramachandra and HC 1799, 139 and 1174, PC 1273, WPC 2157 and 173 left ACB office, Kadapa at 2.30 P.M., in Govt. vehicles and reached new Collectorate, Kdapa at 2.45

P.M., and proceeded to first floor of the ‘O’ block in Collectorate, Kaapa. Left

ACB office, Kadapa at 2.30 P.M. in Govt. vehicles and reached near office of

DCHS, first floor of ‘O’ block in Collectorate, Kadapa on 27.08.2018 at 2.45

P.M.”. In the aforesaid content, reaching new Collectorate, Kadapa was mentioned and in the alleged repetitive sentence reaching the office of DCHS, first floor of ‘O’ block is mentioned. It is not the repetition so that accused officer can take a plea as a matter of defence that contents of Ex.P9 were

dictated by PW20 to PW2.

46.Assuming for a moment that, the mediator did not note down the true version of the response of the accused officer during Ex.P9 proceedings, the same would have been disclosed to the Presiding Officer before whom the accused officer was produced after her arrest was made. Being highly educated, being in a doctor profession, she would have disclosed about the same to the Judge. But, nothing was attempted to be by the accused officer.

Hence, all the aforesaid defences put up by the accused officer are untenable.

47.The accused officer put up a serious defence that hand bag of the accused officer was on the table, as per the evidence of PW1 and it was clearly mentioned by PW1 as a matter of admission during the course of cross examination and that PW2 deposed in his cross examination that the bag of

C.C.4/2023-53-ACB Crt., Knl.

the accused officer was on the floor by the side of chair of accused officer. It is also the argument of the learned defence counsel that PW2 categorically admitted that “In Ex.P9 it is not mentioned that the bag of the accused officer was found by the side of her chair but on the floor when we entered into her chambers”. The learned defence counsel urged that the place of existence of bag of the accused officer is crucial enough and that it is not at all properly mentioned in Ex.P9 and that there is lot of discrepancies on this aspect when the evidence of PW1 compared with that of evidence of PW2. It is also urged that PW20 categorically deposed that the bag of the accused officer was on the table soon after these people entered the chambers of the accused officer and that this discrepancies with regard to the place of bag, is serious in nature and that it is to be considered and deny the very case of the prosecution.

48.This Court observed that the position of the bag when PW1 entered the chambers of accused officer, was that the bag was on the table and as such she deposed about the same. The position of the bag when DSP,

ACB entered the chambers of the accused officer was that it was on the table.

When the evidence of all the witnesses pertaining to this aspect is concerned, when PW1 returning from chambers of the accused officer, bag was on the table and when DSP entered the chambers bag was also on the table and when the sodium carbonate solution was prepared and hands of the accused officer are asked to dip into the solution and when the solution turned into pink and when the entire process was done, observation of PW2 was to the effect that bag was on the floor. This Court is of the view that it is not crucial point to be considered which would shake the very case of the prosecution and create doubt in the minds of the Court for the sole reason that accused officer is expected answer as to why her hands fingers when are dipped into sodium carbonate solution, solution changed its colour. Mere discrepancy with regard to the placing of bag whether on the table or on the ground, will not vitiate and

C.C.4/2023-54-ACB Crt., Knl.

dilute the major point as to why sodium carbonate solution turned into pink when the hands of accused officer are dipped, matters.

49.It is also the crucial defence raised by the accused officer was that when she was in the washroom and PW1 entered the chambers and placed the amounts. When that was the situation, which is probable enough, it is for the accused officer to explain and rebut the presumption U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act.

Accused officer did not choose to rebut the presumption. She could not answer as to why the tainted currency was found in her bag, whether the bag was on the table or on the floor.

50.It is also the defence of the accused officer that PW1 and the accused officer would not have spent ten minutes for the process of alleged receiving of bribe is concerned, and that as per the evidence of PW1 and the case of prosecution, PW1 entered the chambers at 2.45 P.M. and gave signal to the trap party by coming out of the chambers at 2.55 P.M., on the date of trap and it was the defence that if at all accused officer demanded the bribe and received the same from PW1, the said transaction would have completed within no time and there is necessity of PW1 staying in the chambers of accused officer for ten minutes, and that this Court should consider that accused officer was in her washroom and in the absence of the accused officer, PW1 waited by placing the tainted currency in the bag of the accused officer and when accused officer came out of the washroom and questioned

PW1, she said something and left the place and for that reason, for the purpose of waiting for accused officer to come out of the washroom, it took ten minutes.

51.Had it been the true version, the same would have been mentioned by the accused officer being highly educated and serving the medical department, she would have mentioned in the immediate response

C.C.4/2023-55-ACB Crt., Knl.

which was recorded by PW2 who is independent witness. The response of the accused officer was literally being panic and stunned as per Ex.P9. Eliciting about the existence of washroom in the chambers of accused officer, would not help the defence to believe the version of accused officer that she was in the washroom and that PW1 thrusted the amounts in the bag of accused officer.

52.By considering all the aforesaid observations of this Court, and the material available on record, this Court is of the view that prosecution established MR-II proceedings and the defences projected by the accused officer could not stand.

53.Soon after the aforesaid process of Ex.P9 and seizure of tainted currency under MO-5, ACB authorities seized several important documents apart from Ex.P1 and P2 which were handed over by the accused officer as per Ex.P9, herself from her draw table. PW2 also testified the same. On careful perusal of Ex.P1 and P2, Ex.P1 is dated 19.02.2019 seeking for annual increment due on 01.02.2019 by PW1 addressing letter to the accused officer/DCHS, Kadapa and Ex.P2 is dated 05.07.2019, wherein the said document disclose that her leave period salary i.e., 01.08.2018, 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018 and the annual periodical increment w.e.f. 01.02.2019 are prayed to be sanctioned and these two documents, though bear the seal of DCHS,

APVVP, Kadapa, YSR District, do not bear the signature or initials of the accused officer. The defence of the accused officer regarding Ex.P1 and P2 is that they are created for the purpose of this case and that there are no initials of accused officer on them and that it is the evidence of PW1 that whenever any document or correspondence is placed before the accused officer or whenever the document is received inward, accused officer will put her initial and then sent same to the tappal and from there to concerned, the documents

C.C.4/2023-56-ACB Crt., Knl.

will be reaching. It is also the defence that since PW1 categorically deposed that there is no documentary proof to show that she submitted Ex.P1 and P2 on their respective dates, her version can not be believed and that none of the prosecution witnesses much particularly the staff of the accused officer i.e.,

PW3 to PW15, did not support the version of PW1 and categorically stated that they have no knowledge that Ex.P1 and P2 were submitted by PW1

before the accused officer.

54.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, in corelation with

Ex.P1, PW1 categorically deposed that she submitted two applications i.e.,

Ex.P1 and P2 and even then also her increment was not sanctioned by the accused officer and that accused officer was demanding bribe. Now, PW1 in her cross examination categorically deposed as mentioned supra that there is no proof that she submitted Ex.P1 and P2. PW2 deposed that they were produced by the accused officer at the time of Ex.P9. Rest of the witnesses

PWs 3 to 15 are admittedly working under the accused officer and all are subordinates to the accused officer. Apart from the said fact, rest of the witnesses except PW3 are noway related with the section of dealing with the increment sanctioning process. As such, they might not be knowing about

Ex.P1 and P2 and about their filing by PW1 to the accused officer. PW2 is an independent witness, nowhere related with the prosecution and the defence department and PW2 categorically deposed about the seizure of Ex.P1 and P2 by PW20 when they were handed over by the accused officer on her own from her table draw. His evidence is crucial on this aspect and this Court relies upon his testimony regarding seizure of Ex.P1 and P2. As far as PW3 is concerned, surprisingly, no question was put to this witness with regard to

Ex.P1 and P2. It can be easily and safely presumed that intentionally accused officer did not choose to putforth any questions with regard to Ex.P1 and P2 to this witness for the reason that he categorically deposed in the cross examination with regard to Ex.P10 and P11 and deposed against the accused

C.C.4/2023-57-ACB Crt., Knl.

officer as to what happened when increment proceedings were prepared with four persons including PW1 and about the instructions of the accused officer to prepare Ex.P11 with three persons deleting the name of PW1. Hence, the defence put up by the accused officer in this aspect of genuineness of Ex.P1 and P2, is of no legs.

55.The prosecution examined PWs 3 to 16 who are the concerned staff of different cadres of DCHS, Kadapa, to elicit with regard to official favour.

As per the evidence of PW16 who was the FAC soon after the suspension of the accused officer, categorically deposed before this Court that entries in increment watch register and service register will be considered for the increment and that DCHS is competent person to grant annual periodical increment to the staff of DCHS and that during February 2019, PW1 is due of annual increment and that PW3 is one who is taking care of said increment process of all the staff members and that PW1, PW4, PW5 and

LW9/Srinivasulu are due for grant of annual increment in the month of

February 2019 and this witness also deposed with regard to Ex.P10 and P11 and supported the version of PW3 on that aspect. This PW16 also deposed that he came to know about the applications submitted by PW1 for sanctioning of annual increment before the accused officer and he perused the service register of PW1 and observed that there were no adverse remarks and no charge memos were issued to PW1 as per her service register/Ex.P6 and as such, he sanctioned annual increment to PW1 and accordingly, LW6/Krishna

Reddy signed on it. Ex.P13 was exhibited which are nothing but proceedings of sanctioning of increment to PW1 which bears the signature of PW3 and the relevant entries in the increment watch register under Ex.P14. This witness was not at all questioned by the accused officer as to who is the sanctioning authority for increment. The entire cross examination went on lines of un- authorized absence, deduction of one day salary and regularization of un-

C.C.4/2023-58-ACB Crt., Knl.

authorized absence, results into sanction of increment and vice-verse. PW15 though admitted that if there is any un-authorized absence and salary deduction of PW1, accused officer keeping annual increment of PW1 in abeyance is correct, as mentioned supra by this Court in detail as to the procedure to be adopted as per CCA and Subordinate Service Rules, it can safely be concluded that accused officer is authorized person to sanction the annual increment of her staff including PW1 and that she kept Ex.P1 and P2 and retained them for longer period and did not choose to sanction the same inspite of Ex.P1 and P2, and it can safely be concluded that official favour was pending with the accused officer and it is for the accused officer to explain as to why she retained the applications Ex.P1 and P2 and in the absence of any departmental enquiry, why is that accused officer did not sanction annual increment and the presumption U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act comes in to play and accused officer is bound to rebut the presumption. Because, PW1 fared well coupled with evidence of PW2, PW20, PW16 and PW3 and Ex.P12, P12-A,

P22 clearly disclose about the sanction of increment and the related documents. Hence, official favour is also established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused officer took the defence that as per FR 24 to 27 & 31-A, 10-D, 13 of State and

Subordinate Service Rules, the increment may be withheld from Government

Servant by the State Government or any authority as per the delegated powers if the conduct of employee is not satisfactory. As such, non granting of increment is not unusual. It was the defence that until the un-authorized absence period and the deduction of one day salary period is not regularized, its the right of accused officer to withheld the increment.

56.FR-24 deals with drawing of increment shall be ordinarily done as a matter of course unless it is withheld. But, this Rule also explains that “In

ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall

C.C.4/2023-59-ACB Crt., Knl.

state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement

shall have the effect of postponing future increments. As per

G.O.Ms.No.12 Fin & PLG (PW:FR-I) Department dated 07.02.1995 and as

per G.O.Ms. No.45, Fin, dated 17.02.1965, the authority competent to

withhold increments from a government servants is authority in which

such power has been vested by the A.P.Civil Services, CCA Rules 1991

and the procedure that should be followed for stoppage of increment of a

government servant under the rule making control of the Govt. of A.P., is

the procedure prescribed in A.P.C.S. CCA Rules 1991.”

57.The standard instruction under Rule 24 is that the authority withholding the increment of a governed servant should expressly give an order of withholding of increment, and order should contain specific period for which increment has been stopped. If such order do not specify any specific time, it shall be assumed that increment was not been withheld and in a natural course increment can be drawn.

58.In the present case on hand, the PW16 categorically deposed that there is no separate rule to keep annual increment of any employee in case of un-authorized absence and salary deduction in abeyance. He also deposed that there are no charge memos issued to PW1.

59.This Court is of the view that PW1 is a Government Employee as such PW1 placed sanction orders under Ex.P24. As such, CCA Rules apply to PW1. As could be seen that for following FR-24, it is linked to CCA Rules 1991 and as per Rule 9 of A.P.C.S. CCA Rules 1991, stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect is a penalty and it may vary as minor penalty or major penalty, subject to the result of a departmental enquiry. Even as per

FR-24, there shall be a specific order from the sanctioning authority, withholding the increment. Accused officer in this case is sanctioning authority

C.C.4/2023-60-ACB Crt., Knl.

as per the evidence of PW19 and no order of such kind withholding increment of PW1 is placed. Moreover, no enquiry was conducted for the alleged un- authorized absence of PW1. Mere issuing memo under Ex.D2 and making endorsements on Ex.D1, D3 and D4, it will not give power to accused officer to withheld the increment of PW1.

60.FR-25 deals with sanction of efficiency bar increment. FR-27 deals with sanction of pre mature increment. FR-26 deals with regulation of pay of governed servant as per date of seniority / promotion has been revised etc. FR-31-A deals with probationer, approved probationer etc. FR-10-D do not exists in A.P.F.R. Only FR-10 is available and it deals with general conditions of service and mandates medical certificate of health of government serving employee. FR-13 deals with government servant holding substantively holding permanent post unless his lien is suspended under Rule 14 or transferred under Rule 14-B, and certain conditions therein.

61.This Court observed that the accused officer just by referring to

FR Rules, attempted to mislead the Court as well as complicate the case so that the entire case may take a different path of deviating from P.C. Act to

Service Rules, but her attempts miserably failed. With the aforesaid detailed discussion of referred FR Rules, it is clear that FR-24 explains about the procedural aspects and powers, but rest of the Rules do not even eligible to be looked into in the given set of facts.

62.Last and final defence put up by the accused officer was that the sanction order Ex.P24 is replica of the model order prepared by ACB authorities and without applying its mind, the Chief Secretary to the

Government, Sri G.S. Naveen Kumar approved the file and issuing Ex.P24 would not have been issued and that since the sanction order itself is invalid in

C.C.4/2023-61-ACB Crt., Knl.

the eye of law and the very case of prosecution is Non est. It is also the defence that the timings which are mentioned that Dy. Secretary sent file to the Prl. Secretary at 4.30 P.M., on 16.11.2022 whereas at 10.42 A.M.,

Secretary to Government I.e,. Sri Naveen Kumar approved the file and that it shows that how when the file was sent at 4.30 P.M., on 16.11.2022, how is that at 10.42 A.M., itself on the said date, file was approved. This Court is of the view that the typographical mistake should not be taken seriously and the contents of the sanction order and the reasons mentioned therein are to be looked into. Hence, the defence of accused officer has no legs.

63.In view of the evidence of PW1 with regard to submission of her applications under Ex.P1 and P2 placing before the accused officer and requesting her from time to time to sanction the annual increment and demand made by the accused officer of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards bribe for sanctioning the annual increment and retaining Ex.P1 and P2 with her without attending the same and without sending the same into section concerned, and PW3 who was not even examined with regard to Ex.P1 and

P2 clearly goes to show that the grievance of PW1 was kept un-heard by accused officer for considerable time without any valid reason though tried to project as if departmental enquiry is pending, just by putting before this Court

Ex.D1 to D5, even there is no departmental enquiry launched and without placing any material on that aspect, goes to show that accused officer demanded the bribe. The procedural aspects of laying of trap, pre trap and post trap proceedings and demand of accused officer on the date of trap, bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and assuring PW1 that she would sanction the increment, after receiving the bribe amount with her left and counted the same with her both hands and placing MO-5 in her yellow purse/valet and the hands of the accused officer and the inner linings of the said valet when tested with sodium carbonate solution, turning into pink goes

C.C.4/2023-62-ACB Crt., Knl.

to show that accused officer was caught redhandedly receiving the bribe from

PW1. Immediate response of the accused officer during Ex.P9 / post trap proceedings, clearly disclose that she was panic and stunned and later on during the course of trial, projecting many number of defences trying to project them to be probabilities that should be believed by the Court, is nothing but futile attempt of the accused officer. In the light of settled principle of law that subsequent defences not projected at the time of post trap proceedings, should not be believed, this Court is of the view that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused officer that official favour was pending with her and that she made demand of bribe from PW1 to an extent of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for sanction of annual increment and receipt of the same and was caught by ACB authorities redhandedly.

64.The accused officer relied upon the following rulings:

(a)Illegal gratification – Evidence of Decoy must inspire confidence of court – Trial court totally ignored conduct of solitary witness while accepting his testimony for demand and acceptance of bribe by accused officer and possibility for him to enter into chambers of accused officer in his absence and plant the money in the table drawer – Conviction set aside – Reported in 2013 (4) Crimes Page 112 A.P. between Nagulapati Mallaiah vs State.

(b)Criminal Law – Witness – Solitary witness credibility of case, when case rests upon evidence of a solitary witness, it must be true, trust worthy free from doubt and holy reliable – Evidence of witness, it put in category of wholly reliable witness or can be put in category of neither wholly nor wholly immutable, his evidence required corroboration – Prevention of

Corruption Act U/Sec.7 and 13, acquitted – Reported in ALT (Crl.) Page 38

A.P = 2010 (1) 0 ALD (Crl.) – Page 342 A.P. between T. Ramesh Reddy vs

State of A.P.

C.C.4/2023-63-ACB Crt., Knl.

In the present case on hand, the evidence of PW1 was quite inspiring and did not create any doubt about her testimony. Rather this Court could not believe the defence of accused officer for the sole reason that the defence of her absence in the chambers stating that she was in her washroom, was not the immediate response projected by her at the time of Ex.P9. Hence, accused officer cannot take shelter under the said judgment.

(c)Interested witness – Appreciation – Corroboration necessary –

Possible motive to harm the accused can’t be ruled out – Reported in 1976 –

AIR (SC) page 294 between Satpal vs. Delhi Administration.

(d)The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concern with the success of trap and his evidence must be treated in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case court may look for independent corroboration, before convicting the accused person. In case two views are possible, the view favouring the accused has to be given preference – Reported in Crimes – 2013 (4) Page 41 (SC) = 2003(1) ALD (Crl) Page 792

(Crl.A.No.2025 of 2010) between State of Panjab vs Madan Mohan Lal

Varma and ALT (Crl.) – 2013 (3) Page 33 between P. Appala Raju vs State

Rep. By Inspector of Police.

In the present case on hand, PW2 do not belong to Health Department or to the Investigating Department. His independent evidence was strong and nowhere it created a doubt in the mind of the Court. The evidence of PW1,

PW3, PW16, PW18, PW19 also reposed confidence about their evidence

before this Court, though they all belong to same department. These

witnesses cannot be termed as interested witnesses. Hence, accused officer cannot take shelter of the aforesaid judgments, as there is lot of corroboration available in the present case on hand.

Though the accused officer tried to project two alleged probabilities by her defence, the very probabilities are demolished totally by the witnesses of

C.C.4/2023-64-ACB Crt., Knl.

the prosecution and hence, there appeared no two views wherein one can be viewed in favour of the accused officer.

(e)Once the person acted in pre trap and post trap proceedings, he loses his character as an independent witness and automatically becomes a part of prosecution party and it is not safe to base conviction on the testimony of such witness – Reported in 2009 (1) Crimes Page 367 (A.P) = 2008 (2) –

ALD (Crl.) – Page 821 between K. Giri vs. State, ACB, Hyderabad Range,

Hyderabad and 1991 (3) Crimes – Page 798 = 1992 – Cr.L.J – page 490

(SC) between Som Prakash vs State of Punjab.

(f)Where two views reasonably possible from the very same evidence prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Reported in 2006 (1) Crimes page 75 SC = 200691) Scc (Cri) page 401 between T. Subramanian vs State of Tamil Nadu.

The factual matrix in this case vary from the aforesaid cases and in the present case on hand, PW2, cannot be termed as part of prosecution party and he is stood forth throughout the cross examination firmly with his evidence and did not tilt either in favour of prosecution or in favour of the defence and was stick on to the procedural aspects in which he was part and parcel and travelled along with the contents of Ex.P5, Ex.P9. Hence, accused officer cannot take shelter of the aforesaid judgments.

(g)Allegation of bribe taking should be considered along with other material circumstances – where the prosecution allegation of demand of bribe was false, the allegation of payment of bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused must viewd with suspicion – Reported in 1987 (3) Crimes Page

2017 (SC) = 1988 – SCC (Crl.) page 77 between G.V. Nanjundaiah vs State

of Delhi.

(h)Circumstances and documentary evidence created room for doubt that the defence version was probably true and the statements of the

C.C.4/2023-65-ACB Crt., Knl.

complainant could not be accepted without corroboration – Reported in 1970

AIR page 450 (SC) between Iachmandas vs State of Punjab.

In the present case on hand, the entire circumstances which were projected by the accused officer under Ex.D1 to D5, totally collapsed. The prosecution established the demand of bribe by the accused officer and PW1 fared well. There are no deviations though many number of defences are placed by the accused officer to get over from the clutches of law. Hence, accused officer cannot take shelter of the aforesaid judgments.

(i)Accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance, but can establish the same by the preponderance of probabilities – Reported in 2001 (3) Crimes Page 309 (SC) = AIR -2002 Page 486 (SC) between Punjab Rao vs State of Panjab.

(j)An explanation offered by the accused in his statement U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C can be accepted if it is reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case – Not required to establish his defence adducing separate defence and his defence can be established by preponderance of probabilities –

Reported in 2003 (2) ALT (Crl.) Page 51 = 2003(1) ALD (Crl.) Page 933 between S.V.S. Kondanda Rao vs State of A.P.

In the present case on hand, the defence projected by the accused officer totally failed and by projecting Ex.D1 to D5, accused officer established the case of prosecution. As such, the point of proving the innocence by way of preponderance, does not arise in this case, so that accused officer can rely upon the aforesaid judgment. The accused officer in her examination

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C denied everything and there was no scope of mentioning or adducing any other points except filing written statement. As such, accused officer cannot even imagine of taking shelter under the aforesaid judgment.

C.C.4/2023-66-ACB Crt., Knl.

(k)The demand for the bribe money is the sine quo non to convict the accused – Reported in 2016 SAR (Crl.) page 506 between Krishan

Chander vs State of Delhi.

(l)Illegal gratification – Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by bribe-giver and demand by public servant would not make offence under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) and (ii) of P.C. Act. Presumption under section 20 of P.C.Act, 1988 arises once it is established that public servant accepted gratification – Evidence led by prosecution, suggestions made by defence witnesses, entire record is required to be considered. The conviction and sentence of the accused, as awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is set aside – Reported in 2025 (2) Crimes page 130 (SC) between Aman Bhatia vs State (GNCT of Delhi)

In the present case on hand, accused officer demanded bribe and it was established through the evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence and the oral testimony of PW2. The evidence of PW3 supported the reason behind the very content of Ex.P3. Remaining silent by not questioning about Ex.P1 and P2, at the time of cross examining PW3, clearly shows the attempt of accused officer to escape from the liability and the allegation of demanding of bribe. The concept of demanding bribe by the accused officer from PW1 was among themselves and in the light of Ex.P1 and P2, as well

Ex.D1 to D5, evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show that accused officer demanded bribe. In the present case, lot of material is available and accused officer cannot tried to take shelter from the aforesaid judgments.

(m)Evidence Act – Under Section 26 – Confession of the accused recorded by prosecution in the immediate presence of the police officer is hit by Sec.26 and therefore in admissible in evidence. – Reported in 2001 (4)

Crimes page 82 = 2001 (2) ALD (Crl) page 170 (A.P) between Tandra Ravi

vs State of A.P.

C.C.4/2023-67-ACB Crt., Knl.

In the present case on hand, accused officer did not even open her mouth at the time of Ex.P9, wherein it was the crucial place to explain her true content and her silence and handing over Ex.P1 and P2 from her draw, the resultant solution after she dipped her hands in the sodium carbonate solution, the inner linings of purse, established that there is no statement made by the accused officer, so that now she could take shelter from the aforesaid judgment.

65.In view of the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 2018.

66.In the result, Accused Officer is found guilty for the offence punishable under Secs.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and she is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 6 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

67.Accused officer is heard on quantum of sentence and she pleaded that she always worked following the G.Os and served the department for 37 years and was honoured with Awards by the different State officials. She also pleaded that she always insisted her staff to work properly and for that reason, she was forced to face this case. She also pleaded that she postponed the increment of PW1 asking her to get the un-authorized absence regularized and also assured her that she will be sanctioned her increment, but things went wrong and she was forced to face this trial.

Accused officer further pleaded that she and her husband are senior citizens

C.C.4/2023-68-ACB Crt., Knl.

who crossed 65 years of age and that there are no one to take care of them and prayed this Court to take shower of lenient view. When she was informed about her right to prefer an appeal, she stated that she has capacity to engage counsel at Appellate Court.

The learned defence counsel argued that both the accused officer and her husband are suffering from severe health issues and that their two daughters settled at far away places and also urged that the accused officer is being lady, the same should be kept in consideration and then she should be sentenced to a lessor punishment rather than severe punishment. It is also urged that even in the sessions cases when female accused are given a lenient scope and are granted bails, it can be a case where accused officer can be viewed as a senior citizen and female and impose lessor punishment wherein she could get bail before this Court itself.

On the other hand, the learned Spl.PP urged that the post holding by the accused officer during her tenure and service as DCHS is not a small post and she headed a district consisting of large number of government employees working under her and the act of demand of bribe to sanction an annual increment from PW1 shall not be viewed leniently and when the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt, accused officer shall be punished with severe punishment as per law and the contention of the learned defence counsel shall not be considered.

Heard. As rightly pointed out by the learned Spl.PP, this Court is of the view that neither the quantum of bribe nor position of the accused officer during her services under the Government, should matter at this juncture.

Though process of withholding the applications of PW1 under Ex.P1 and P2, for a longer period and demanding bribe, should be discouraged and seriously viewed and condemned. The very though process of demanding bribe shall be punished to meet the ends of justice. Even now it is the contention of the accused officer when she was heard, that she insisted PW1 and instructed her

C.C.4/2023-69-ACB Crt., Knl.

to get her un-authorized absence regularized and that accused officer assured

PW1 that she would sanction her increment. All these things goes to show that mere age factor, gender and the health issues, should not became hindrance in the execution of law. The law takes its own way of dealing the culprits. Hence, this Court is of the view that sentencing the accused officer to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 2018, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and out of fine amount, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to PW1 towards compensation U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of justice.

68.In the result, accused officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 2018, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The period of remand already undergone by the accused officer i.e., from 28.08.2019to 30.09.2019shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Out of the said total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only), an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is awarded towards compensation to the defacto complainant/PW1 U/Sec.357

Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by Accused officer is Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only).

MO-5 i.e., cash of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) is confiscated to State after appeal time is over. Rest of the material objects MOs.1 to 4 and

MOs 6 to 8, shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier.

Free copy of judgment is furnished to the Accused officer.

C.C.4/2023-70-ACB Crt., Knl.

Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the Joint Commissioner,

APVVP, Gollapudi, A.P., Vijayawada, as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of

Practice.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 6 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution:

ProsecutionName of the WitnessDescription Witness No.

1Sake RadhikaDefacto complainant 2G. Vijaya Bhaskar GoudMediator 3D. SubbaiahJr. Assistant of accused officer office 4J. Bhumi ReddyJr. Assistant of accused officer office 5Nagamanjula DeviJr. Assistant of accused officer office 6C. BindhuStaff working under accused officer 7Seela Gowri SankarStaff working under accused officer 8V. VenkateshStaff working under accused officer 9Tejaram PrasadStaff working under accused officer 10M. KondaiahStaff working under accused officer 11D. Rajasekhar NaiduStaff working under accused officer 12Mahabob BashaStaff working under accused officer 13Shaik KarimullahStaff working under accused officer 14Patan Ilias KhanStaff working under accused officer

C.C.4/2023-71-ACB Crt., Knl.

15K. Raja SekharOutsourcing employee working at National Health Machine 16V. RameshwaruduHolding the post of DCHS soon after trap of accused officer 17K. SreenivasuluSection Officer depose about sanction orders.

18Dr. S. Venkata Krishna Dist. Medical Officer Reddy 19Dr. G. SreedeviRetd. Joint Commissioner 20M. NagabhushanamInvestigating Officer 21Srinivasa ReddyInvestigating Officer 22K.J.V.R. PrasadDiscreet Inquiry Officer 23E. Krishna MohanInvestigating Officer who filed charge sheet.

For Defence: -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution:

ExhibitDescription of the ExhibitProved by No./Attested by 1First application, dated 19.02.2019PW1 2Second application, dated 05.07.2019PW1 3Complaint of PW1PW1 4Copy of First Information ReportPW2 5Pre trap proceedingsPW2 6Attested copy of service register of PW1PW2 7Attendance RegisterPW2 8Rough sketchPW2 9Post trap proceedingsPW2 10Attested copy of first proceedings containing 4 PW3 names 11Attested copy of second proceedings containing 3 PW3

C.C.4/2023-72-ACB Crt., Knl.

names 12Attested copy of increment watch register (7 sheets) PW3 12ARelevant entry of annual increment of LW7, LW8 PW3 and LW19, dated 05.03.2019 13Increment proceedings of PW1PW3 14Relevant page of increment watch register of PW1PW3 15Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6PW6 16Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7PW7 17Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8PW8 18Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9PW9 19Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW10PW11 20Service particulars and job chart of accused officer PW16 with covering letter 21Relevant fundamental Rules and photocopy of PW16 proceedings of DCHS, dated February 2019 and proceedings entered in watch register dated 05.03.2019 along with covering letter dated 19.12.2019 22Photocopy of proceedings dated 31.08.2019 PW16 regarding sanction for annual increment to PW1, proceedings of DCHS dated February 2019 and proceedings dated February 2019 along with covering letter 23Order, dated 08.02.2024PW17 24Sanction order vide G.O.Ms.No. 294, dated PW17 17.11.2020 25First Information ReportPW20

For Defence:-

ExhibitDescription of the ExhibitProved by No./Attested by 1Copy of leave letter of PW1, dated 01.08.2018PW1 2Photostat copy of charge memo, dated 02.08.2018 PW1 3Copy of explanation given in reply to Ex.D2PW1

C.C.4/2023-73-ACB Crt., Knl.

4Copy of leave letter, dated 20.12.2018 for the PW1 dates 20.12.2018 to 22.12.2018 5Copy of attendance registerPW1

Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution:

MaterialDescription of the ExhibitProved by Object/Attested by No.

1Sample of phenolphthalein powderPW2 2Sample of sodium carbonate powderPW2 3Right hand solution (dark pink in colour)PW2 4Left hand solution (pale pink colour)PW2 5Cash of Rs.5,000/- (2000x2 and 500x2)PW2 6Resultant solution of inner linings of handbag / PW2 valet 7Hand bag of accused officer PW2 8Sample of sodium carbonate powderPW2

For Defence: -Nil-

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

C.C.4/2023-74-ACB Crt., Knl.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES, KURNOOL.

C.C.No.4/2023

1. Date of OffencePrior to 26.08.2019

2.Date of Report or Complaint27.08.2019

3.Date of Apprehension of the Accused28.08.2019

4.Date of Release on bail30.09.2019

5.Date of Commencement of trial16.05.2023

6.Date of close of the trial04.09.2025

7.Date of Sentence of Order 06.02.2026

8.Explanation of delay and remarks - ComplainantThe State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa Range, Kadapa. AccusedSmt. Dr. Madabushi Seshadri Padmaja, 63 years, W/o Dr. H.K. Vasanta Madhava, District Co-ordinator of Hospital Services, Kadapa, Kadapa District. OffencePublic servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. FindingAccused Officer found guilty.

Sentence In the result, Accused Officer is found guilty for the offence punishable under Secs.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and or Order she is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 2018, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The period of remand already undergone by the accused officer i.e., from 28.08.2019to 30.09.2019shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Out of the said total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only), an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is awarded towards compensation to the defacto complainant/PW1 U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C.

C.C.4/2023-75-ACB Crt., Knl.

Total fine amount payable by Accused officer is Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only).

MO-5 i.e., cash of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) is confiscated to State after appeal time is over. Rest of the material objects MOs.1 to 4 and MOs 6 to 8, shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the Accused officer.

Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the Joint Commissioner, APVVP, Gollapudi, A.P., Vijayawada, as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Kurnool. Copy submitted to:

The Registrar(Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN Code No.522237. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau Headquarters, 2nd floor, A.P.Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada.

Copy to:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kadapa. The Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B.Court, Kurnool.

C.C.2/2015ACB Crt., Knl. APKU160000172015

Presented on : 12-01-2015 Registered on : 12-01-2015 Decided on : 28-11-2025 Duration : 10 years, 10 months, 16 days

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES:

AT KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt.N.SriVidya, Spl.Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

KURNOOL.

Friday, the 28th day of November, 2025

C.C.No.2/2015

Between:

The State represented by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram Range, Ananthapuram.… Complainant

Vs.

R. Subbaiah, S/o late R. Ramaiah, aged 52 years, Asst. Registrar/Recovery Officer, A.P. Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. … Accused Officer

This case has been coming on 17.11.2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of

Sri A. Viswanath and Sri N. Shanmukam, Advocates for accused officer, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court passed the following:

C.C.2/2015-2-ACB Crt., Knl.

J U D G M E N T

The Accused Officer (AO) arraigned for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988.

02.As per the report, the defacto complainant by name S. Shameer

Basha is leading his life by attending steel furniture work shop near RTC bus stand, Ananthapuram. It is his contention that his mother-in-law by name

T. Mahamada Bee sought for housing loan of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) on 09.10.2000 from A.P. Co-operative Housing

Societies Federation Ltd., (House Fed) and that on 17.12.2000, said Housing

Federation released Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred only) at first instance and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on 07.07.2001 at second instance and that in total only Rs.87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred only) was granted to her towards housing loan. It is his case that with the said housing loan amounts, his mother-in-law constructed a house bearing No.7/211 and that due to her poor financial condition, she could not repay the loan and as such said Housing Federation

Assistant Registrar, Ananthapuram got issued public auction notice in the month of August 2012, placing the house of his mother-in-law for non payment of the loan amounts by even imposing the penal interest in total Rs.2,95,099/- (Rupees two lakh ninety five thousand ninety nine only). It is further the contention of the defacto complainant through his report that on behalf of his mother-in-law, he went and met Housing Federation Registrar and Recovery

Officer by name R. Subbaiah and on enquiry, he came to know that atleast

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one laky only) is to be paid towards recovery of loan amount and on that, the defacto complainant went Hyderabad on 08.10.2012 and sought for one time settlement and also to reduce the penal interest and

C.C.2/2015-3-ACB Crt., Knl.

made application to that effect on behalf of his mother-in-law and also on 09.12.2012, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- by way of D.D. to the A.P. Housing

Federation Association. It is his further case that he came to know that one time settlement facility was not available to his mother-in-law and on that he made request in writing to Chairman, A.P. Housing Federation Association on 29.12.2012 by going to Hyderabad.

(i)Further, it is the contention of the defacto complainant that in the year 2013, January, on behalf of his mother-in-law, the defacto complainant again came to know that one time settlement related file was sent to

Ananthapuram A.P. Housing Federation Association Registrar/Recovery

Officer by name Subbaiah, and he went to his house and when enquired, he came to know that one time settlement file was with said Subbaiah and that in order to get the relief, said Subbaiah is to submit favourable report and in order to submit the same, Subbaiah demanded Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards bribe. It is the contention of the defacto complainant through his written report that since he is not willing and not interested to pay the bribe, the defacto complainant, assured said Subbaiah that he would pay the same and left the place. Again, on 15.04.2013, the defacto complainant went to A.P. Housing Federation Assistant Registrar/Recovery Officer

Subbaiah at Ananthapuram and again enquired about one time settlement file of his mother-in-law and on that, said Subbaiah informed him that for grant of one time settlement, report was already prepared in favour of defacto complainant and for that favourable report to be sent to Hyderabad Head

Office to get favourable orders from Hyderabad Head Office, the defacto complainant should pay the bribe of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only). On that, the defacto complainant though was not willing to pay the bribe and was not having financial capacity to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) requested Subbaiah to reduce bribe amount on 01.05.2013 and defacto complainant met Subbaiah and it was informed to the defacto

C.C.2/2015-4-ACB Crt., Knl.

complainant by said Subbaiah that unless the demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) is not paid, the favourable report to the head office, Hyderabad will not be sent for getting favourable orders for one time settlement and on that, the defacto complainant expressed his inability to pay

Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) and requested to reduce the demanded bribe amount, and the said Subbaiah reduced the same to

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). It is the contention of the defacto complainant that though he is not willing to pay the bribe, for the purpose of one time settlement orders in favour of his mother-in-law, he approached the

ACB officials and sought for an appropriate action against said Subbaiah. It is the contention of the defacto complainant that as per the instructions of said

Subbaiah, the defacto complainant should meet him on 03.05.2013 along with

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) bribe amount near Subose Tyre

Agency shop situated near Mayura Lodge and that Subbaiah should be caught redhandedly while he is receiving the said bribe amount and sought for justice to the defacto complainant.

03.The learned predecessor of this Court, has taken cognizance of the offence under Secs.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption (P.C.)

Act 1988, against the Accused officer.

04.On appearance of the Accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

05.On 24.04.2019, this Court examined the Accused officer U/S. 239

Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation levelled against him in his mother tongue

Telugu and having understood the same, he denied and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, charges U/ Sec.7, and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988 were framed against him.

C.C.2/2015-5-ACB Crt., Knl.

06.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 out of 14 listed witnesses. Prosecution exhibited Exs.P1 to P27 and MOs 1 to 10, whereas accused examined DW1 and exhibited Exs.D1 to D4 on his behalf.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused officer was examined as required U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances and material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in his mother tongue Telugu and having understood the same, he denied and reported that he has defence evidence on his behalf and that he would file written statement. Accordingly, the written statement is also filed.

08.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused Officer for

the charges levelled against him, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

09.Heard both sides.

10.It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Spl.P.P. and learned counsel for accused officer submitted their written arguments.

11.The prosecution filed written arguments on its behalf, by reiterating the facts of the case as projected by the defacto complainant through his report with ACB officials. The written arguments further discloses that the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 out of 14 witnesses and Ex.P1 to

P27, MOs 1 to 10 on its behalf. The written arguments further disclose that the aspect of demand of bribe amount under Ex.P1 was in detail explained in the written arguments that Ex.P1 clearly disclose that in the August 2012, A.P.

C.C.2/2015-6-ACB Crt., Knl.

Housing Fed, Ananthapur issued proclaimed of auction over the house constructed by taking loan by mother-in-law of defacto complainant for non payment of interest and penal interest and that the defacto complainant met the accused officer on behalf of his mother-in-law and inquired him and on that accused officer told the defacto complainant to pay minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and further written arguments disclose that on 08.10.2012, defacto complainant submitted an application to Managing

Director for A.P. Housing Fed, Hyderabad on behalf of his mother-in-law with a request to reduce the penal interest through one time settlement and that on 09.10.2012, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the said Fed through D.D. and that on 29.12.2012, a requisition also submitted to the

Chairman of A.P. Housing Fed, Hyderabad for settlement of housing loan and that in the month of January 2013, again the defacto complainant met the accused officer at his house at Ananthapur knowing that the file containing one time settlement of housing loan was with the accused officer and inquired the accused officer about the same and that the accused officer admitted the said fact and demanded PW1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as bribe to write a report in their favour. The written arguments further disclose that PW1 categorically deposed that on 15.04.2013, again he met the accused officer at Ananthapur and inquired about the order for one time settlement of loan, accused officer told him that he has already forwarded the report and demanded Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only)as bribe for sending the report and that to bring the orders from the Head Office in their favour. The written arguments further disclose that as per the evidence of

PW1, on 01.05.2013, PW1 again met accused officer at Kadiri and inquired about the file and at that time, accused officer reiterated his demand and when

PW1 expressed his inability to pay the huge amount, accused officer reduced it to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)and that PW1 agreed to pay

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to accused officer though he was not

C.C.2/2015-7-ACB Crt., Knl.

interested and that accused officer told PW1 to pay his demanded bribe and come to Subose Tyre Agency, Ananthapur on 03.05.2013.

(a)The written arguments further disclose that PW1 in his statement recorded U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C., though disclose that PW1 turned hostile in some aspect, as far as the demand of bribe is concerned by the accused officer, there is corroboration with the oral testimony of PW1 in co-relation with Ex.P1, without deviation of payment of bribe by accused officer to PW1. The written arguments further disclose that basing on the above facts and evidence let in, the aspect of demand of bribe by the accused officer was clearly deposed by

PW1 and as such, demand is proved by the prosecution.

(b)As far as the written arguments with regard to the evidence of

PW2 who is one of the mediators, is concerned, with regard to the pre trap and the procedure observed therein and about giving the instructions by the DSP,

ACB to PW1 as to the trap proceedings and about application of phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes, are clearly disclosed and supported by PW2 and that MR-II/post trap proceedings, clearly disclose and record the events happened on the spot and they can be safely used towards corroboration. The written arguments also disclose that the statement of PW1 recorded U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. is also corroborative in nature and that though

PW1 turned hostile, the evidence of PW2 disclose that complaint was made voluntarily which disclose about the genuine complaint of PW1 and about drafting of complaint is voluntarily done by PW1 on his own without any external force from other persons. The written arguments further disclose that further demanding and accepting of the bribe amount on the date of trap was clearly mentioned and deposed by PW1 and that PW1 in his evidence deposed that accused officer asked him whether bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as demanded by him was brought or not and that

PW1 replied affirmatively and accused officer asked PW1 to give the bribe amount to him and accordingly, PW1 gave the same and that accused officer

C.C.2/2015-8-ACB Crt., Knl.

received the same with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept the said amount with left side front pocket of his shirt. It is further the arguments in writing by the Spl.PP that PW1 clearly deposed that after leaving the trap party, they went to Subose Tyre Agency and found the accused officer sitting on the chair by the side of the owner of the shop and that on seeing PW1, he took him into the rear portion of the tyre shop which is partitioned with a wooden rack and immediately after going there the aforesaid content of demanding bribe by the accused officer, paying the said amounts by

PW1 and placing the bribe amount in the left side front shirt pocket of the accused officer by himself, are the facts to be taken into consideration and that

PW1 further deposed that he inquired with the accused officer about the one time settlement orders in their favour and that he would get the orders made prepared from the head office within two weeks. The written arguments further disclose that the chemical test of both hands and shirt inner linings of the accused officer turned positively, it can safely be concluded that the demand was made by the accused officer and bribe was paid by the PW1 and accordingly, accused officer received the same and was caught redhandedly.

The written arguments also disclose about the seizure of Ex.P7, P14, P15 and

Ex.P16 which are attested photostat copies of statements showing the mother- in-law taking the loan of Rs.87,000/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand only) under two spells, clearly disclose with the facts mentioned by PW1 in his report are true. Further, the written arguments disclose that the seizure of all the aforesaid documents, under MR-III/Ex.P12 on 03.05.2015, is true and to be believed.

(c)The written arguments further disclose that as far as the official favour is concerned, PW4 deposed that he know the accused officer who is working as Assistant Registrar at Ananthapur district under his control and that on the request of ACB Inspector, he produced all the records of obtaining loan by the mother-in-law of PW1 and admitted the quantum of sanction of loan in

C.C.2/2015-9-ACB Crt., Knl.

favour of mother-in-law of PW1 i.e., to an extent of Rs.87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred only), and the total sum of amount sought towards loan was Rs.1,25,000/- ((Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only), was clearly deposed by this PW4 and that since the mother-in-law of PW1 did not choose to pay any amount till 2012, accused officer being recovery officer issued notice to T. Mahamada Bee demanding Rs.2,95,000/- (Rupees two lakh ninety five thousand only) approximately inclusive of loan amount and interest and that they paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and also filed requisition to waive the balance amount towards one time settlement marked as Ex.P7. The written arguments further disclose that the application made by

PW1 on behalf of his mother-in-law was forwarded to head office, Hyderabad and all the relevant records were seized after getting the photostat copies duly signed by Mediator Report-III/Ex.P17. It can be safely concluded that official favour is existing. The written arguments further disclose that PW4 deposed that on the request of DSP, ACB he got issued job chart of the accused officer under Ex.P18 which reveals the duty of the accused officer as mentioned in column-1 of job chart and about the duty of the accused officer examination of housing loan proposals and recommendations and that though PW4 was cross examined at length, no favourable contents was elicited from his mouth in favour of the accused officer.

(d)The written arguments further disclose that the evidence of PW6 who deposed that mother-in-law of PW1 was sanctioned loan amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- and that on two spells, she received Rs.87,500/- in total and that

PW1 endorsed on the application /Ex.P7 so also this PW6 and then sent to head office on the same day and this PW6 received it then and immediately forwarded the application of the accused officer and inquire and submit the report and in turn accused enquired and submitted to waive the penal interest under Ex.P14. The written arguments also disclose that even through this

C.C.2/2015-10-ACB Crt., Knl.

witness also, nothing was elicited from his mouth in favour of the accused officer and against the case of the prosecution.

(e)The written arguments further disclose that it was the accused officer who told PW1 that he has already forwarded the report and then demanded Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as bribe as he has already sent the report to the head office and that demanding of bribe happened only to bring the favourable orders from the head office, Hyderabad in favour of mother-in-law of PW1.

(f)The written arguments also disclose that the evidence of PWs 9 to 11 who being the investigating authorities, corroborated the entire case lodged by PW1 and further urged that the sanction order was obtained by the prosecution as the case of PW1 vide Ex.P23, is genuine case and that PW7 with his authorization letter vide Ex.P20 identified the sanction orders issued under Ex.P21, against the accused officer.

(g)The written arguments further disclose that the defence put up by the accused officer that accused officer never demanded and never accepted the bribe amount is utterly false in the light of evidence of PW1 and that all the suggestions posed to PW1 that accused officer never demanded the bribe, that PW1 never met him on 01.05.2013 at Kadiri bus stop, are all denied by this witness. Further, it is urged through the written arguments by the Spl.PP that the evidence of PW1 regarding demand made by the accused officer, initially an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) and then reduced it to Rs.10,000/- and accused officer asking PW1 to come to Subose tyre agency, Ananthapur, clearly goes to show that accused officer demanded the bribe and also received the said amounts of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) by refusing the bribe amount and about the contention that accused officer did not receive any amount from PW1 and that he tried to call

PW1, but he left the place, is totally false and further it is urged that the evidence contradictory to the said aspect and PW1 kept the amount on the

C.C.2/2015-11-ACB Crt., Knl.

table, is un-believable because the chemical test conducted on inner linings of shirt left side pocket of accused officer yielded positive results under MO-6 and as such receiving of bribe is clearly established by the prosecution. Further urged through the written arguments that there is no official favour pending with the accused officer in this regard, and it is the case of the prosecution itself that in the month of January 2013, complainant met the accused officer at Anantapur and on knowing that one time settlement housing loan file was with the accused officer and on enquiry about it and accused officer admitted it and demanded Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as bribe to write a report favourable in nature in favour of the mother-in-law of PW1, clearly establish all the true facts.

(h)The written arguments further disclose that PW1 categorically deposed that accused officer told that he has already sent the report to the head office and by sending the report by him, bribe amount is demanded and also to get favourable orders from head office, Hyderabad, bribe is to be paid and as such, it can clearly be understood that there was demand of bribe to an extent of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) initially and reduced to

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) later on. The written arguments further submitted that the evidence of PWs 4 and 6 clearly disclose that accused officer enquired and submitted a report under Ex.P14 and that accused officer alone is concerned about the one time settlement orders and therefore by abusing his official position, accused officer demanded bribe of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from PW1, in order to get favourable orders in favour of PW1.

(i)The written arguments further disclose that the plea of alibi projected by the accused officer through DW1 by filing Ex.D4, is not at all accepted that the evidence of DW1 is un-believable because Ex.D4 do not contain the timings of said meeting and signature of the accused officer and that the evidence of DW1 do not disclose that at what time meeting was

C.C.2/2015-12-ACB Crt., Knl.

concluded and that in the light of settled principles of law settled from time to time from Hon’ble High Court, the plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty and distance from the place i.e., Kadiri to Kadapa is about 100 kms and hence even though accused officer allegedly attended the said meeting at

Kadapa, it is not highly impossible meeting with PW1 at Kadiri and that the evidence of PW1 is clear that he met the accused officer at Kadiri on 01.05.2013.

(j)The written arguments further disclose about motive and conduct of the accused officer and the evidence of PW6 was discussed and that as per the evidence of PW6, applications were submitted by PW1 for one time settlement and received by PW6 from head office at Hyderabad on 29.12.2012 and the same was forwarded to the accused officer for inquiry and call for the report and that in fact after receiving the file, accused officer kept pending with him and that the said application and PW1 knowing that their one time settlement of housing loan with the accused officer and enquiring the accused officer about the said file and accused officer admitting the said file is with him and that unless the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) is paid, the report would not be sent in his favour and that all the subsequent events clearly deposed by PW1 and the evidence of PW1 in corroboration with PW6 clearly disclose about the conduct of the accused officer as well as his motive and that the subsequent conduct and accused officer retaining the file with him without sending the report which was sought for again by the head office, goes to show that there is motive and conduct of the accused officer against their defence.

(k)The written arguments further disclose about the section of law

U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988.

The essential ingredients of the offence U/s 7 of PC Act 1988 are “ for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in excise of his official functions, favour or disfavor to any person or for

C.C.2/2015-13-ACB Crt., Knl.

rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person”. It is humbly submitted that these words are not present in Sec.13(1)(d) or PC Act 1988.

It is submitted that Sec.13(1)(d) ingredients are (i) “ by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage “ or (ii) “by abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” or (iii) “ while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest” . It is submitted that official favour words are not present in this section. Hence pendency of official favour is not the ingredient of Sec 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988.

The same is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ The State V/s A.Parthiban 2008 Crl.L.J.4772 SC “.

State of AP Vs P.Subash Chandra Reddy 2003 CrLJ 4776 - Sanction order can be proved by the person identifying signature of sanctioning authority.

(l)The written arguments of the prosecution disclose that the present case is clearly goes to show that accused officer demanded the bribe amount and that the oral evidence of PW1, mediators and investigating officer and documentary evidence clearly prove that accused officer demanded, accepted the bribe from PW1 and the presumption U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act shall be taken into consideration and assumption shall be drawn against the accused officer that he is one who accepted the bribe as motive or reward is clearly mentioned

U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act and that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this Court to convict the accused officer.

(m)The written arguments further disclosed that the following judgments of the Apex Court may be considered for coming to a just conclusion.

C.C.2/2015-14-ACB Crt., Knl.

(i) In 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 378 (SC) Ramesh Harijan Vs State of U.P.

(July, 2013) Falsity of particular material witness or material particular, would not ruin the evidence from beginning to end. Maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India.

(ii) Official Favour :- In ShivRaj Singh V/s Delhi Administration AIR 1968

SC 1419 No official favour or intention to do any official favour - case made out

under section 7 and 13(1)(d)PC Act. Pillimarri Venugopala Krishna Murthy Vs

State2011 (2) ALD (Crl) 438. Supreme Court 5 Judges Bench in Dhaneshwar

Narain Saxena Vs Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 195, 1962 (1) CRLJ 203.Supreme Court 3 Judges Bench AIR 1955 (SC) 70 Mahesh Prasad Singh

Vs state of U.P.

(iii)Presumption :-In C.K. Damodara Nair Vs Government of India 1997

CRLJ 739:-S.20 – Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by demand or not would be covered by S.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act..

State Vs A.Parthiban 2008 CRLJ 4772 SC. Subash Prabat Sonrane Vs State of Gujarat 2003 SC AIR 2169. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Vasudeva Rao 2004 CRLJ 620.2010 SCC (Crl) 1067. State of M.P. Vs Harishankar

Bhagawan Tripati. (Trial court and High Court acquitted A.O. Supreme Court reversed) Accused has to disclose how the tainted currency came into his position.

(iv)State of U.P. V/s Zakrullah AIR 1998 SC.1474. (a) Animosity theory not accepted. (b) Acquittance of independent witness with Police are fact that he helped police action – would not by itself discredit evidence said independent witness. (c) Evidence of trap officer – can be relied on even without corroboration. (d) Trap case accused caught red handed with tainted currency notes – Non sending of samples solution use for conducting phenolphthalein test to chemical examiner – would not vitiate trap.

(v) AIR 1984 SC 63 State of Maharashtra V/s Narasinga Rao Gangaram

Pimple. Evidence Act Sec.133 – Trap witnesses – appreciation of evidence –

C.C.2/2015-15-ACB Crt., Knl.

touch stone to be applied – where in a trap case the judge magnified every minor retains or omission to falsify or throw even shade of doubt on the prosecution evidence done it would be the very anti-thesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witness in a trap case. Indeed if such a harsh touch stone is prescribed to prove such a case it will be difficult for the prosecution to establish any case at all.

(vi)Difference between Sec. 13(1)(d) and Sec. 7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act. The State V/s A.Parthiban 2008 Crl.L.J.4772 SC.

Simultaneous conviction under section 7 & 13 (1) (d) is permissible -

Principles U/S 71 IPC and Sec.220 Cr.P.C. applying. 7 & 13 (1) (d) –

Difference between offences explained – Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by

Sec.7 – acceptance of illegal gratification in pursuance of demand by a public servant would fall under 31(1)(d) of PC Act 1988.

(vii)Subash Parbat Sonrane V/s State of Gujarat. AIR 2003 S.C.2169.

In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that contest a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence u/s 5(1)(d) of P.C.Act, un-like an offence under section 161 of I.P.C. which can be established by proof of either acceptance or obtainment.

(viii)Ramesh Kumar Gupta V/s State of Madhya Pradesh. 1995 Crl.L.J.-

S.C. (a) Accused Police Inspector – positive result of phenolphthalein powder test – bear denial that he had no knowledge of notes was without substance – no question of false implication as it was proved that only after harassment and demand by accused complaint was compelled to borrow the amount for making payment – evidence of complaint was sufficiently corroborated by surrounding circumstances – case proved beyond reasonable doubt . (b)

Evidence regarding of complaint- corroboration need not be direct – can be by way of circumstantial evidence also.

C.C.2/2015-16-ACB Crt., Knl.

(ix)2011 SCC (Crl) (1) 214 B.Nagul Sharief Vs.State of A.P. (a)

Discrepancy regarding party of the prosecution story. Itself does not go to the root of the case. (b)Failure to inform superior officers of A.O. demand of bribe absolutely un-natural- contention rejected-corruption flows from top. (c)

False implication by complainant as he quarreled with A.O. few days back – not acceptable.

(x) 2006 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 346 Shanker bhai Laljibhai Rot V/s

State of Gujarat. Discrepancy has to the mode of demand of bribe effect of –

PW.1 consistently stating about demand acceptance and recovery of money – variance regarding mode of demand no consequences-minor contradictions or in-consistencies immaterial. Section 19 P.C.Act – in the absence of any thing to show that any defect or irregularity in sanction caused failure of justice plea relating to sanction is without substance. P.C.Act, Sec.17 - Authority of Police

Inspector, ACB, to investigate any offence under 1988 Act – Plea regarding – not raised before court below – such plea unsustainable before S.C.

Constitution of India Article-136.

(xi) The Supreme Court also held in ‘State of Maharashtra Vs Mahesh

G.Jain’ reported in 2013(8) SCC 199, that the sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.

(xii)The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider the following paragraphs in Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Neeraj Dutta Vs State dated: 15.12.2022.

Para No.32:- Term evidence is not restricted to only oral and documentary evidence but also to other things like material objects, the demeanor of the witnesses, facts of which judicial notice could be taken, admissions of parties, local inspection made and answers given by the accused under 313 Cr.PC.

Circumstantial evidence means facts from which another fact is inferred.

C.C.2/2015-17-ACB Crt., Knl.

Para No.48:- Section 20 of the Act deals with presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. It uses the expression “shall be presumed” in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) unless the contrary is proved. The said provision deals with a legal presumption which is in the nature of a command that it has to be 51 presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the Section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing a legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act is that during trial, it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification.

Para No.49:- In State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61 (“A.

Vaidyanatha Iyer”), it was observed that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act which is similar to Section 20 of the Act under consideration would arise where illegal gratification has been accepted, then the presumption introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused. The legislature has used the words “shall presume” and not “may presume” which means that the presumption has to be raised as it is a presumption of law and therefore it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption. Further, the presumptions of law constitute a branch of jurisprudence unlike a case of presumption of fact which is discretionary.

Para No.50:- Distinguishing a presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act with a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it was observed in

Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1964 SC 575 (“Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai”) that a presumption under Section 114 of the

Evidence Act is discretionary in nature inasmuch as it is open to the court to

C.C.2/2015-18-ACB Crt., Knl.

draw or not to draw a presumption as to the existence of one fact from the proof of another fact. This is unlike a presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act or Section 20 of the Act where the court has to draw such presumption, if a certain fact is proved, that is, where any illegal gratification has been received by an accused. In such a case the presumption that has to be drawn that the person received that thing as a motive of reward. Therefore, the court has no choice in the matter, once it is established that the accused has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to the accused to show that though that money was not due to him as a legal remuneration it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which is lawful. The burden resting on the accused in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that 53 the explanation is a true one.

The words “unless the contrary is proved” which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by “proof” and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material brought before it, the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted.

Para No 70:- that in the absence of evidence of complainant it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

C.C.2/2015-19-ACB Crt., Knl.

(xiii) K.Kumara Swami Vs State 2014 (1) ALD Crl 434 A.P: A.O is surveyor – PW-1 hostile – conviction is given based on 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act.

(xiv) Pillimarri Venugopala Krishna Murthy Vs State 2011 (2) ALD Crl 438 A.P – Abuse of official position meaning and pecuniary advantage explained.

(xv) AIR 1984 SC 63 State of Maharashtra V/s Narasinga Rao

Gangaram Pimple. Evidence Act Sec.133 – Trap witnesses – appreciation of evidence – touch stone to be applied – where in a trap case the judge magnified every minor retains or omission to falsify or throw even shade of doubt on the prosecution evidence done it would be the very anti-thesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witness in a trap case. Indeed if such a harsh touch stone is prescribed to prove such a case it will be difficult for the prosecution to establish any case at all.

(xvi) 2011 Crl,LJ SC 975 CM Sarma Vs. State of AP PC Act 7, 13(1) (d)

Demand of bribe from contractor – Defence strained relationship and demand of bribe improbable – evidence of PW.1 accompanying witness and Inspector improbablises the defence. Evidence Act Sec.133 – PW.1 is not accomplish –

Act of Demand of Bribe is an act of extortion – Corroboration not necessary.

(xvii) 2006 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 346 Shanker Bhai Laljibhai Rot

V/s State of Gujarat. Discrepancy has to the mode of demand of bribe effect of – PW.1 consistently stating about demand acceptance and recovery of money –variance regarding mode of demand no consequences-minor contradictions or in-consistencies immaterial. Section 19 P.C.Act – in the absence of any thing to show that any defect or irregularity in sanction caused failure of justice – plea relating to sanction is without substance. P.C.Act, Sec.17 - Authority of

Police Inspector, ACB, to investigate any offence under 1988 Act – Plea regarding –not raised before court below – such plea unsustainable before

S.C. Constitution of India Article-136.

C.C.2/2015-20-ACB Crt., Knl.

(xviii) In C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1960 SC 548) and

V.D. Jhangan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966 (3) SCR 736) it was observed that if any money is received and no convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered by the accused as to how it came to be received by him, the presumption under Section 4 of the old Act is available. When the receipt is admitted it is for the accused to prove as to how the presumption is not available as perforce the presumption arises and becomes operative.

(xiv) Stress was laid on the accused persons not being the final authority in the tender matter. As noted in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v.

The State of Gujarat (1976 (3) SCC 46) the question whether a person has authority to do the act for which bribe is accepted is of no consequence.

(n)Therefore for the reasons mentioned in the written arguments and as per the above mentioned settled principles of law the case of the prosecution against the accused officer has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused officer has to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 7 of P.C. Act for having demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from PW.1 and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act for obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position.

12.On the other hand, the accused officer filed written arguments.

The written arguments disclose about the initial case of the prosecution and about examining PWs 1 to 11 and marking of Ex.P1 to P27 so also MOs 1 to 10 and also disclose that accused officer examined DW1 on his behalf and exhibited Ex.D1 to D4 to prove his innocence. After reiterating the entire facts of the case regarding the basic case of the prosecution i.e., obtaining of loan by T.Mahamada Bee to an extent of Rs.87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred only) under two spells i.e., Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred only) and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand

C.C.2/2015-21-ACB Crt., Knl.

only) on 17.12.2000 and 07.07.2001 respectively and about non payment of loan amount, issuance of proclamation of notice in the month of August 2012 directing the said T. Mahamada Bee to pay Rs.2,95,099/- (Rupees two lakh ninety five thousand ninety nine only) towards interest and penal amount on her behalf, defacto complainant approaching the accused officer and about payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by way of D.D. on 09.12.2012 to settle the housing loan under one time settlement.

(a)The written arguments disclose that as per the case of prosecution, on 01.05.2013, PW1 met the accused officer at Kadiri bus stop and enquired about the file which accused officer reiterated his demand of bribe and that PW1 expressed his inability to pay the huge amount and on that accused officer reduced it to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and demanded PW1 to pay the said amounts towards bribe at Subose Tyre

Agency, near Mayura lodge, Ananthapur on 03.05.2013 and that on 02.05.2013, PW1 lodged report with ACB officials basing on which, crime was registered and that after due formalities, PW9/DSP, ACB secured the presence of public servants i.e., PW2 and another person Mohammad Gous to act as mediators in the said crime in the trap proceedings and organized trap against accused officer at Subose Tyre Agency on 03.05.2013. The written arguments further disclose that as per the events on the date of trap incident, at 12.05 P.M., accused officer was trapped on 03.05.2013 when he was demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from PW1 and that he produced the said amounts from his left shirt pocket and then when the hands of the accused officer were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, both hands yielded positive results and connected records pertaining to loan of said T. Mahamada Bee were secured and seized from the Regional Office, A.P. Housing Fed at Kadapa through mediators under Ex.P17 and that Exs.P7, P8, P14-P16 are the documents relevant including Ex.P25 search list.

C.C.2/2015-22-ACB Crt., Knl.

(b)The basic arguments in writing, was to the effect that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reiterated observations in case of Rabindra Kumar Dev vs

State of Orissa in Crl. Appeal No.193 of 1971 dated 31.08.1976, that three principles of criminal jurisprudence are well settled namely:

i.That the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case.

ii.That in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and iii.That onus of prosecution never shifts.

It was further held that in a criminal trial, it is not at all obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purpose of proving his version he can rely on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down”.

(c)It is respectfully submit that when the prosecution case rests upon the solitary evidence of complainant with regard to the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused officer, the evidence of the complainant must be true, free from doubt and wholly reliable, the said principle was in

Vadvivelu Thever vs The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, the same was held on 2010 (1) ALD (crl) 342 (AP) in T. Ramesh Reddy vs. State of A.P.

(d)It further submits that when there are two inconsistent statements in appearing in the testimony of the witnesses the testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held this principle in AIR 1979 SC 1408 Suraj Mall vs State of Delhi

Administration.

C.C.2/2015-23-ACB Crt., Knl.

(e)The written arguments further disclose about the evidence of PW1 stating that “Immediately, I met the accused officer who is incharge of Kadiri, he stated that if we pay Rs.1,00,000/-, (Rupees one lakh only) they would stop auction.” “Then, I obtained D.D. on 09.10.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and gave the D.D. along with requisition to accused officer to settle the case for the principal amount only by waiving penal interest.” The written arguments disclose that the said lines of evidence of PW1 it can be derived that he gave requisition to accused officer to settle the case for the principal amount by waving penal interest and that Ex.P7 photostat copy of his requisition for one time settlement. It also disclose that to disprove above lines, specific question was put to PW1 that accused officer did not state if they pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), he would stop auction and said suggestion was denied and hence said suggestion also gave on the same context but the truth behind the said suggestion was not accepted by the witness and the DSP, ACB who recorded the statement of PW1 U/Sec.161

Cr.P.C. and that the same is to be taken in to consideration. It is the argument that the said advise by accused officer that Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) if paid by the PW1, auction would be stopped and that when the said statement was not made, the evidence of PW1 on that aspect shall not be believed.

(f)It is the written arguments of the accused officer that PW1 submitted Ex.P1 before Chairman, A.P. Housing Fed, Hyderabad but not to the accused officer personally, and that PW1 admitted the said suggestion and as such it is proved that PW1 gave two inconsistent statements and hence his evidence becomes un-trustworthy and un-reliable.

(g)The written arguments further disclose that PW1 did not state in his statement recorded U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. that he met the accused officer on 01.05.2013 and that the accused officer demanded bribe amount from him and further instructed to pay the said bribe on 03.05.2013 at Subose Tyre Agency.

C.C.2/2015-24-ACB Crt., Knl.

When it is not present in Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement but very much present in the evidence given by PW1 before the Court of law, it can be said that PW1 gave in-consistent statement from time to time and thereby became un- trustworthy witness. Further, the written arguments disclose that PW1 deliberately suppressed the issuance of Ex.D1 to D3 and did not mention about the same either in Ex.P1 or deposed before this Court and that accusing the accused officer for demanding to repay the loan amount, shall not be encouraged and that for the said suppression of real facts, the complainant can be declared as un-trustworthy witness from any angle.

(h)The written arguments further disclose that when the demand for illegal gratification fails and not proved by the complainant, and when the complainant is not supporting the case of prosecution in so far as demand by the accused officer is concerned, and disowning his earlier statement and initial complaint lodged by him and when the prosecution do not examine any other witness except the punch witnesses, the evidence of prosecution shall not be believed and that mere recovery and mere possession of tainted currency from the accused officer without proof of demand is not at all sufficient for convicting the accused officer U/Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

P.C. Act. The written arguments further disclose that the aforesaid principle was laid down in B. Jayaraj vs State of A.P. 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC)

Supreme Court.

(i)The written arguments further disclose that the element of demand as to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and it is settled principle of law in trap cases and that the statement of PW1 U/Sec.164

Cr.P.C. in co-relation with Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1 before this Court, mediators report, trap proceedings and chemical test, are not at all in co- relation with each other and PW1 did not depose in his evidence before this

Court about the first demand alleged to have been made in January 2013 or about the second demand made on 15.04.2013 which was narrated in Ex.P1

C.C.2/2015-25-ACB Crt., Knl.

and that it is crucial omission and it can safely be concluded that complaint is containing only the allegations as it is not supported by own testimony unless

before the Court and as such, the testimony of PW1 do not have any

evidentiary value.

(j)By relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Crl. Appeal No.45/2011, accused officer contends that merely because of

PW1 admitted his signature on the complaint and says that original complaint shown to him belongs to him, cannot be taken in to consideration as unless contents of complaint are spoken to in the Court of law, the said contents do not have any evidentiary value and that the Hon’ble High Court of Talangana held that it is well established principles of law that the contents of the first report can only be used to contradict or corroborate the maker and nothing more than that. It is urged through the written arguments that in the present case on hand also after PW1 was declared as hostile by the prosecution with the permission of the Court and confronted to him, the omissions or contradictions U/Sec.145 of Indian Evidence Act, PW1 denied the said earlier meeting with accused officer and also denied the alleged demand of bribe as such, this Court cannot rely on the recitals of the complaint.

(k)The written arguments further disclose that as per the evidence of

PW1, he met the accused officer on 01.05.2013 at Kadiri bus stop and enquired about the file with accused officer and that accused officer reiterated his demand and when this PW1 expressed his inability to pay the huge amount to the accused officer as bribe, accused officer reduced it to

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). It is urged that specific questions were asked to PW1 during the course of cross examination to elicit the truth in order to disprove his evidence and in that connection PW1 categorically deposed that he met the accused officer on 01.05.2013 at Kadiri bus stop at 12.30 A.M. It is urged in writing that accused officer took plea of alibi for the alleged incident dated 01.05.2013 and that it is an admitted fact that accused

C.C.2/2015-26-ACB Crt., Knl.

officer left the house in the early hours on 01.05.2013 to attend Regional

Review Meeting at Kadapa under the chairmanship of the Managing Director,

A.P. Housing Fedcon and that PW4 evidence who is none other than the superior officer of accused officer disclose about the same wherein PW4 deposed in his cross examination as “ On 01.05.2013, I conducted Regional

Review Meeting in Regional Manager’s Office, Kadapa. The Officers of

Kadapa, Kurnool, Ananthapur, Chittoor including accused officer were present in said meeting, discussions on various issues were taken and minutes of review meeting were noted. The names and occupation of the participants will be noted in minutes review meeting”. It is further urged in writing that the prosecution did not challenge the above evidence of PW4 and as such the evidence of PW4 went unchallenged.

(l)It is also further urged in writing that even PW8 deposed before this Court that on 01.05.2013, he went to the house of accused officer situated at Anathapur at about 8.30 A.M. in order to go to Kadapa and by the time he reached the house, accused officer went to Kadapa and PW8 came to know about the said fact on enquiry at the house of Ananthapur and further this PW8 deposed that he came to know that Ananthapur to go to Kadapa along with the accused officer on office work and since the accused officer left for Kadapa, he reached Kadiri. It is urged that the evidence of PW4 and PW8 clearly assert the fact that accused officer was not at Ananthapur and went to Kadapa and that the evidence of DW1 who attended the meeting on 01.05.2013 also disclose that accused officer attended the Regional Review Meeting at Kadapa and corroborated the contents of Ex.D4 regarding presence of accused officer from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M.

(m)It is also the contention of the accused officer through written arguments that PW4 admitted that accused officer attended the review meeting and PW8 confirmed the same that PW4 left for Kadapa to attend the meeting and as such the alleged meeting of the accused officer by PW1 at

C.C.2/2015-27-ACB Crt., Knl.

Kadiri bus stop on 01.05.2013, shall not take place in the light of the evidence of PWs 8 and 4 and the defence of alibi is fully established by documentary evidence and corroborated the testimony of both PWs 4 and 8 mutually and with the evidence of PW4 and recitals mentioned in the said context, proved as false. On the said aspect, accused officer relied upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court between V. Sejappa vs State by Police Inspector,

Lokayukta regarding alibi wherein it was held that the defence of alibi was found credible and consistent with the evidence and the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance.

(n)Written arguments further disclose that parallel to the defence put up by the accused officer, the evidence of PWs 4 and 8 confirmed the same and thereby destroyed the evidence of PW1 that he met the accused officer on the said date at Kadiri bus stop. It is also urged in writing that it is physically impossible for the accused officer to be very much present at Kadiri bus stop at the given point of time in the light of Ex.D4 minutes of meeting held on 01.05.2013 at Kadapa in the office of A.P. Housing Fedcon which appears the signatures of Managing Director of A.P. Housing Fedcon and that Ex.D4 being summoned document through the orders of this Court, should and must taken in to consideration and urged that the evidence of PW1 is totally false.

(o)The written arguments further disclose that PW1 was declared as hostile and admitted that he wrote the statement of Ex.P1 and also gave his statement U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, as per the directions of the ACB officials. The accused officer relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court of A.P. in Trilok Chandra Maurya vs State, reported in ALD (Crl) 2011 page-672 wherein it was held that FIR cannot substantiated evidence by itself in a criminal case and that it can be used only for purpose of either corroborating or contradicting of its maker and when the maker of FIR did not speak the to allegations contained in FIR, the FIR cannot be substituted to supplement the evidence of other person through whom it is expected to be

C.C.2/2015-28-ACB Crt., Knl.

elicit on oath before the Court of law and that the contents of the FIR remains as allegation.

(p)The written arguments further disclose that the accused officer relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haridev Sharma vs

State of Delhi reported in AIR 1976 SC 1489 and urged in writing that asper the said judgment, no conviction can be sustained on the basis of mere trap incident when the vital parts of the prosecution which formed the genesis for the trap incident cannot be accepted. It is further urged in writing that in the present case on hand, proving of the case by the prosecution against the accused officer, must be beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution failed to prove foundational facts of its case against the accused officer and on that aspect, the said judgment on which the accused officer relied upon, would guide the Court. It is further urged that the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Haridev Sharma in Kursheed Khan vs State reported in 1980 MLJ (Crl) 625 wherein the aforesaid analogy that the vital parts of which consist of demand, part payment and the trap incident dependent on each other and hence the prosecution is bound to prove all these vital parts.

Further, the written arguments reveal that the judgment of the Hon’ble High

Court of A.P. in V. Suresh vs State – Crl.Appeal No.1097/2003 reported in 2011 (1) ALD (Crl) 11 (AP), clearly held that evidence of two contrary statements if present, then the conviction on basis of said evidence where there are two versions i.e., version in chief examination which favours the prosecution and the version in the cross examination which favours the accused, in those circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused on the basis of evidence of such witness and further it is urged that in view of contrary statements of PW1 during the course of cross examination, the evidence of

PW1 cannot be taken as proved in the aspect of payment of Rs.10,000/- by

PW1 to the accused officer and that it cannot be treated as illegal gratification, much particularly in the absence of positive evidence to show as to what was

C.C.2/2015-29-ACB Crt., Knl.

received by the accused officer, is illegal gratification and that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing its case against the accused officer.

(q)The written arguments further disclose that the previous statements of PW1, made to the ACB officials under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., can be used only for the purpose of contradicting the evidence of witness in the manner provided U/sec.145 of Indian Evidence Act, but not otherwise and that the statement recorded by the police, cannot be treated as substantive evidence and cannot be used for the corroboration purpose and that the said analogy aptly applies and the prosecution cannot rely on the evidence of PW1 to establish its case. It is also urged in writing that mere putting suggestions and not getting contradictions on record in the evidence of witness, does not amounts to proper compliance U/Sec.145 of Indian Evidence Act and that

Court also must always be vigilant and keep it in mind that statement made by any witness before the police is not admissible evidence. The written arguments further disclose that what all has been stated by the accused officer in post trap proceedings, cannot be treated as substantive evidence and therefore, the appreciation of the evidence by the Spl. Judges appears to be incorrect, as held in the judgment reported in 1997 (1), ALD (Crl) 23 SC.

(r)It is also urged that FIR is not substantive evidence and that there can be no presumption that contents of FIR are true or that they have been originally given by the complainant and that similarly, there cannot be any presumption or assumption that statement U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. reveal the truth. It is urged that however it can be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradictions when maker of FIR gives a different version to the Court.

(s)By relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court between Suraj Mal vs The State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1979

SC 1408, it is held that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in

their evidence, either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of said witness became unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of

C.C.2/2015-30-ACB Crt., Knl.

special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. It is urged that in the present case on hand, it is a clear case that the complainant gave inconsistent evidence and when the witness gave the said inconsistent evidence, his testimony became unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of said circumstances, no conviction shall be held and prayed the Court to acquit the accused officer.

(t)As far as the official favour concept is concerned, it is urged in writing that the investigating officers clearly admitted that they did not collect any documentary evidence from A.P. Housing Fedcon to show that the defacto complainant had actually obtained D.D. for Rs.1,00,000/- and remitted the same to loan account of his mother-in-law and that this failure to verify and secure the financial transaction which forms central link of alleged motive for demanding the bribe and demonstrates non applications of mind and incomplete investigation and that such omissions are fatal to the case of prosecution and investigating agency failed to collect primary and verifiable evidence, the benefit of such defect must go to the accused officer.

(u)Accused officer relied upon the following precedents in support of his case:

i.State of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 –

Serious lapses or omissions on the part of the investigation officer which affect the core of the prosecution case cannot be ignored.

ii.C.M. Girish Babu vs CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779 – When investigation is perfunctory and fails to collect relevant evidence, the benefit must go to the accused.

iii.B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 – Where demand is not proved and corroborative evidence is lacking, conviction cannot be sustained.

C.C.2/2015-31-ACB Crt., Knl.

iv.State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153 – Investigative omissions leading to absence of foundational proof of demand or favour are fatal to the prosecution.

By extracting the portion of the evidence of witnesses i.e., PWs 5, 1, and 6, accused officer contends that prosecution miserably failed in proving the alleged demand on 01.05.2013 and that accused officer was away on the official duty to Kadapa and it was supported by PW5 and that foundational facts i.e., demand plus voluntary acceptance were not at all proved by the prosecution and statutory presumption U/Sec.20 did not arise in the given circumstances, prosecution appears to have been not followed the standards of proof and failed to prove the charge against the accused officer and prayed this Court to acquit the accused officer, in the interest of justice.

13.Perused the record. Charges levelled against the accused officer are:

1. Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988 defines :

“ Any public servant who,- (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to

obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to

perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or

dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such

duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage

from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest

performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such

duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform

improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance

of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an

undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with

C.C.2/2015-32-ACB Crt., Knl.

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years

but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to

fine.”

2. Sec.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 defines :

“Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be

punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less

than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also

be liable to fine.”

3. Sec.13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 defines

“(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal

misconduct,-

(i) “ by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other

person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage “ or (ii) “by abusing

his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person

any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” or (iii) “ while holding office

as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or

pecuniary advantage without any public interest”

14.In order to prove the aforesaid charges, prosecution is bound to establish that the accused officer is public servant and that he demanded for gratification / bribe and that accused officer accepted the bribe. Demand of bribe is crucial aspect failing which merely acceptance of bribe cannot be taken into consideration. In order to establish the criminal misconduct as mentioned U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, the abuse of position of the public servant and his corrupt or illegal means is also to be established.

The dishonest and fraudulent intent of the public servant is to be looked into.

Gist of prosecution witnesses:

C.C.2/2015-33-ACB Crt., Knl.

15.The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 out of 14 listed witnesses and exhibited Ex.P1 to P27 and MOs 1 to 10. On the other hand, accused officer examined DW1 and exhibited Ex.D1 to D4.

PW1:Defacto complainant who was representing his mother-in-law by name Mahamad Bee

PW2:One of the mediators and Senior Auditor in the Audit Office, Ananthapur.

PW3:ACTO working at Kadapa who is one of the mediators in seizure of entire file regarding the mother-in-law of PW1 related to the subject in issue.

PW4:Retired Joint Registrar who happened to issue job chart of the accused officer.

PW5:Friend of accused officer and was alleged to be present on the date of trap at the scene of offence.

PW6:Regional Manager, A.P. Housing Federation Ltd., Kadapa Region.

PW7:The Section Officer who was authorized as per Ex.P20 to identify the sanction orders duly issued by the concerned official under Ex.P21.

PW8:Recovery Officer during the said period of case working for House Societies.

PW9,Investigating officers in this case. PW10

and

PW11:

Circumstances which led defacto complainant to meet the Accused

Officer:

16.The case of the PW1/defacto complainant in a nutshell was that his mother-in-law sought for housing loan from A.P. Housing Fed to an extent of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) and said A.P.

Housing Fed released Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred

C.C.2/2015-34-ACB Crt., Knl.

only) and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on two spells in total

Rs.87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred only) only and that a house was already constructed by his mother-in-law with the said financial assistance but did not choose to re-pay the loan amount.

17.Due to non payment of the loan amount, the house of the mother- in-law of PW1 was issued a notice to place the said house in public auction in the month of August 2012 and demanded Rs.2,95,099/- (Rupees two lakh ninety five thousand and ninety nine only) towards loan amount and penal interest. Unable to pay the said amounts, the defacto complainant represented his mother-in-law, and went to accused officer who was recovery officer by then, and on his instructions, paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards recovery of loan amount and sought for reduction of penal interest and made application to that effect on 09.12.2012.

18.PW1 came to know in the month of January 2013 that his application was returned from Hyderabad to the accused officer and he met the accused officer and enquired about one time settlement. In order to submit favourable report, accused officer demanded Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and that PW1 came to know that unless the same is paid, favourable report will not be submitted and one time settlement would not be settled in his favour. PW1 also got the information that accused officer submitted the report in favour of PW1 and in order to get favourable report to be sent to Hyderabad Head Office and to get favourable orders from the Head

Office, the said bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to be paid to the accused officer. PW1 requested to reduce the bribe amount though he was not interested to pay the bribe. Accused officer reduced the same to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and he rushed to ACB officials and sought for doing justice to him.

C.C.2/2015-35-ACB Crt., Knl.

Status of Accused Officer:

19.As per Ex.P18 job chart and Ex.P21, it can safely be concluded that accused officer is a public servant. As per the case of prosecution, PW1 approached the ACB officials on 01.05.2013 and informed about his grievance to DSP, ACB and in turn DSP asked him to give the complaint in writing as such he submitted Ex.P1 with his own handwriting contains his signature and that it was received by DSP, ACB. During the course of cross examination of this PW1, by the learned defence counsel, he deposed that “ I scribed Ex.P1 complaint at Subose Tyre Agency shop after caught holding accused officer by

ACB officials, since accused officer was caught hold by ACB in Subose Tyre

Agency. Initially, I gave single paged complaint to the ACB on 01.05.2013.

Ex.P1 was drafted by me on seeing the draft complaint prepared by ACB officials, I mentioned the date underneath my signature as 02.05.2013 as per the instructions of ACB officials”.

Genuineness or otherwise of Ex.P1:

20.The learned defence counsel urged that Ex.P1 is a foisted document to harass the accused officer and that PW1 himself clearly deposed as aforesaid and that as per PW1, he lodged single paged complaint to ACB on 01.05.2013 and that Ex.P1 is not real complaint lodged by PW1 and thereby prayed this Court to disbelieve the entire case of prosecution which is based on Ex.P1.

21.This Court observed the re-examination done by the Spl.PP and at that time, PW1 deposed that he is not having copy of single paged complaint and that in the said single paged complaint, he stated that accused officer asking him to give Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and

PW1 asked ACB officials to help him. This Court also observed that the

C.C.2/2015-36-ACB Crt., Knl.

defence lawyer was permitted to further cross examine PW1 after eliciting the aforesaid contents by the Spl.PP during re-examination, and in that cross examination PW1 admitted that he had fear in mind that if he did not support

ACB case, ACB may retain him in India and that he has to return to Dubai on 15.01.2022.

22.On careful perusal of entire case of prosecution and several defences put up by the accused officer, this Court observed that there was no point which could be relied upon to believe the version of PW1 that he lodged single paged complaint. Had it been the real version of PW1 that he gave single paged complaint to the DSP, ACB and later on the date of trap, at about alleged time of 2 P.M., he scribed Ex.P1 complaint by looking at some other draft complaint, then PW5 who happened to be the person in whose shop the alleged trap was done on the accused officer, then why PW5 did not choose to open his mouth regarding any such situation wherein PW1 sat in his office and

ACB officials gave a copy to him so that he went on copying the same to prepare Ex.P1 before this Court. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence or probabilities which could satisfy this Court that ACB officials bore grudge on accused officer so that they tried their level best and influenced PW1 to make him prepare Ex.P1 so that they can initiate action against the accused officer using PW1. Though the written statement submitted by accused officer disclose that the present case is clear with the evidence of PW1 that at the instance of ACB officials PW1 prepared Ex.P1 at Subose Tyre Agency shop on 03.05.2013 affixing his signature with 02.05.2013 date, Court shall not believe the case of prosecution, this Court cannot consider the same basing on the aforesaid findings of this Court. Hence, Ex.P1 is presumed to be a genuine document duly filed by PW1 at the DSP office, ACB on its date and

PW1 sought for appropriate action against the accused officer.

C.C.2/2015-37-ACB Crt., Knl.

Factual matrix regarding loan, no-repayment, demand notices and

auction notices:

23.Further, to come to a confirmed conclusion regarding the contents of Ex.P1, prosecution is bound to establish that whether loan was sanctioned to T. Mahamada Bee/mother-in-law of PW1 or not. Prosecution exhibited

Ex.P16 which was nothing but statement of House Fed and it was dated 17.12.2000 and 07.07.2001 and the said document clearly disclose about amount sanctioned was Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) and towards first installment it was Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand and five hundred only) and towards second phase amount it was

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and towards third phase no amount was credited. This Ex.P16 clearly disclose about the statement showing loan obtained by T. Mahamada Bee to an extent of Rs.87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred only). The prosecution is also bound to establish that the said lady did not choose to repay the said amounts as contended by

PW1 in Ex.P1. Prosecution exhibited Ex.P16 which shows that T. Mahamada

Bee was granted loan of Rs.87,500/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred only) in two spells in total and Ex.P6 which is auction notice, dated 27.08.2012, clearly disclose about the said fact of non payment of loan amount as such issuance of Ex.P6 came into picture. Ex.P6 is the document marked through PW1 and it clearly shows the name of mother-in-law of PW1 at column-4 wherein the auction notice was in the name of the said lady T.

Mahamada Bee that due amount to be paid by her is Rs.2,95,099/- (Rupees two lakh ninety five thousand and ninety nine only). The said document is appearing to have been issued by the accused officer. Basing on these documents, it can safely be concluded that prosecution established that loan was applied by T. Mahamada Bee and granted under Ex.P16 and she did not choose to pay the amounts as such, auction notice under Ex.P6 was issued by the accused officer.

C.C.2/2015-38-ACB Crt., Knl.

24.Since Ex.P6 was issued to T. Mahamada Bee, PW1 approached the accused officer. Prosecution has to establish the said fact. As per Ex.P1, and the evidence of PW1, he clearly deposed that “While so in the year 2012,

A.P. Housing Fed issued auction notice stating that my mother-in-law has to pay Rs.2,95,099/- (Rupees two lakh ninety five thousand and ninety nine only).

Immediately, I met the accused officer who is incharge of Kadiri, he stated that if we pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), they would stop the auction.”

The prosecution should also establish that for what purpose PW1 met the accused officer. As per the job nature of the accused officer under E.P18, accused officer is holding post of Assistant Registrar/Recovery Officer, A.P.

Co-operative Housing Fed Ltd., Ananthapur district and his nature of job is to examine loan proposals of the Corporation house building societies and recommending to the Regional Manager for further action. The other duty is to verify death claim submitted by CHBS and recommending to the Regional

Manager for further action. Another duty is preparation of one time settlement/OTS referred to the Recovery Officer and inspection of OTS, proposals and sending to the Regional Manager House Fed, for necessary action. The other duty is initiation of auction of recovery of over due amount through legal action. Periodical inspection of CHBS, issuance of instructions to the societies for maintenance of books of accounts and other records as well as to follow the other instructions and guidelines issued by the Managing

Director, A.P. Housing Fed, Hyderabad from time to time. Under these job chart, the examination of loan proposals and preparation of one time settlement proposals and thereby recommending it to the Regional Manager for auction, is within the ambit of the accused officer.

25.Since the accused officer is holding the said post wherein he is capable of preparing the one time settlement proposals, and dealing with

C.C.2/2015-39-ACB Crt., Knl.

initiation of action for recovery of over due amount through legal action, PW1 approached him. Hence, the defence put up by the accused officer that PW1 never lodged Ex.P1 and that on the date of trap it was prepared after conclusion of the trap and that there is no necessity of PW1 meeting him, is not to be believed.

26.As per the evidence of PW1, he met the accused officer and requested to waive penal interest and also paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by way of D.D. along with requisition to the accused officer to settle the case for principal amount only by waving away the penal interest. On that issue, it is the version of the PW1 that accused officer demanded bribe of

Rs.20,000/-. PW1 evidence further goes to show that when he contacted the accused officer over phone, accused officer stated that he has to spend

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for forwarding the file to the head office. Further, it is the evidence of PW1 that after one week when he again contacted the accused officer saying that he cannot pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), accused officer asked him to arrange atleast

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and hand over the same at Kadiri and that when the accused officer was contacted by PW1 over phone, accused officer asked him to come to Subose Tyre Agency shop, near Mayura

Lodge, Ananthapur and to hand over the amount on 03.05.2013. The evidence of PW1 further goes to show that he rushed to DSP, ACB when he contacted a Home Guard staying in their street, and on his advice, he approached the ACB officials.

27.During the course of cross examination, this witness faced cross examination from Spl.PP on certain aspects as he was permitted to be declared as hostile witness towards some aspects and during said cross examination by the Spl.PP this witness admitted that on 01.05.2013, he met

C.C.2/2015-40-ACB Crt., Knl.

the accused officer at Kadiri bus stop and expressed his inability to pay

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and that accused officer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and instructed to pay the said amounts on 03.05.2013 at Subose Tyre Agency shop and this witness PW1 agreed to pay the same and that work will not be done without said payment by PW1 to the accused officer.

28.During the course of cross examination by the counsel for accused officer, it was elicited that PW1 admitted that before issuance of auction notice (Ex.P6), accused officer issued three demand notices and other notices under various provisions of law. Ex.D1 to D3 were also marked through PW1. During the course of cross examination, it was the suggestion put to this witness by the accused officer counsel that since the said notices were not received by PW1, auction notice under Ex.P6 was affixed to the house wall and the said suggestion was admitted by this witness. So also another suggestion was put to this witness that this PW1 requested the accused officer not to affix auction notice to the wall, but accused officer refused the request of PW1 and affixed the said notice to the house wall stating that he has to discharge his duties as per law. That suggestion was also admitted by PW1. Another suggestion put to this witness was that no bidder came forward, auction was adjourned on 27.08.2012, it was also admitted by this witness.

29.The written arguments of the accused officer also disclose the contention of the accused officer that he discharged his legitimate duties in issuing demand notice and other notices covered under various provisions of law periodically under Ex.D1 to D3 and that he pressurized to pay the loan amount including the penal interest totaling an amount of Rs.2,77,309/- (Rupees two lakh seventy seven thousand three hundred and nine only) and issued Ex.P6 on 27.08.2012 and that the complainant developed grudge

C.C.2/2015-41-ACB Crt., Knl.

against him and approached the ACB officials and alleged false allegations against the accused officer and implicated in this case.

30.On careful perusal of Ex.D1 to D3, this Court observed that Ex.D1 was dated 29.12.2011 and it was having the signature of PW1 showing the receipt of said notice. Ex.D1 appears to have been issued by the accused officer R. Subbaiah as Recovery Officer. Ex.D2 is dated 20.01.2012 appearing to have been issued by the accused officer R.Subbaiah and the signature of PW1 is also appearing on said Ex.D2 showing the receipt of the same on 21.01.2012. Ex.D1 disclose that the notice holder is directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 20.01.2012 at 11 A.M., at SDLCO office, Kadiri. The notice further disclose that the notice against whom it was issued was to show cause against the issuance of certificate U/Sec.71(2) of the Act for the recovery of the amount due failing which, the matter will be decided ex-parte and certificate will be issued for the recovery of the amount.

Ex.D1 do not bear any seal in the place allotted for affixing the seal of A.P.

Housing Fed, Ananthapur. Ex.D2 is dated 20.01.2012 addressed to

T. Mahamada Bee/mother-in-law of PW1 and as per the contents of said notice along with accrued interest, due amounts are to be paid and that in case of failure of payment, the certificate shall be executed for the recovery of the arrears under 17(2) of APCS Act, 1964. It was dated 20.01.2012 and was appearing to have been received on 21.01.2012 by PW1. As far as Ex.D3 is concerned, it is a demand notice prior to sale of mortgaged immovable property attachment of immovable property. It is the notice dated 01.05.2012 directing to pay due amount within ten days from the date of receipt of notice failing which properties specified in the schedule shop shall be attached and sold. Even the said notice was also received by PW1 as it bears his signature.

Ex.D3 was received by PW1 on 26.06.2012.

C.C.2/2015-42-ACB Crt., Knl.

31.On careful perusal of Ex.D3, it clearly shows that it was not issued by the accused officer. With the said observation, this Court came to a considerable view that PW1 was managed to speak to suit the defence of the accused officer. It is pertinent to mention here that the complaint and the case is pertaining to the year 2013 and PW1 entered into the witness box on 27.12.2021. As such, due to lapse of considerable years, accused officer appears to have been successfully attempted to manage and manipulate the evidence of PW1. The corresponding suggestion regarding Ex.D1 to D3 and about the alleged discharging of duties by the accused officer as per the law and denying the request of PW1 not to affix the auction notice on the wall disclose that they are stage managed suggestions and there is no truth lying in it. As per the contentions of the accused officer and the prosecution, Ex.P6 is auction notice affixed on the wall of the house. But, Ex.P6 disclose that it is public auction publication dated nil. The dates of conducting auction/proposed auction was mentioned as 27.08.2012 and 28.08.2012. Ex.P6 also disclose that “power of stalling the auction on the dates of auction is rest with sale officer/R.Subbaiah i.e., accused officer herein.”

32.As could be seen from the aforesaid information placed before this Court by way of evidence by both the prosecution and defence, it is clear that accused officer is in the position of either proceeding further with the sale or to stop the sale. Ex.P6 is appearing undated and it was the original public auction publication marked through PW1.

Demand of bribe and official favour:

33.Now the point to be considered is whether the prosecution proved the alleged fact of demand of bribe by the accused officer.

C.C.2/2015-43-ACB Crt., Knl.

34.As per Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, accused officer demanded initial bribe of an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) in order to submit favourable report and thereby to get the favourable orders from the head office. It is the contention of the PW1 through his evidence that when auction notice was issued in the year 2012 by A.P.

Housing Fed, stating the house of mother-in-law of PW1 will be put to auction and that she has to pay Rs.2,95,099/- (Rupees two lakh ninety five thousand and ninety nine only), he rushed to the accused officer and that accused officer is incharge of Kadiri and accused officer in turn stated that if he pays

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), they would stop the auction and that he paid said amount by way of D.D. and handed over the same along with requisition to accused officer to settle the case for principal amount only, by waiving the penal interest. It is also his evidence that three months after the said situation, he contacted accused officer over phone and accused officer stated that PW1 should spend Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for forwarding the file to the head office and after one week when PW1 contacted accused officer over phone and stating that he could not pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) , accused officer asked him to arrange to pay atleast Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and to hand over the same to him at Kadiri and after some days again PW1 contacted accused officer over phone, accused officer asked him to come to Subose Tyre Agency shop, near

Mayura Lodge, Ananthapur and hand over the said amount on 03.05.2013.

35.During the course of cross examination by the accused officer through his counsel, PW1 deposed by admitting that on 03.05.2013 morning he telephoned accused officer to know about his whereabouts and that accused officer informed that he was at market at Ananthapur and that PW1 requested him to wait at Mourya Lodge so that he can meet him and speak about the loan settlement and accused officer did not inform him on

C.C.2/2015-44-ACB Crt., Knl.

01.05.2013 that he would be at Subose Tyre Agency shop and asked him to come on 03.05.2013. PW1 also deposed in the cross examination by admitting that he used to enquire with the accused officer over phone whether any relief was granted by the Chairman. It is also the replies of PW1 that on every occasion accused officer used to tell him that he cannot do anything as the decision has to be taken by the head office and that he did not give any complaint against the accused officer to the superior officers of the accused officer including the Chairman that he contacted the accused officer over phone and that accused officer asked him to give Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards expenses for forwarding the file to the head office. It is also the evidence of PW1 that he did not mention the details of phone numbers relating to his phone number and phone number of accused officer and the call details either in his statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. or U/Sec.164

Cr.P.C. and that accused officer asked him to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) towards expenses and reduced it to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) .

36.The usage of terminology of “expenses” was made by PW1 in his evidence. The proposed manner of usage of said expenses was for the purpose of forwarding the file to the head office by the accused officer. It can be understood that the said expenses are nothing but the bribe. PW1 categorically stated that he did not complain to the higher officers about the accused officer demanding the expenses and non mentioning the phone details in the statement given by him both to the ACB officials and to the

Magistrate, do not vanish the underlined process of demand for bribe by the

accused officer. As explained supra, it is a clear case where the official favour in sending favourable report in favour of PW1’s mother-in-law was within the hands of the accused officer and in order to send favourable report to the higher authorities, is also in the hands of accused officer and as per Ex.P18,

C.C.2/2015-45-ACB Crt., Knl.

discussed in detail at the beginning of the judgment, it can safely be concluded that it is the job nature of the accused officer wherein his recommendations are to be forwarded to the higher authorities at Hyderabad. The expression recommendation was used in Ex.P18 job chart and as per the said expression, the report of the accused officer and its contents, definitely leave its own impact in the final decision to be taken by the superior authorities. The preparation of proposals regarding one time settlement, is vested with the recovery officer so also the inspection that when official favour is held up and based on the report of the accused officer, the version of PW1 that accused officer demanded for the so called expenses, to tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) later on reduced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) , is believed by this Court. Though the cross examination tried to give a separate picture as to the concept of non mentioning of phone calls, details in

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. and in Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statements, so as to dilute the contention of PW1 regarding payment made to accused officer, this Court is of the view that a futile attempt was made by the accused officer. Moreover, this

Court observed that PW1 was suggested by the accused officer that PW1 used to enquire accused officer over phone. Making phone calls by PW1 to the accused officer is thereby admitted by accused officer and moreover, the topic for discussion in the phone calls was with regard to granting of any relief by the Chairman. It shows that the contention of PW1 that he was constantly contacting the accused officer over phone regarding issue involved regarding one time settlement, is established.

37.As far as the demand of bribe on the date of trap i.e.,03.05.2013 is concerned, PW1 in his chief examination clearly deposed that on 03.05.2013 at 9.30 A.M. he went to ACB office and met the DSP and about introduction of two government officials and vice-versa. PW1 also deposed about handing over of the copy of the complaint to government officials and

C.C.2/2015-46-ACB Crt., Knl.

enquired about the contents of the same was made with the PW1 and also about affirming the contents of the complaint to be genuine by PW1 and also about enquiring whether there are any money transactions or disputes by PW1 with the accused officer.

38.PW1 further deposed with regard to proceedings towards Subose

Tyre Agency shop and reaching the said shop on the date of trap and also about the instructions given to him by the DSP, ACB as to unless demand is made, PW1 is not supposed to give the amounts. PW1 deposed regarding reaching of the said locality at about 11.30 A.M. along with other team members and that when he went inside of Subose Tyre Agency shop, he observed accused officer sitting on the chair opposite the shop owner and that when he wished accused officer, accused officer enquired PW1 whether he brought the amount or not. On that, PW1 stated that he brought the amount required for expenses and then accused officer asked him to come behind partitioned curtain and then PW1 gave amounts with his right hand and accused officer received said amounts with his left hand and counted the same with his both hands.

39.As far as cross examination on this aspect is concerned, PW1 denied the suggestion that accused officer refused to receive the amounts by pushing the amount with his hands and that PW1 kept the amount on the table.

Plea of alibi :

40.This Court also observed that PW1 in his cross examination faced by him by the Spl.PP, categorically admitted that on 01.05.2013, he met the accused officer at Kadiri bus stop and expressed his inability to pay

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and that accused officer reduced

C.C.2/2015-47-ACB Crt., Knl.

the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and instructed to pay the said amount on 03.05.2013 at Subosu Tyre Agency shop. Surprisingly, the accused officer by projecting the defence of alibi brought DW1 into the witness box along with Ex.D4 with intention to project the defence as if accused officer was not at Kadiri on 01.05.2013 and he was busy in attending meeting at Kadapa and was held up there from 10 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. This

Court also also observed that while cross examining PW1, a suggestion was put up to PW1 by the accused officer that there is no document to show that

PW1 met accused officer at Kadiri bus stop on 01.05.2013 at 12.30 P.M. This

Court observed that though the accused officer tried to level best in manipulating the witness on the crucial point of the alleged date by introducing the time as 12.30 P.M., nowhere PW1 disclosed about the timing of meeting the accused officer on 01.05.2013. Ex.P1 is silent on that aspect so also admission made by PW1 during the course of cross examination done by

Spl.PP. The said aspect of time i.e., 12.30 P.M., is not at all considered by this Court for the sole reason that the defence of alibi put up by the accused officer is not certain. Ex.D4 though disclose about the name of the accused officer, there is no signature of accused officer in the said Ex.D4. Ex.D4 was not produced by the Chairman, A.P. Housing Fed, Hyderabad or one of the

Directors but it was produced by DW1 i.e., P. Ravi Babu. The said person is not the person who prepared the minutes on the alleged date. As such, the very production of Ex.D4 though the said person, appears to be not admissible. DW1 in his cross examination categorically deposed that after conclusion of the meeting at 5.30 P.M., signatures were affixed on the minutes. But, Ex.D4 do not disclose the signature of the participants. This

Court also observed that he is not the person who worked during the period of said Ex.D4 at the head office, Hyderabad so that he can produce the said document before this Court. He did not even worked at the office of Kadapa and by the date of giving evidence before this Court, he is working as

C.C.2/2015-48-ACB Crt., Knl.

Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Department, Chandragiri. As such, the very possession of Ex.D4 or procuring Ex.D4 appearing to be from the office of A.P.

Housing Fed, Kadapa by DW1, became doubtful. Hence, this Court did not consider Ex.D4 and thereby the plea of alibi put up by the accused officer.

Further, in addition to the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the view that

Ex.P1 clearly disclose that “Yesterday i.e., on 01.05.2013, I met the accused officer and enquired about our one time settlement and he stated that in order to get the favourbale orders from the Head Office, Hyderabad, he needs

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards bribe”. When Ex.P1 clearly discloses about the meeting of accused officer and admitted by PW1 during the course of cross examination by the Spl.PP, admission of PW1 during the course of cross examination by the learned defence counsel that he met the accused officer at 12.30 P.M. at Kadiri bus stop on 01.05.2013, it can be said that accused officer tried to manage the witness but witness could not stand confirmly with the false version regarding the time on 01.05.2013. This

Court is of the view that the plea of alibi as required under law, to be proved, was not proved by the accused officer.

41.Now the concept of demand of bribe is concerned on the date of 03.05.2013 at the shop of PW5, PW5 is the crucial witness, even as per the case of prosecution and the defence. The evidence of PW5 goes to show that brother of PW5 is running Subose Trye Agency Shop, Ananthapur for 10 years and that he saw the accused officer in his brother’s shop and also deposed that on 13.05.2013, when he went to the shop of his brother to meet his brother, his brother requested him to look after the shop as he wanted to go to

Bank and that two customers came and then PW1 also came at 11.45 A.m., and accused officer came to his brothers shop at 11.30 A.M., and accused officer kept his vehicle outside and sat inside the shop infront of him waiting for his brother. The evidence of PW5 further disclose that he thought that PW1

C.C.2/2015-49-ACB Crt., Knl.

was customer and hence enquired him whether he wanted any tyres and on that by showing the accused officer, PW1 stated that he came to meet the accused officer but not for tyres. It is his evidence that when PW1 tried to give cash to the accused officer, accused officer did not receive it, therefore, PW1 kept the amount on the table but accused officer by leaving that place went inside. PW5 also deposed that when PW1 went out, police came. This PW1 also deposed that some strangers came and something was happening and they took the accused officer along with them and that he suspected something and immediately he made a phone call to his brother and also deposed that the amount which was kept on the table was Rs.10,000/-.

42.At this stage, this witness was sought to be declared as hostile and after getting permission, Spl.PP cross examined this witness. This witness went on deposing that accused officer generally keeps his vehicle near the shop and go to the office for his work and that he knows the accused officer through his brother and observed the same for about 5 to 6 times. All the suggestions were put to this witness regarding his previous statement given under Ex.P19 and all were denied by this witness.

43.When this witness was cross examined by the accused officer through his counsel, this witness admitted that PW1 came to the shop and gave shake hand to the accused officer. It was also the evidence of PW5 that

PW1 also enquired the accused officer whether head office has taken any decision for one time settlement of his mother-in-law housing loan or not and that accused officer replied that he has not received any communication from the head office and that at that time PW1 took amount from his pocket and tried to give to the accused officer, but accused officer pushed PW1 aside with his hands and hence PW1 kept the amount on the table and left the shop, whereas, the accused officer went outside the shop by calling loudly PW1 but

C.C.2/2015-50-ACB Crt., Knl.

PW1 did not respond and went away. PW5 also deposed that the shop belongs to his brother and his two partners and that ACB did not seize the partnership deed of his brother and his two partners.

44.On careful observation of the testimony of PW5, it can safely be concluded that if his evidence is considered for a moment regarding chief examination, as well as the cross examination done by the accused officer, the prosecution successfully established the meeting of accused officer by PW1 at the so called mentioned shop i.e., Subose Tyre Agency Shop on the date of trap. It is for the accused officer now to explain as to how and for what purpose he came to the shop of brother of PW5. If at all the evidence of PW5 is considered, the date mentioned by him was 13.05.2013, as such the entire evidence should not be believed at all. If at all it is believed that the date which was mentioned by him and the incident which took place was not on 13.05.2013 and that it was on 03.05.2013, the said suggestion was not admitted by PW5. Hence, the entire admissions made by PW5 during the course of cross examination done by the accused officer, will have no effect at all as by the said date i.e., on 13.05.2013, no such incident took place at all.

As such, the evidence of PW5 can be brushed out totally. If at all the said date is believed, then accused officer was already behind the bars by that date.

45.If another version is taken into consideration that might be lapse of several years by then (by the date of giving evidence), date is wrongly mentioned then, what prevented PW5 deposing about the alleged shaking hands by PW1 with the accused officer and about the topic which went on for discussion between PW1 and accused officer and about taking out the amounts from his pocket and giving it to the accused officer and accused officer pushing PW1 aside with his hands. PW5 did not choose to mention all these things in his examination in chief. Surprisingly, just by looking at the

C.C.2/2015-51-ACB Crt., Knl.

cash alleged to have been placed on the table by PW1, PW5 could mention the exact amounts that it is Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only). This is highly out of imagination. It was completely futile attempt made by the accused officer in projecting the evidence of PW5 in such a manner that it did not help the accused officer in any manner and also the evidence of DW1 and

Ex.D4.

46.For the aforesaid reasons, this Court strongly believed the case of the prosecution that PW1 approached the accused officer for one time settlement and that accused officer demanded the bribe to do official favour of sending favourable report to the head office, Hyderabad and in turn to get favourable orders from Head Office.

Acceptance of bribe:

47.Now the point to be considered is whether accused officer accepted the bribe or not. The evidence of PW1 in the said aspect was that “

Then I went inside the Subose Tyre shop and observed accused officer was sitting in a chair opposite the shop owner. Then, I wished accused officer and enquired him whether I brought the amount or not. I said that I brought the amount for expenses. Then, accused officer asked me to come behind the partitioned curtain. Then, I gave the amount with my right hand and accused officer received the same with his left hand and counted the same with his both hands and handed over the amount to the shop owner who kept the amount on his table”.

48.The evidence of PW5 is different to the evidence given by PW1.

PW5 stated that “When PW1 tried to give cash to accused officer, he did not receive it. Therefore, PW1 kept the amount on table but accused officer by leaving that place, went inside”.

C.C.2/2015-52-ACB Crt., Knl.

49.During the course of cross examination by the accused officer,

PW5 started giving new version stating that PW1 gave shake hand to the accused officer and enquired about one time settlement of his mother-in-law housing loan and whether accused officer received any such communication till then and at that time, PW1 took out amount from his pocket and tried to give to accused officer, but accused officer pushed aside PW1 with his hands and hence PW1 kept the amount on the table and left the shop. Whereas, accused officer went outside the shop by calling PW1 loudly, but PW1 did not respond and went away.

Sec. 20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue

advantage.—Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11.]

50.As per Sec.20 of P.C. Act, 1988, the prosecution could establish the presence of PW1 and the accused officer on the spot and also could establish the tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) .PW1 says that accused officer enquired about the cash and when it was paid by Pw1 with his right hand, accused officer took it with his left hand and counted the same with his both hands and hand over the amount to shop

C.C.2/2015-53-ACB Crt., Knl.

owner. On the other hand, PW5 stated that PW1 took the amounts from his pocket and tried to give to the accused officer, accused officer pushed PW1 aside with his hands, hence PW1 kept the amount on the table. PW1 deposed about the demand made by accused officer whereas PW5 did not choose to.

PW1 clearly deposed that accused officer enquired about the bringing of required amounts for “Expenses” (For sending favbourable report from the office at Kadapa to the head office at Hyderabad).

51.As discussed earlier, both PWs 1 and 5 deposed about the tainted currency. Prosecution established the presence of PW1 as well as the accused officer and also about the cash and the demand made by accused officer. It is for the accused officer to explain about his purpose behind coming to the shop of brother of PW5 and the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof about the presence of PW1 and tainted currency on the spot and the onus now shifted on to the accused officer. The chemical test resulted positive with regard to both the hands of accused officer under MOs 3 and 4.

It is the contention of the accused officer that even as per the evidence of

PW1, during the course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that “It is true I did not hear the words of accused officer to take away the amount and went outside and gave signal”. But, this Court observed the suggestion put to the

PW1 by the accused officer just prior to the aforesaid suggestion. It was that “accused officer refused to receive the amount by pushing the amounts with his hands and you kept the amount on the table”. This suggestion was denied by PW1. Though, it is the evidence of PW5 that cash was placed on the table and as per the evidence of PW1 that it was taken, counted and given to brother of PW5, no positive evidence was placed by the accused officer to establish his defence. Per contra, prosecution examined the inner linings of left side shirt pocket of the accused officer which reacted to the solution in phenolphthalein test. Observation made by the Court with regard to MO6 was “almost plain in colour”, it is to be kept in mind that case is pertaining to the

C.C.2/2015-54-ACB Crt., Knl.

year 2013 and the seized MO6 was placed before this Court almost after 12 long years. Since it is the nature of chemical reaction that they change over lapse of considerable period of time, as such, the appearance of solution that it is almost plain in colour, cannot be termed as if the inner linings of the left side shirt pocket resultant solution did not change. Accused officer failed to establish by way of putting any rebuttal evidence and could not answer the presumption drawn by this Court U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act.

52.The immediate expression and the immediate response of the accused officer during post trap proceedings, are to the effect that he received the bribe for having forward the favourable report in favour of PW1 for one time settlement by reducing the penal interest on repayment of housing loan taken by mother-in-law of PW1 and also by luring Pw1 that he would get the favourable orders for one time settlement from the head office. The immediate response of the accused officer in Ex.P12 goes to establish that accused officer spoke truth. Though it is the defence of the accused officer that post trap proceedings are totally false and his true version is not mentioned, he would have opened his mouth at the time of producing him before the officer concerned/Judge after his arrest was affected, so that appropriate steps would have been taken on that aspect. But, no such efforts was appearing to have been made by the accused officer.

53.Though the cross examination of investigating officers with regard to the G.D. entries and keeping blanks in the columns where G.D. entries are to be noted, were not done, it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Moreover, all the defences put up by the accused officer were not at all convincing in nature. This Court also observed that it was the serious defence put up by the accused officer that without taking appropriate permission from the higher officials, FIR was registered against the accused officer. Had it been the case, sanction orders under Ex.P21, would have not been granted. Mere procedural

C.C.2/2015-55-ACB Crt., Knl.

lapses would not ruin the case of prosecution. It was never the defence of the accused officer that the investigating officers much particularly DSP, ACB and other Inspectors bore grudge against the accused officer so that all the defences put up by the accused officer would have been believed by this

Court. This Court also observed that the tainted currency also tallied with that of MO5 and this Court is of the view that prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt with the help of its prosecution witnesses and exhibits marked on his behalf so also MOs marked.

54.The accused officer cannot take shelter under the judgments i.e.,

Vadvivelu Thever vs The State of Madras, T. Ramesh Reddy vs State of

A.P. and Suraj Mall vs State of Delhi Administration, for the sole reason that in the present case on hand, PW1 fared well with regard to himself approaching the accused officer, seeking for one time settlement, demand of bribe by the accused officer, payment of the same by him and accepting the bribe by accused officer, were all clearly deposed. In the present case on hand, it is pecular situation where the accused officer tried to some how manage the PW1, PW5 and thereby made a futile attempt of creating a doubt in the mind of court about the real fact behind the case and route cause behind

PW1 rushing to the ACB authorities. New set of un-believable contents were injected in the evidence of PW1 as well as PW5 but the said attempt of the accused officer, was not understood by both the defacto complainant and so called independent witness/PW5 and could not fare well on equivalent with that of the projected defence by the accused officer. For that reason, the accused officer cannot claim shelter under the aforesaid judgments where the factual matrix totally was different and it was held that sole testimony of the complainant regarding demand, acceptance of bribe by the accused officer must be true, free from doubt and evidence should be wholly reliable and the

C.C.2/2015-56-ACB Crt., Knl.

inconsistent statements becomes un-reliable and unworthy testimony before the Court.

55.The accused cannot even take shelter under the judgment reported in 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 SC between B. Jayaraj vs State of A.P.

regarding demand for illegal gratification and failure to prove through the complainant has he did not support the prosecution case. In the present case on hand, accused officer even after a lapse of more than 8 years, could farewell in the criminal aspects of demand of bribe, acceptance by the accused officer and about official favour and the real dispute, while giving evidence before this Court. Though, it clearly appeared to this Court that accused officer wanted stage manage PW1 and trying to demolish from the existence of Ex.P1, it became un-successful for the reasons mentioned and discussed above. In the reported judgment, the case ended in acquittal as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the sole reason that proof of demand was not sufficiently established by the prosecution unlike in this case,

PW1 clearly deposed about the demand made by the accused officer and it was established properly by the prosecution. Hence, accused officer cannot take shelter under the said judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

56.Accused officer also cannot take shelter under the judgment of

Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Cr. Appeal No.45/2011 for the sole reason

that in the present case on hand, though the accused officer tried to demolish the very existence of Ex.P1 and tried to project as if there was another document initially filed by him, it cannot be elicited in any manner and more over one sheet as replied by investigating officer/PW9, includes the very contents of all the facts mentioned by PW1. The Spl.PP could establish the contents of Ex.P1 during the course of cross examination of PW1 on the said aspect and so called alleged single sheet report.

C.C.2/2015-57-ACB Crt., Knl.

57.The judgment relied upon by the accused officer with regard to

V. Sejappa vs State by Police Inspector, Lokayukta on the aspect of alibi cannot be taken into consideration as it was a introduction for the first time made by the accused officer by way of cross examining PW1, introducing as if he met the accused officer on 01.05.2013 at Kadiri bus stop. It was never the case of the prosecution though it was tried to be projected during the defence.

After a lapse of so many considerable days and months, it is impossible to remember that on the alleged day of 01.05.2013, PW1 met the accused officer in the bus stop. By projecting the new aspect, accused officer tried to invent a new theory by modifying the facts of the case and thereby taking the plea of alibi. When the very plea of alibi not established as required under law by the accused officer, the judgment through which the accused officer intends to take shelter, will not help him in any aspect. In the relied judgment mentioned supra, the prosecution could not establish its case and the Hon’ble Supreme

Court acquitted on the ground that demand was not proved as the complainant turned hostile and gave a version that the complainant returned the amount taken from the accused for purchase of diesel and except recovery of bribe, all circumstances are against the story of the prosecution, but in the present case on hand, it is not at all the situation and hence accused cannot rely upon the said judgment.

58.As far as the judgment relied upon by the accused officer in Trilok

Chandra Maurya vs State reported in ALD (Crl.) 2011 page-672, wherein it was held that when the maker of FIR unable to speak about the allegations contained in it, the contents of FIR become ousted. In the present case on hand, though the mother-in-law of PW1 is not examined, it was PW1 who was dealing with the dispute of one time settlement and subjecting the house for auction. Non examination of said T. Mahamada Bee, do not vitiate entire

C.C.2/2015-58-ACB Crt., Knl.

proceedings and evidence of investigating officer and as such, it cannot be said that the said judgment is made applicable to the present set of facts of this case. Moreover, in the relied judgment, prosecution miserable failed in proving demand of illegal gratification by the accused and it even failed to establish pending official favour with the accused either on the date of demand or on the date of trap. Hence, accused therein was acquitted. The said factual matrix do not match the facts to the present case on hand.

59.The foundational aspects of PW1 and accused officer meeting on the fixed spot at Subose Tyre Agency shop on the given date i.e., on 03.05.2013, is established by the prosecution and the demand was also established by the prosecution and the presumption U/Sec.20 was safely taken into by the prosecution but accused officer failed to rebut the said presumption by projecting his defence. As such, the accused officer cannot take shelter under judgment between Haridev Sharma vs State of Delhi. The vital parts of demand, acceptance, official favour pending and the seizure of the tainted currency from the possession of the accused officer and resultant solutions of both hands as well as the inner linings of the shirt, clearly establish the guilt of the accused officer. Hence, the said judgment cannot relied upon by the accused officer.

60.This Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Neeraj Dutta Vs State, dated 15.12.2022, wherein it was held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is sine qua non in order to establish the guilt U/Sec.7 and Sec.13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that either by direct evidence or through documentary evidence, the demand for illegal gratification can be proved. In the present case on hand, PW1 categorically deposed about the demand made by the accused officer. Hence, it being direct evidence, this

Court came to a considered view that it is sufficient to come to a conclusion

C.C.2/2015-59-ACB Crt., Knl.

that there was demand from the accused officer /public servant. By way of circumstantial evidence and the recovery of tainted currency, prosecution established receipt of illegal gratification / bribe by the accused officer. This

Court is of the view that in the present case on hand, the bribe on the day of trap and it is nothing but an offence punishable U/Sec.13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the

Act, is established by the prosecution. Since the presumption of law U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act, is distinct from presumption of fact referred to with regard to demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification, all are based on proof and foundational facts with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant and those foundational facts are proved before this Court by relevant oral and documentary evidence and hence this Court is of the view that Sec.20 aptly applies to the given set of facts. Since the presumption is not rebutted successfully by the accused officer apart from the detail discussion above, this Court is of the view that prosecution established the guilt of the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt.

61.This Court also relied upon the judgment dated 29.01.2024 between S. Chandrasekhar vs State of A.P., represented by P.P wherein the complainant turned hostile, but the Hon’ble High Court convicted the accused relying upon the aspects regarding circumstantial evidence. Hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt.

62.In the result, Accused Officer is found guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

C.C.2/2015-60-ACB Crt., Knl.

Sd/-N. Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

63.Accused officer is heard on quantum of sentence and he pleaded mercy and stated that he can’t do anything and further stated that his wife is suffering from heart ailment and that his two children i.e., daughter already completed B.Tech and son is pursuing B.Tech and stated that he needs to settle them and also stated that he has no financial capacity and that it should be taken into consideration. When accused officer is informed about his right to prefer appeal, he stated that he has capacity to engage counsel at appellate

Court.

Heard both the learned defence counsel as well as the Spl.PP.

The learned defence counsel urged that the accused officer is with poor financial condition and that his children are not yet settled and that lenient view is to be taken into count while imposing punishment.

On the other hand, learned Spl.PP urged that the mother-in-law of defacto complainant is old aged woman and was harassed by the accused officer and that sufficient punishment is to be awarded.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the accused officer at the time of hearing on sentence, this Court is of the view that in any corner, lenient view cannot be taken in this case for the reasons mentioned by this Court in its detailed judgment. This

Court is of the view that sentencing the accused officer to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and further sentencing accused

C.C.2/2015-61-ACB Crt., Knl.

officer to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months, and awarding Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) out of total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) to PW1 towards compensation U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of justice.

64.In the result, accused officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Further, accused officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of remand already undergone by the accused officer i.e., from 03.05.2013 to 05.07.2013 shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Out of the said total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only), an amount of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is awarded towards compensation to the defacto complainant/PW1 U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by Accused officer is Rs.1,00,000/- +

Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only).

MOs.1 to 10 shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier.

Free copy of judgment is furnished to the Accused officer.

Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the District Co-operative

Officer, Ananthapur as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

C.C.2/2015-62-ACB Crt., Knl.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-N. Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: PW1: Shaik Shameer Basha PW2: B.Sundar Raju PW3: M.Srinivasa Murthy PW4: C.Ambaiah PW5: Y.Rama Subba Reddy PW6: M.Venkata Subbaiah PW7: K.Sampath Kumar PW8: A.Ravi Kumar PW9: C.Bhaskar Reddy PW10: D.Parthasarathi Reddy PW11: V.Giridhara

For Defence: DW1: P.Ravi Babu

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution: Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Photocopy of wedding card of complainant. Ex.P3: Photocopy of Registered Gift Deed, dated 17.11.2005. Ex.P4: Photocopy of Registered Will, dated 06.07.1992. Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P6: Auction notice, dated 27.08.2012 issued by A.O. Ex.P7: photocopy of requisition of complainant, dated 29.12.2012. Ex.P8: Photocopy of photograph relates to the house for which loan was applied. Ex.P9: Copy of complaint. Ex.P10: Mediator report-I. Ex.P11: Original R.C. Ex.P12: Post-trap proceedings.

C.C.2/2015-63-ACB Crt., Knl.

Ex.P13: Rough sketch. Ex.P14: Check memo (detailed report by A.O.). Ex.P15: Letter sent from head office Hyderabad to Regional Manager at Kadapa. Ex.P16: Attested xerox copy of statement showing Mahammadabi taking loan of Rs.87,000/- in two spells. Ex.P17: Mediator report-III, dated 03.05.2015. Ex.P18: Job chart of A.O. Ex.P19: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P20: Attested authorization letter. Ex.P21: Sanction order. Ex.P22: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8. Ex.P23: Original FIR in Cr.No.06/RCT/ATP/2013. Ex.P24: Nil search list. Ex.P25: Search list along with list of documents sent by L.W.13. Ex.P26: Letter, dated 02.05.2013 sent to District Audit Office and its reply.

For Defence:- Ex.D1: Demand notice, dated 29.12.2011. Ex.D2: Demand notice, dated 21.01.2012. Ex.D3: Demand notice, dated 26.06.2012. Ex.D4: Minutes of review meeting, dated 01.05.2013.

Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution: MO1: One sealed cover contains sample of sodium carbonate powder. MO2: One sealed cover contains sample of phenolphthalein powder. MO3: Pink colour solution bottle (left hand). MO4: Pale pink colour solution bottle (right hand). MO5: Xerox copies of currency notes (Rs.1000/- x 4, Rs.500/- x 12). MO6: Resultant solution of inner linings of left upper shirt pocket (solutions is almost plain in colour). MO7: White shirt with blue vertical lines. MO8: Sample of sodium carbonate powder used for dipping hands. MO9: Sodium carbonate powder used for dipping shirt inner linings. MO10: Sample of phenolphthalein powder.

For Defence: -Nil-

Sd/-N. Srividya,

C.C.2/2015-64-ACB Crt., Knl.

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

C.C.2/2015-65-ACB Crt., Knl.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES, KURNOOL.

C.C.No.2/2015

1. Date of OffencePrior to 02.05.2013

2.Date of Report or Complaint03.05.2013

3.Date of Apprehension of the 03.05.2013 Accused

4.Date of Release on bail05.07.2013

5.Date of Commencement of 27.12.2021 trial

6.Date of close of the trial04.08.2025

7.Date of Sentence of Order 28.11.2025

8.Explanation of delay and - remarks ComplainantThe State represented by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram Range, Ananthapuram. AccusedR. Subbaiah, S/o late R. Ramaiah, aged 52 years, Asst. Registrar/Recovery Officer, A.P. Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. OffencePublic servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for offence punishable U/Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. FindingAccused Officer found guilty.

Sentence In the result, Accused Officer is found guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of or Order Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

C.C.2/2015-66-ACB Crt., Knl.

Accused officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Further, accused officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of remand already undergone by the accused officer i.e., from 03.05.2013 to 05.07.2013 shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Out of the said total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only), an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is awarded towards compensation to the defacto complainant/PW1 U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C. Total fine amount payable by Accused officer is Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only). MOs.1 to 10 shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the Accused officer. Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the District Co- operative Officer, Ananthapur as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Sd/-N. Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Kurnool. Copy submitted to:

The Registrar(Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN Code No.522237. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau Headquarters, 2nd floor, A.P.Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada.

Copy to:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram. The Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B.Court, Kurnool.

APKU160000102020

Presented on : 29-12-2020 Registered on : 29-12-2020 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 5 years, 4 months, 10 days C.C.7/2020ACB Crt., Knl.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES:

AT KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt.N.Srividya, Spl.Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.7/2020

Between:

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram Range, Ananthapuram.… Complainant

Vs.

Sri Bandaru Chinna Pullaiah, S/o late Pullaiah, age 58 years, Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, Amadagur Mandal, Ananthapuram District. … Accused Officer

This case has been coming on 24.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of

Sri K. Ravindra Babu, and N. Shanmukam, Advocates for accused officer, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court passed the following:

C.C.7/2020-2-ACB Crt., Knl.

J U D G M E N T

The Accused Officer arraigned for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

02.One person by name G. Lakshmipathi S/o Venkata Ramana lodged report with the ACB authorities that he is resident of

Venakatanayanipalli, Amadagur mandal and that he was eking out his livelihood by attending contract works. It is his contention that his village

Surpanch by name K. Venkata Ramana got contract work under National

Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) to lay two cement roads worth Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) and that the said contract was given by him to him by said Surpanch and that they both entered into an agreement on 06.05.2018 to that effect and that they both attended the work and accused officer by name B. Chinna Pullaiah who was the then A.E.E. at

Panchayat Raj, was the person to inspect the work and to note down the same in M-book and get the bills sanctioned and that in the month of July 2018, the said contract work was already done and that the accused officer came to their village and noted down the work under M-books and informed the defacto complainant that the work already done was noted down in the M-books and left the place, but even after several days, when the defacto complainant observed that the amounts were not credited into his account, he went and met the accused officer, but the accused officer informed him that he noted down the work in M-books and that in order to send the same to his higher authorities for sanction of bill, usually accused officer demands for 5% of bribe over the wroth of the contract work but insisted for 3% worth of the contract and demanded the said bribe amount @ 3% over the worth of the contract work. It is the contention of the defacto complainant that since he was not at all willing to pay the bribe, he left the place. It is also the contention of the

C.C.7/2020-3-ACB Crt., Knl.

defacto complainant that on 04.10.2018, when he again went and met the accused officer in his office along with his younger brother by name Siva

Prasad and requested the accused officer to get the bills sanctioned, on that accused officer replied that unless demanded bribe amount i.e., 3% out of worth of contract, is paid, M-books will not be forwarded to the higher authorities for processing the bills. Having no other go and having understood the attitude of the accused officer that unless the bribe amount is paid, his work would not be attended, the defacto complainant agreed to pay the bribe amount and immediately, accused officer demanded to pay as much amount available with the defacto complainant by that time to be paid to him and forcibly took Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from the defacto complainant towards portion of the bribe amount and then instructed the defacto complainant that on 09.10.2018, in the evening hours, the rest of the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) should be given to him at the office of accused officer or at the place suggested by him. It is the contention of the defacto complainant that ACB authorities should do justice by apprehending the accused officer redhandedly while he was receiving the bribe amount.

(a)As per the case of prosecution, the said report was endorsed to one person by name R. Prathap Reddy, Inspector, ACB, Ananthapuram for conducting discreet inquiry and that after conducting discreet inquiry the said person made endorsement on the report to the effect that B.C.Pullaiah, A.E.E.,

Panchayat Raj Engineer Department of Ananthapuram District is carrying bad reputation in respect of corruption and that the contents of the complaint are genuine.

(b)The case of the prosecution is that basing on the endorsement and discreet inquiry report, a case in Cr.No.6/RCT/ATP/2018 was registered against the accused and after completion of investigation, and after obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused officer, charge sheet was filed.

C.C.7/2020-4-ACB Crt., Knl.

03.The learned predecessor of this Court, took cognizance of the offence under Sec.7, Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption (P.C.)

Act 1988, against the Accused officer.

04.On appearance of the Accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

05.On 02.11.2021, this Court examined the Accused officer U/S. 239

Cr.P.C., by my predecessor by explaining the accusation levelled against him in his mother tongue Telugu and having understood the same, he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, Charges U/Sec.7, Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988, was framed against him.But, it is observed that due to oversight, Sec.7 and Sec.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) P.C. Act, 1988 were framed to the commission of alleged offence dated 09.10.2018, by which date, already Amendment Act, 2018 came into force. Hence, charge

U/Sec.7 of P.C (Amendment) Act, 2018 is to be considered, as the ingredients of Sec.13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 were merged in Sec.7 of P.C. (Amendment)

Act, 2018. As such, no prejudice is caused to the accused officer. The sanction orders are also for Sec. 7 of P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018 so also FIR registered case is U/Sec.7 of P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018.

06.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 out of 19 listed witnesses. Prosecution exhibited Exs.P1 to P41 and MOs 1 to 8.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused officer was examined as required U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances and material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in his mother tongue Telugu and having understood the

C.C.7/2020-5-ACB Crt., Knl.

same, he denied and reported that he will file written statement and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Written Statement was filed.

08.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused Officer for

the Charge levelled against him, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

09.Heard both sides.

10.The learned Spl.PP filed written arguments towards his arguments as under:

The defacto complainant Sri G. Lakshmipathi is a R/o

Venkatnarayanapalli Village, Amadaguru Mandal of Anantapur district and attending to contract works for his livelihood. During 2017 contract work of laying two cement roads in seethireddypalli village under National Rural

Employment Scheme was given to the Amadaguru Mandal President Sri K.

Venkata Ramana valued at Rs.10,00,000/-. Sri K. Venkata Ramana i.e the

Surpanch has given the said work on sub contract basis to the defacto complainant and the said sub contract was reduced into writing by way of an agreement between them on 6.5.2018. The said work was supervised by the

Amadaguru Mandal Panchayat Raj Asst. Engineer Sri B. Chinna Pullaiah (accused officer herein) and as per his directions the work was completed in the month of July, 2018. The accused officer has inspected the work and informed the defacto complainant that he has recorded the M-book but even after lapse of number of days the M-Book relating to the work was not forwarded to the superior officers and bill was not approved. In this regard the defacto complainant met the accused officer in the office of the accused officer

C.C.7/2020-6-ACB Crt., Knl.

situated in the MPDO office compound in the last week of September and requested to get the bill sanctioned and the accused officer informed that ordinarily he would collect 5% on the contract bill amount as bribe and demanded to pay 3% of the contract bill as bribe. The defacto complainant did not wish to pay the demanded bribe amount returned. As the bill was not sanctioned even after lapse of time again on 4.10.2018 evening the defacto complainant along with his younger brother Shiva Prasad met the accused officer at his office and requested the accused officer for the bill amount on that the accused officer reiterated his earlier demand of 3% of the contract bill.

The demand of bribe is 3% on the bill amount of Rs.10 lakhs which comes to

Rs.30,000/- and that the accused officer demanded Rs.30,000/- as bribe for processing the bill and forwarding the M-Book and that without the bribe amount he would not forward the bill and M-Book to the superior officers.

Though the defacto complainant was not willing to pay the demanded bribe amount and in case the bribe amount is not paid the accused officer would not process the bill for sanction and as there was no other go the defacto complainant accepted to pay the bribe amount. Immediately the accused officer enquired the defacto complainant about the amount that he possess at that time and forcibly took away Rs.10,000/- which was with the defacto complainant as bribe and thereafter the accused officer informed to pay the balance bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- on 9.10.2018 evening at his office or at the place as informed by the accused officer. As the defacto complainant was not willing to pay the demanded bribe amount gave a complaint to the Dy.

Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Anantapur to catch the accused officer redhanded while the accused officer demanded and accepted the bribe amount and to take legal action and after due verifications on 09.10.2018 the i/c Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Anantapur registered the complaint of the defacto complainant as a case in

Cr.No. 6/RCT-ATP/2018 u/s 7 of PC Act and the i/c Dy. Superintendent of

C.C.7/2020-7-ACB Crt., Knl.

Police. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed and the Hon'ble

Court has taken cognizance and charges framed against A.O for the offences

U/s 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention Of Corruption (Amendment) Act , 1998.

During course of trial PW1 to PW13 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P-41,

MOs 1 to 8 are marked on behalf of the prosecution, no exhibits are marked on behalf of defence and no witnesses were examined as defence witness.

2. The Arguments Submitted on behalf of the prosecution:

With Respect to 1st Demand of bribe amount/Ex.P1:

In the last week of September and requested to get the bill sanctioned and the accused officer informed that ordinarily he would collect 5% on the contract bill amount as bribe and demanded to pay 3% of the contract bill as bribe.

With Respect to 2nd Demand of bribe amount/Ex.P1:

As the bill was not sanctioned even after lapse of time again on 04.10.2018 evening the defacto complainant along with his younger brother

Shiva Prasad met the accused officer at his office and requested the accused officer for the bill amount on that the accused officer reiterated his earlier demand of 3% of the contract bill. The demand of bribe is 3% on the bill amount of Rs.10 lakhs which comes to Rs.30,000/- and that the accused officer demanded Rs.30,000/- as bribe for processing the bill and forwarding the M-Book and that without the bribe amount he would not forward the bill and M-Book to the superior officers. Though the defacto complainant was not willing to pay the demanded bribe amount and in case the bribe amount is not paid the accused officer would not process the bill for sanction and as there was no other go the defacto complainant accepted to pay the bribe amount.

Immediately the accused officer enquired the defacto complainant about the amount that he possess at that time and forcibly took away Rs.10,000/- which was with the defacto complainant as bribe and thereafter the accused officer

C.C.7/2020-8-ACB Crt., Knl.

informed to pay the balance bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- on 9.10.2018 evening at his office or at the place as informed by the accused officer.

Evidence of PW1 during trial and 164 Cr.P.C Statement:

With respect to the 1st demand of bribe amount/Ex.P-1 clearly disclosed that in the month of Sep-2018 PW-1 enquired about bills for which accused officer stated that he is only collected 5% as bribe of out of total contract work of Rs. 10,000,00/- but for me he will collect only 3% i.e. Rs.30,000/-. With respect to the 2nd demand of bribe amount/Ex.P-1 clearly disclosed that on 04.10.2018 PW-1 met A.O along with his brother i.e PW-2 at MPDO office, compound and requested accused officer about PW-1 bills but accused officer reiterated earlier demand as there was no other go PW-1 agreed to give the bribe to A.O. Further PW-1 stated that at present I am not having Rs.30,000/- for which accused officer stated that whatever amount available with me (PW-

1) he asked to give the same and balance can be paid on 09.10.2018 at the place chosen by A.O. Accordingly PW-1 gave Rs.10,000/- to A.O. PW-1 returned to the house and decided not to give bribe to A.O as such PW-1 approached O/o DSP, ACB Ananthapuram on 07.10.2018 gave a complaint against Accused Officer. On 08.10.2018 PW1 went to MPDO office to meet

Surpanch, while PW-1 was talking with Surpanch accused officer came and asked PW-1 to come to side and informed to PW-1 not to bring the bribe amount to the office and give bribe amount at his house (accused officer) situated in the village Odicheuruvu near Sri Durga HP Gas company.

Therefore the evidence of PW-1 with respect to the demand of bribe amount by A.O from PW-1 in corroboration with the report/Ex.P-1 without any deviation with respect to the demand of bribe amount and also all other facts relating to demand of bribe amount by A.O mentioned in the report/Ex.P-1. PW-2 who is brother of PW-1 is supported and corroborated with the evidence of PW-1. The above facts, evidence and circumstances clearly proves that the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused officer is proved.

C.C.7/2020-9-ACB Crt., Knl.

Evidence of Mediator/PW-3 during trial deposed as follows:-

On 09.10.2018 as per instructions of Asst Director, Mines and Geology

Dept, Ananthapuram myself and LW-3 (P.Purushotam) met DSP, ACB,

Ananthapur at 12.45 PM. During pre-trap proceeding we enquired PW-1 about contents of the complainant then PW-1 admitted contents of complainant as true and there is no ill feelings and financial transactions between him and accused officer. The further deposed that PW-3 and LW-3 are attested under Ex.P-3 i.e. copy of complainant and later PW-1 informed us that Accused Officer asked him to bring the amount of Rs.20,000/- in the evening hours at residence of A.O. Later, DSP asked PW-1 whether he brought proposed bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- or not and on his affirmative reply, DSP asked PW-1 to produce the same before us and accordingly PW-1 produced Rs.20,000/- with denomination of Rs.2000x5=10,000/- and

Rs.500x20=10,000/- total Rs.20,000/- before us. On the instructions of DSP, we noted the denomination and currency note numbers. The DSP explained about the impact of chemical test sodium corbonate powder and phynalapthin powder. On the instructions of DSP, HG-Satish-191 to apply phynalapthin powder to the said currency notes produced by PW-1. Accordingly he applied phynapthalin powder. On the instructions of DSP, Head Constable Jaffar searches pockets of PW-1 accordingly he did so, then HG-Satish-191 placed the currency notes in shirt pocket of PW-1. Later DSP gave instructions to PW- 1 not to touch the currency notes kept shirt pocket till he gives the same to the

Accused Officer on his further demand, the entire proceedings were drafted in

MR-I and marked as Ex.P-4. PW-3 further deposed that myself and mediator (LW-3), DSP and staff along with complainant started from ACB office to

Odicheruvu in two vehicles and reached the same by 4.30 PM, we parked our vehicles on main road running between Kadiri and Hindupur opp: HP Gas

Agency in which the house of accused officer is situated. The DSP , reiterated earlier instructions to PW-1 by 4.40 PM PW-1 went to the house of A.O and

C.C.7/2020-10-ACB Crt., Knl.

within 5 minutes he came out and gave pre arranged signal to DSP. It is submitted that MR-II being contemporary document reflects the events happened on the spot and can be used for corroboration. It is submitted that the statement of PW 1 u/s 164 CrPC also can be used for corroboration. The evidence of PW-3 clearly disclosing that the complaint is voluntarily given as such is genuine complaint. PW-1 voluntarily drafted the complaint with his own hand writing without any external force from other persons.

3. With respect to further demanding and accepting of bribe amount on the date of trap.

During post-trap proceedings PW-1 stated before the mediators as follows:-

After leaving the trap party , the defacto complainant went into the residence of accused officer and found the accused officer sitting in a plastic chair in the main hall of the house. On seeing the defacto complainant, the accused officer asked him whether the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- as demanded by him was brought or not. On that the defacto complainant replied affirmatively and then the accused officer asked the defacto complainant to pay the bribe amount and accordingly the defacto complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused officer who received the tainted amount of Rs.20,000/- with his right hand, counted with both hands and kept the bribe amount on the plastic stool placed abutting to his right side near eastern side wall of the hall. The chemical test on both hand fingers of A.O yielded positive result i.e. M.O-3 & 4 on enquiry A.O showed the amount i.e.

M.O-6 (tainted currency) that he received and kept by the side of him on his stool. The chemical test conducted on plastic stool yielded positive i.e. M.O-5.

Hence demand and acceptance of bribe amount by A.O is proved by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 documentary evidence of pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and material object of seized resultant chemical solutions i.e M.O- 3, 4 and 5 and tainted currency notes i.e M.O-6.

C.C.7/2020-11-ACB Crt., Knl.

4. With respect to the pending official favour:

It is humbly submitted that the evidence of Prosecution witnesses is as follows:-

The report of PW-1 i.e ExP-1 discloses as follows:- defacto complainant

Sri G. Lakshmipathi is a R/o Venkatnarayanapalli Village, Amadaguru Mandal of Anantapur district and attending to contract works for his livelihood. During 2017 contract work of laying two cement roads in seethireddypalli village under

National Rural Employment Scheme was given to the Amadaguru Mandal

President Sri K. Venkata Ramana valued at Rs.10,00,000/-. Sri K. Venkata

Ramana i.e the Surpanch has given the said work on sub contract basis to the defacto complainant and the said sub contract was reduced into writing by way of an agreement between them on 6.5.2018. The said work was supervised by the Amadaguru Mandal Panchayat Raj Asst. Engineer Sri B. Chinna Pullaiah (accused officer herein) and as per his directions the work was completed in the month of July, 2018. The accused officer has inspected the work and informed the defacto complainant that he has recorded the M-book but even after lapse of number of days the M-Book relating to the work was not forwarded to the superior officers and bill was not approved. In this regard the defacto complainant met the accused officer in the office of the accused officer situated in the MPDO office compound in the last week of September and requested to get the bill sanctioned and the accused officer informed that ordinarily he would collect 5% on the contract bill amount as bribe and demanded to pay 3% of the contract bill as bribe. During trial PW-1 deposed in support of above facts.

The evidence of PW 3 during trial in support of above facts is as follows:-

On enquiry of DSP, ACB about records pertaining to the work of PW-1, the A.O took out the said records from almarah in the same hall, A.O gave to

C.C.7/2020-12-ACB Crt., Knl.

M-books of two different works i.e Ex.P-5 and P-6 and Xerox copy of

Estimation of said works i.e. Ex.P-7 and 8.

5. The evidence of PW 5, 6 and 7 during trial in support of above facts is as follows:-

The evidence of PW-5:

It is submitted that PW-5 deposed that as M-books were seized by the

ACB authorities in this case Superintendent of Engineer, Panchayat Raj (PW-

6) order me to re-measure the works done by PW-1 in this case and submit relevant records to Executive Engineer through Dy.Executive Engineer, accordingly I measured the work done by PW-1 and entered in M-books i.e.

Ex.P-19 and 20.

The evidence of PW-6 & 7:

It is submitted that PW-6 deposed that disclosing the procedure for payment of bills of road contract works. In this case: when I was working at

Pendugonda A.O was AE/Mandal Engineer for Cheekirevupalli Grama

Panchayat 3 works are sanctioned under MGNRIGS scheme and two works belongs to Seethireddypalli and one work belongs to Balakalavaripalli basing on the resulation 13, 14 and 15/Ex.P-14 , Ex.P_29 is administrative sanction order dated 11.10.2017 issued by the District Collector, Ananthapuram. Detail estimation were also prepared with respect to above works by AE/A.O and approved by DE and thereafter the work commencement order was issued on 30.10.2017 by me after obtaining Gramapanchayat resolution through

AE/accused officer and DE, both the works of Seethireddipalli estimated value is Rs. 5,00,000/- each by the date of trap both the works of Seethireddipalli were completed. The details were recorded by AE/accused officer in M-books thereafter it has to be forwarded to DE. Till the date of trap I have not received said M-books through DE i.e Ex.P-5 and P-6(M-books) were not sent to the office of the DE by A.O. The evidence of PW-4, PW-8 and PW-9 even though

C.C.7/2020-13-ACB Crt., Knl.

turned hostile they clearly deposed that the official favour work is still pending

before the A.O.

6. Defence of accused officer:-

(i) accused officer is not demanded bribe amount on the date of trap the defacto complainant forcibly try to give amount to accused officer he resisted with this both hand by that time the defacto complainant kept the bribe amount on plastic stool, on that accused officer asked to take it (bribe) by folding both hands of the defacto complainant.

The above defence of A.O is completely false for the following reasons:-

It is submitted that during post-trap proceedings after leaving the trap party, the defacto complainant went into the residence of accused officer and found the accused officer sitting in a plastic chair in the main hall of the house.

On seeing the defacto complainant, the accused officer asked him whether the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- as demanded by him was brought or not. On that the defacto complainant replied affirmatively and then the accused officer asked the defacto complainant to pay the bribe amount and accordingly the defacto complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused officer who received the tainted amount of Rs.20,000/- with his right hand, counted with both hands and kept the bribe amount on the plastic stool placed abutting to his right side near eastern side wall of the hall. It is submitted that in the light of evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-12 and 13 as already discussed above the plea taken by the Accused is utterly false.

(ii) The defacto complainant entered agreement (sub-contract) with PW- 9 i.e. Ex.P-2 is not maintainable under MGNREGS scheme and Ex.P-2 is created document.

The above defence of A.O is completely false for the following reasons:-

It is submitted that in the present case whether sub-contract between

PW-1 and PW-9 is not at all fact in issue.

C.C.7/2020-14-ACB Crt., Knl.

It is further submitted that the fact in issue in this case is whether

Accused demanded and accepted bribe amount on account of pending official work. The said fact is clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt through evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that Ex.P-2 is genuine document which is executed by PW-9 even though PW-9 turned hostile and denied his signature on Ex.P-2. It is further submitted that the

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to compare the signature of PW-9 under Ex.P-2

with admitted signatures which are available on record of this Hon’ble Court.

It is further submitted that the suggestion given by Accused Officer as “the defacto complainant entered agreement (sub-contract) with PW-9 i.e.

Ex.P-2 is not maintainable under MGNREGS scheme”, is itself amounts to admission about execution of Ex.P-2.

7.It is submitted that the above evidence discloses that accused officer is in a position to discharge his official functions with respect to the work of PW-1 and official favour work of PW-1 is pending and the same has to be attended by accused officer.

8. It is submitted that sanction order is proved by examination of PW-10 and Ex.P-33 is the sanction order. FIR is marked with PW-12 under Ex.P-36. It is submitted that in proof of A.O is public servant i.e. Ex.P.41 through P.W-13.

9. It is submitted that Sec.13(1)(d) ingredients are (i) “ by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage “ or (ii) “by abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” or (iii) “ while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest” . It is submitted that official favour words are not present in this section. Hence pendency of official favour is not the ingredient of Sec 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988.

The same is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ The State V/s A.Parthiban 2008 Crl.L.J.4772 SC “.

C.C.7/2020-15-ACB Crt., Knl.

10. The essential ingredients of the offence U/s 7 of PC Act 1988 are “for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in excise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person”. It is humbly submitted that these words are not present in Sec.13(1)(d) or PC

Act,1988.

11. It is submitted that the demand and acceptance of bribe amount is proved beyond reasonable doubt as such the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider that A.O has committed offence U/s 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC (Amendment ) Act 2018.

12. Hence in this case the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence clearly proves that A.O has demanded accepted the bribe amount from P.W-1 as such u/s 20 of PC (Amendment ) Act 1988 it shall be presumed that A.O accepted bribe amount as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7. Hence the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by A.O is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore for the reasons mentioned in the written arguments and as per the above mentioned settled principles of law the case of the prosecution against the accused officer has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused officer has to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 7 of P.C. Act for having demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- from PW.1 by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position.

13. The prosecution relied on the following judgments, i.e.,

(i).In 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 378 (SC) Ramesh Harijan Vs State of U.P.

(July, 2013) Falsity of particular material witness or material particular, would not ruin the evidence from beginning to end. Maxim “falsus in unofalsus in omnibus” has no application in India.

(ii).Official Favour:- In ShivRajsingh V/s Delhi Administration AIR 1968

SC 1419 No official favour or intention to do any official favour - case made out

C.C.7/2020-16-ACB Crt., Knl.

under section 7 and 13(1)(d)PC Act. PillimarriVenugopala Krishna Murthy Vs

State2011 (2) ALD (Crl) 438. Supreme Court 5 Judges Bench in

DhaneshwarNarainSaxena Vs Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 195, 1962 (1) CRLJ 203.Supreme Court 3 Judges Bench AIR 1955 (SC) 70 Mahesh

Prasad Singh Vs state of U.P.

(iii).Presumption :-In C.K. Damodara Nair Vs Government of India 1997

CRLJ 739:-S.20 – Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by demand or not would be covered by S.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act..

State Vs A.Parthiban 2008 CRLJ 4772 SC. SubashPrabatSonrane Vs State of

Gujarat 2003 SC AIR 2169. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Vasudeva Rao 2004

CRLJ 620. 2010 SCC (Crl) 1067. State of M.P. Vs.

HarishankarBhagawanTripati. (Trial court and High Court acquitted A.O.

Supreme Court reversed) Accused has to disclose how the tainted currency came into his position.

(iv).State of U.P. V/s Zakrullah AIR 1998 SC.1474. (a) Animosity theory not accepted. (b) Acquittance of independent witness with Police are fact that he helped police action – would not by itself discredit evidence said independent witness. (c) Evidence of trap officer – can be relied on even without corroboration. (d) Trap case accused caught red handed with tainted currency notes – Non sending of samples solution use for conducting phenolphthalein test to chemical examiner – would not vitiate trap.

(v) AIR 1984 SC 63 State of Maharashtra V/s Narasingarao Gangaram

Pimple. Evidence Act Sec.133 – Trap witnesses – appreciation of evidence – touch stone to be applied – where in a trap case the judge magnified every minor retains or omission to falsify or throw even shade of doubt on the prosecution evidence done it would be the very anti-thesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witness in a trap case. Indeed if such a harsh touch stone is prescribed to prove such a case it will be difficult for the prosecution to establish any case at all.

C.C.7/2020-17-ACB Crt., Knl.

(vi).Difference between Sec. 13(1)(d) and Sec. 7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act. The State V/s A.Parthiban 2008 Crl.L.J.4772 SC.

Simultaneous conviction under section 7 & 13 (1) (d) is permissible -

Principles U/S 71 IPC and Sec.220 Cr.P.C. applying. 7 & 13 (1) (d) –

Difference between offences explained – Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by

Sec.7 – acceptance of illegal gratification in pursuance of demand by a public servant would fall under 31 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988.

(vii).Subash Parbat Sonrane V/s State of Gujarat. AIR 2003 S.C.2169.

In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that contest a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence u/s 5(1)(d) of P.C.Act, un-like an offence under section 161 of I.P.C. which can be established by proof of either acceptance or obtainment.

(viii).Ramesh Kumar Gupta V/s State of Madhya Pradesh. 1995 Crl.L.J.-

S.C. (a) Accused Police Inspector – positive result of phenolphthalein powder test – bear denial that he had no knowledge of notes was without substance – no question of false implication as it was proved that only after harassment and demand by accused complaint was compelled to borrow the amount for making payment – evidence of complaint was sufficiently corroborated by surrounding circumstances – case proved beyond reasonable doubt . (b)Evidence regarding of complaint- corroboration need not be direct – can be by way of circumstantial evidence also.

(ix).2011 SCC (Crl) (1) 214 B.NagulShariefVs.State of A.P. (a)

Discrepancy regarding party of the prosecution story. Itself does not go to the root of the case. (b) Failure to inform superior officers of A.O. demand of bribe absolutely un-natural- contention rejected-corruption flows from top. (c)

False implication by complainant as he quarreled with A.O. few days back – not acceptable.

C.C.7/2020-18-ACB Crt., Knl.

(x).2006 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 346 ShankerbhaiLaljibhai Rot V/s

State of Gujarat. Discrepancy has to the mode of demand of bribe effect of –

PW.1 consistently stating about demand acceptance and recovery of money – variance regarding mode of demand no consequences-minor contradictions or in-consistencies immaterial. Section 19 P.C.Act – in the absence of any thing to show that any defect or irregularity in sanction caused failure of justice – plea relating to sanction is without substance. P.C.Act, Sec.17 - Authority of

Police Inspector, ACB, to investigate any offence under 1988 Act – Plea regarding –not raised before court below – such plea unsustainable before

S.C. Constitution of India Article-136.

(xi).The Supreme Court also held in ‘State of Maharashtra Vs Mahesh

G.Jain’ reported in 2013(8) SCC 199, that the sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.

(xii).The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider the following paragraphs in Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Neeraj Dutta Vs State dated: 15.12.2022.

Para No. 32:- Term evidence is not restricted to only oral and documentary evidence but also to other things like material objects, the demeanor of the witnesses, facts of which judicial notice could be taken, admissions of parties, local inspection made and answers given by the accused under 313 Cr.PC. Circumstantial evidence means facts from which another fact is inferred.

Para No. 48:- Section 20 of the Act deals with presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. It uses the expression “shall be presumed” in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) unless the contrary is proved. The said provision deals with a legal presumption which is in the nature of a command that it has to be 51 presumed that the accused

C.C.7/2020-19-ACB Crt., Knl.

accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the Section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing a legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act is that during trial, it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification.

Para No.49:- In State of Madras vs. A. VaidyanathaIyer AIR 1958 SC 61 (“A. VaidyanathaIyer”), it was observed that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act which is similar to Section 20 of the Act under consideration would arise where illegal gratification has been accepted, then the presumption introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused. The legislature has used the words “shall presume” and not “may presume” which means that the presumption has to be raised as it is a presumption of law and therefore it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption. Further, the presumptions of law constitute a branch of jurisprudence unlike a case of presumption of fact which is discretionary.

Para No.50:- Distinguishing a presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act with a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it was observed in Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1964

SC 575 (“Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai”) that a presumption under Section

114 of the Evidence Act is discretionary in nature inasmuch as it is open to the court to draw or not to draw a presumption as to the existence of one fact from the proof of another fact. This is unlike a presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act or Section 20 of the Act where the court has to draw such presumption, if a certain fact is proved, that is, where any illegal gratification has been received by an accused. In such a case the presumption that has to

C.C.7/2020-20-ACB Crt., Knl.

be drawn that the person received that thing as a motive of reward. Therefore, the court has no choice in the matter, once it is established that the accused has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to the accused to show that though that money was not due to him as a legal remuneration it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which is lawful. The burden resting on the accused in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that 53 the explanation is a true one.

The words “unless the contrary is proved” which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by “proof” and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material brought before it, the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted.

Para No. 70:- that in the absence of evidence of complainant it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

(xiii) K.Kumara Swami Vs State 2014 (1) ALD Crl 434 A.P: A.O is surveyor – PW-1 hostile – conviction is given based on 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act.

(xiv) Pillimarri Venugopala Krishna Murthy Vs State 2011 (2) ALD Crl 438 A.P – Abuse of official position meaning and pecuniary advantage explained.

C.C.7/2020-21-ACB Crt., Knl.

(xv) AIR 1984 SC 63 State of Maharashtra V/s Narasingarao Gangaram

Pimple. Evidence Act Sec.133 – Trap witnesses – appreciation of evidence – touch stone to be applied – where in a trap case the judge magnified every minor retains or omission to falsify or throw even shade of doubt on the prosecution evidence done it would be the very anti-thesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witness in a trap case. Indeed if such a harsh touch stone is prescribed to prove such a case it will be difficult for the prosecution to establish any case at all.

(xvi) 2011 Crl,LJ SC 975 CM Sarma Vs. State of AP PC Act 7, 13(1) (d)

Demand of bribe from contractor – Defence strained relationship and demand of bribe improbable – evidence of PW.1 accompanying witness and Inspector improbablises the defence. Evidence Act Sec.133 – PW.1 is not accomplish –

Act of Demand of Bribe is an act of extortion – Corroboration not necessary.

(xvii) 2006 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 346 ShankerbhaiLaljibhai Rot

V/s State of Gujarat. Discrepancy has to the mode of demand of bribe effect of – PW.1 consistently stating about demand acceptance and recovery of money –variance regarding mode of demand no consequences-minor contradictions or in-consistencies immaterial. Section 19 P.C.Act – in the absence of any thing to show that any defect or irregularity in sanction caused failure of justice – plea relating to sanction is without substance. P.C.Act, Sec.17 - Authority of

Police Inspector, ACB, to investigate any offence under 1988 Act – Plea regarding –not raised before court below – such plea unsustainable before

S.C. Constitution of India Article-136.

(xviii) In C.I. Emden v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1960 SC 548) the appellant who was working as a local foreman, was found to have accepted a sum of Rs.375 from a railway contractor. The appellant's explanation was that he had borrowed the amount as he was in need of money for meeting the expenses of the clothing of his children who were studying in school. The

Special Judge accepted the evidence of the contractor and held that the

C.C.7/2020-22-ACB Crt., Knl.

money had been taken as a bribe, that the defence story was improbable and untrue, that the presumption under Section 4 of the Act had to be raised and that the presumption had not been rebutted by the appellant and accordingly convicted him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 of the Act. On appeal the

High Court held that on the facts of that case the statutory presumption under

Section 4 had to be raised, that the explanation offered by the appellant was improbable and palpably unreasonable and that the presumption had not been rebutted, and upheld the conviction.

The appellant contended, on appeal in this Court, inter alia: (i) that the presumption under Section 4 could not be raised merely on proof of acceptance of money but it had further to be proved that the money was accepted as a bribe, (ii) that even if the presumption arose it was rebutted when the appellant offered a reasonably probable explanation. This Court, dealing with the presumption under Section 4, observed that such presumption arose when it was shown that the accused had received the stated amount and that the said amount was not legal remuneration. The word 'gratification in

Section 4(1) was to be given its literal dictionary meaning of satisfaction or appetite or desire; it could not be construed to mean money paid by way of a bribe. The High Court was justified in raising the presumption against the appellant as it was admitted that he had received the money from the contractor and the amount received was other than legal remuneration. On the facts the explanation given by the accused, in agreement with the opinion of the High Court was held to be wholly unsatisfactory and unreasonable. In

Dhanvantrai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1964 SC 575) it was observed that in order to raise the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused person has received 'gratification other than legal remuneration' and when it is shown that he has received a certain sum of money which was not a legal remuneration, then, the condition prescribed by this section is satisfied and the presumption thereunder must be

C.C.7/2020-23-ACB Crt., Knl.

raised. In Jhangan v. State of U.P. (1968 (3) SCR 766) the above decisions were approved and it is observed that mere receipt of money is sufficient to raise the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act." In C.I. Emden v. State of

Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1960 SC 548) and V.D. Jhangan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966 (3) SCR 736) it was observed that if any money is received and no convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered by the accused as to how it came to be received by him, the presumption under Section 4 of the old Act is available. When the receipt is admitted it is for the accused to prove as to how the presumption is not available as perforce the presumption arises and becomes operative. The evidence of PW-1 cannot be ignored on the ground that he had earlier made grievances against some other officials. The

Trial Court had carefully analysed his evidence and found the same to be credible. Even if PW-2 did not support the prosecution version on some aspects yet his evidence also prove giving of money. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with those of PWs 3 and 5 is sufficient to bring home the accusations.

Further, the High Court seems to have made out a new case about the alleged date of complaint. A bare reading of the contents of the complaint and the date put in the complaint as evident from Exts. P-3 and P-3A clearly show that the

High Court was not correct in saying that the date of the document is 20.12.1991. Additionally, this plea was not raised before the Trial Court. There was even no suggestion about that aspect. Learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 submitted that suggestions were there, which is not so. What was suggested was the documents were not prepared at the time they were claimed to be.

There is a gulf of difference between "time" and "date". In any event such a plea has not been taken before the courts below. It being essentially a question of fact, the High Court could not have made out a new case regarding correctness of the date. As noted above, the views of the High Court were also not correct when the document is itself looked at. Much stress was laid on the accused persons not being the final authority in the tender matter. As noted in

C.C.7/2020-24-ACB Crt., Knl.

Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat (1976 (3) SCC 46) the question whether a person has authority to do the act for which bribe is accepted is of no consequence. Keeping in view the legal principles as can be culled out from decisions referred to above, applying the fact situation to them the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal. Not only the correct legal position was not kept in view but the analysis of the factual position is also found to be erroneous. That being so, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. Custodial sentence of one year for each of the proved offence would meet the ends of justice, with the fine and default stipulation stipulated by the Trial Court. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated. The accused persons are directed to surrender to custody to serve remainder of sentence, if any.

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned in the written arguments and as per the above mentioned settled principles of law the case of the prosecution against the accused officer has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused officer has to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 7 of P.C. Act for having demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- from PW1 and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.

(Amendment) Act 1988 for obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position.

11.The learned defence counsel submitted his oral arguments contending that the very case of the prosecution is totally false and that under

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) there cannot be any sub contract and that the contention of PW1 that he obtained sub contract work from PW9/K. Venkata Ramana, was totally false and that the evidence of

PW9 is to be seriously taken into consideration where he categorically deposed that two works were granted under NREGS at Seethireddypalli and

Balakavaripalli of Cheekirevulapalli Gramapanchayat from the house of

C.C.7/2020-25-ACB Crt., Knl.

Venkataramana to the house of Prabhakar Raju to lay a road and to lay another road from Ramireddy house to Goddemma temple at Seethireddypalli respectively and that in the year 2018, resolutions for said works were approved in Gramapanchayat and at that time, this PW9 was Surpanch of

Seethireddypalli Gramapancayat and said resolutions were sent to MPDO of

Penugonda and after MPDO office informed them that works were sanctioned, they started the work from the 8th month of 2018 and that he executed the work and completed the same in the 10th month and that PW1 never informed him anything about the works and at that time the accused is the person who is

before the Court, was the Mandal Engineer and that he has no knowledge as

to what happened between PW1 and the accused.

(a)It is further argued that when it is basic case of PW1 that PW9 gave sub contract to him to attend the works of laying C.C. roads under said

Scheme, which was valued about Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) and when PW9 categorically deposed before this Court that there was no such issue at all, definitely benefit of doubt should be showered on the accused and that accused should be benefited and acquitted.

(b)It is further argued that the signature appearing on Ex.P2, the alleged agreement, was also denied by this PW9 that it is not his signature and that the signature of PW9 taken in the open Court on 26.03.2024 should be compared under the power given to this Court U/Sec.73 of Indian Evidence

Act with that of the signature appearing on Ex.P2 and prayed this Court to believe the version of the accused.

(c)The other point raised by the learned defence counsel was that the accused never demanded bribe and that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the accused demanded bribe for noting down the M-book and sending the same for the purpose of getting bills sanctioned, is totally false and that it is also the evidence of PW1 that the accused never permitted PW1 to meet him and that the said fact was elicited in the cross examination of PW1 and further

C.C.7/2020-26-ACB Crt., Knl.

urged that Ex.P2 is a created document and that PW1 helped PW9 financially and when PW1 demanded PW9 to return back the amounts, PW9 informed him that the bills are not yet passed and on that PW1 assured PW9 that he will see that the bills will be passed and in that connection, PW1 tried to meet the accused but accused never permitted PW1 to meet him. It is also urged that

Ex.P2 do not contain the signature of PW1 and that it can safely be concluded that it was a created document by PW1 as he himself deposed during the course of cross examination that he was the scribe of Ex.P2.

(d)The learned defence counsel further urged that as far as handing over of Ex.P2 to the investigating authorities is concerned, PW1 deposed that he handed over the same to the ACB authorities on the date of Ex.P1, but somehow again changed his version that he has shown Ex.P2 along with the complaint but did not hand over the same to the ACB authorities at the time of lodging Ex.P1 and that he was even asked by the ACB authorities that it should be given in the presence of mediators. It is also urged that Ex.P2 is to be keenly observed wherein it can easily be understood that the names of

PWs 1 and 9 were interpolated in between the lines and that glaringly it is appearing on the face of the document/Ex.P2. It is also urged that the said forged document shall not be believed as the version of PW1 was continuously changing from time to time on the aspect of handing over Ex.P2 to the ACB officials is concerned.

(e)The learned defence counsel submitted his arguments on the point of trap is concerned that the presence of PW3 was not obtained by the authorities by addressing any letter or summons and as such it can safely be presumed that Ex.P4 is an afterthought created document. It is further urged that PW3 in his cross examination categorically deposed that he has no knowledge about the details of neighbours of the accused when they reached the house of the accused and that PW3 categorically mentioned in Ex.P11 about the residential house of one person by name Raja Reddy as neighbour

C.C.7/2020-27-ACB Crt., Knl.

of the accused. It is urged that PW3 admitted that signal was given to the

DSP and that the same was mentioned in post trap proceedings.

(f)It is also urged by the learned defence counsel that the usage of words ‘position’ is made in Ex.P11, but ‘positions’ is differently used only for plural indication and that the contents of Ex.P11 are to be seriously viewed.

(g)The learned defence counsel further urged that as far as the arguments with regard to turning of hands of the accused when dipped in the liquid as pink is concerned, the defence counsel urged that PW1 shook the hands of accused and for that reason, the sodium carbonate solution turned pink and that accused never received any amounts from PW1 and that he never demanded any bribe amount.

(h)The learned defence counsel also urged that when PW1 is no way concerned with the contract work and when Ex.P2 is appearing literally as a forged document and when PW9 did not support the version of PW1 and when it is the evidence of PW9 that there are financial transactions between him and PW1 and when the rest of the prosecution witnesses relating to

Executive Engineering Department supported the version of the defence that there is no official favour pending with the accused officer as per the version of

PW8, the very main ingredients of pendency of the official favour with the accused officer, demand of the accused officer and acceptance of bribe by the accused officer, are not at all proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, it can safely be concluded that accused officer never committed any offence and that turning of sodium carbonate solution which was done due to shaking hands of the accused officer by PW1, the said MOs shall also not to be believed and the defence put up by the accused officer definitely raises and creates doubt in the mind of the Court about the case of the prosecution and prayed this Court to acquit the accused officer on benefit of doubt.

12.The Charge levelled against the accused is:

C.C.7/2020-28-ACB Crt., Knl.

Sec.7 of P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018 defines :

Offence relating to public servant being bribed:- Any public servant who, -

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

13.The accused officer written statement contents and the arguments submitted by the learned defence counsel are one and the same and the arguments of the learned defence counsel is too more eloborated in nature when compared with that of the written statement filed by the accused officer.

14.Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 out of 19 listed witnesses and exhibited Exs.P1 to P41 and MOs 1 to 8.

PW1:is defacto complainant by name G. Lakshmipathi. As per his version, he is the person who entered into an agreement with PW9 by name K. Venkata Ramana to attend the contract works sanctioned to Seethireddypalli village and another work at

C.C.7/2020-29-ACB Crt., Knl.

Balakavaripalli under MGNREG Scheme under Ex.P2.

PW2:is younger brother of PW1 who is also resident of Venkatanarayanapalli village and he supported the version of PW1 regarding acceptance of sub contract by PW1 from PW9/Surpanch and also supported the version of PW1 regarding demand of bribe made by the accused officer on 04.10.2018.

PW3:is one of the mediators by name B. Peddi Reddy who happens to be very much present along with LW3/Purusotham from Geology Department and this person is one who was very much present at the time of pre and post trap proceedings and deposed about what happened during his presence.

PW4:is Panchayat Secretary of Chieekirevulapalli village and deposed that Seethireddypalli also falls within the jurisdiction of Cheekiriveulapalli village. This witness deposed about the procedure as to how the work under the said Scheme will be allotted to each village and parameters therein.

PW5:is Asst. Executive Engineer who deposed about remeasuring of the works done by PW1 and submission of certain records.

PW6:Superintending Engineer and he was the then Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department and deposed about the procedure regarding allotment of the MGNREG Scheme funds and the sanction orders regarding the said work.

PW7:is Assistant Engineer who previously worked in the same cadre in the office of E.E., PRE Department, Penugonda and he also deposed about the procedure as to how the role of Asst. Engineer goes on relating to works of NREG Scheme.

PW8:is Retired Government servant who worked as DEE in Panchayat Raj Department and he deposed about the procedural aspects on the same lines of PW7 and gave a clarified manner of evidence regarding the payment aspects to the contractors after the completion of contract work entrusted to them.

PW9:is Surpanch of Cheekirevulapalli Gramapanchayat and deposed about his version regarding this case.

PW10:is Section Officer who deposed about the sanction orders under

C.C.7/2020-30-ACB Crt., Knl.

Ex.P33.

PW11:is Retired MPDO who deposed about the attendance register, CL register and that the accused officer worked as Mangal Engineer, Asst. Engineer, MEO at Amadagur.

PW12:is The then DSP, ACB, Kurnool acted as FAC Ananthapuram who deposed about the investigation, pre trap and post trap proceedings in this case.

PW13:is who worked as Inspector, ACB, Ananthapuram and deposed that on the oral instructions of the then DSP, ACB, he investigated the case and recorded the certain statements of the witnesses and obtained job chart under Ex.P41.

15.The accused officer being examined as required U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., submitted his written statement and reported no defence evidence.

16.The case projected by the prosecution is ……… PW9 who was the then Surpanch of Seethireddypalli village and to their village, contract works for laying roads were sanctioned i.e., from the house of Venkata

Ramudu to the house of Prabhakar Raju and from the house of Rami Reddy to

Goddemma Temple at Seethireddypalli and resolutions were passed accordingly which was duly approved by the Gramapanchayat and also got approval from MPDO. The said aspect was clearly deposed by PW9 and

PW5.

17.The oral testimony of all the witnesses i.e., from PWs 1 to 10, it is an admitted fact regarding sanction of laying C.C. roads contract under NREG

Scheme to PW9 and that the worth of said contract works of laying C.C. roads is Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) each i.e., laying of road at

Seethireddypalli village and Balakavaripalli village. There is no dispute with regard to the same and Ex.P12 and P13 which are work orders dated 25.10.2017 and covering letter clearly disclose about the same.

C.C.7/2020-31-ACB Crt., Knl.

18.As far as enter into the sub contract is concerned, PW1 deposes that PW9 gave sub contract to him by entering into an agreement under

Ex.P2. It is the serious defence projected by the accused officer that Ex.P2 agreement is not at all signed by PW9 and that the contract work for laying roads under the Scheme is not amenable for giving sub contract to the any person much particularly to the non resident of said village. It is also the defence put up by the accused officer that Ex.P2 is a forged document. During the course of cross examination PW1 categorically deposed that he has no knowledge that under NREG Scheme, sub contract should not be given and that entering into sub contract is prohibited. This witness admitted that under the said Scheme, villagers of concerned village will be allotted the contract and volunteered that he was given sub contract by villager of the same village to which contract work was allotted and that several people were given sub contracts. This PW1 also deposed that Ex.P2 was scribed by him and denied the suggestion that PW9 never signed the same and that the signature, seal appearing to be that of PW9, is totally manipulated by this PW1. It was also suggested to this witness that the name of PW1 and PW9 were interpolated in

Ex.P2 in the column of executant and executee. It was also denied by this witness.

19.In support of his evidence, PW2 who is younger brother of PW1 deposed that PW9 gave sub contract to PW1 by executing an agreement on 06.05.2018. This witness also deposed that on behalf of PW1, he used to execute the work at Seethireddypalli village. He also deposed that the worth of said two works is Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only). This witness was also cross examined wherein PW2 categorically deposed that he has no knowledge that under MGNREG Scheme, giving sub contract is prohibited and

C.C.7/2020-32-ACB Crt., Knl.

that the scheme is meant for developing the village and providing jobs without any profits.

20.Except Ex.P2 and the aforesaid oral testimony, there is no other piece of evidence before this Court to conclude that sub contract was given to

PW1 by PW9. On careful perusal of the evidence, witnesses from Panchayat

Raj Department, much particularly PWs 6, 7 and 8, it is their version that sub contracts are prohibited. PW5 categorically deposed in his chief examination that the S.E., Panchayat Raj ordered him to re-measure the works done by

PW1 in this case, as M-books were seized by ACB authorities. This witness also deposes that he measured the work done by PW1 in Seethireddypalli village and entered the same in M-book. It is pertinent to mention here that this witness was examined in chief on 06.12.2023 and the cross examination was deferred at the request of the accused officer and cross examination was done on 30.01.2024 wherein this witness categorically admits that he has not stated before ACB authorities while his statement was recorded under

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement that the work was executed by PW1. It is also admitted by this witness that documents marked as Exs.P18 to P28 do not reveal that PW1 executed the work. On careful perusal of the dates when

PW5 was examined in chief and cross examined, it clearly discloses and appears that witness was changing his version. But, on careful perusal of

Ex.P18 to P28, Ex.P18 is the proceeding wherein it is mentioned that since the accused was trapped, another person Jamal Basha was placed as Full

Additional Charge for the post of the accused officer. Hence, that document

do not disclose about the alleged fact that PW1 attended the works of contract.

But the document annexed to Ex.P19 disclose about the contract of two C.C.

roads sanctioned in Seethireddypalli village, Amadagur worth of Rs.5,00,000/- each (Rupees five lakh only) under NREG Scheme.

C.C.7/2020-33-ACB Crt., Knl.

21.Ex.P19 is the MGNREG Scheme M-book photocopy which discloses about the work done on a particular day and amounts spent therein and the quantity of material, description of the work, measurement upto date etc. It is observed by this Court that name of the contractors or agency was a column clearly available in the said book but it was kept vacant both in Ex.P19 and Ex.P19A. Ex.P20 is on the same lines pertaining to the work of laying

C.C. road from Ramireddy house to Gaddemma temple and the name of the contractor column was on the last page filled up AK…35036310127. The rest of the papers do not disclose anything in the said column of name of the contractor or agency and column was kept vacant. These three documents do not disclose the name of either PW1 or PW9. Ex.P21 is the work estimate and completion report copy and the name of the work was mentioned and to which

Gramapanchayat, the said NREG Scheme is allotted is mentioned and the said document disclose nothing about the particulars of the person whom the said work is allotted, but the spot from where the work is to be started and where it is to be concluded i.e., laying of C.C. roads is mentioned. Ex.P22 is also on the same line in co-relation with Ex.P21. Ex.P23 is the format for inspection of C.C. roads consisting four pages by giving the detailed particulars of the officers incharge for getting the work done and also with the details of Executive Engineer, Dy. Executive Engineer, Asst. Executive

Engineer and the proforma details that whether the report was finalized or otherwise. The cost of the estimation on the dates of inspection and the length of the road and its thickness etc., are mentioned. This document also do not disclose the name of either PW1 or PW9. Ex.P24 is Vigilance and Quality

Control, P.R. Division, proforma of control observations which also do not disclose about the names of either PW1 or PW9 who dealing with the core product of laying of C.C. roads from a particular person house to a particular spot.

C.C.7/2020-34-ACB Crt., Knl.

22.Ex.P25 is the ATR format which disclose about the laying of C.C.

roads from Ramireddy house to Goddamma temple at Seethireddypalli and its estimated cost as Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only). It is pertinent to mention here that the nature of the work paragraph report on which action and paragraph report on which action taken and whether the action is completed or still pending or on which would be completed, are the columns in the said document. This document also do not disclose the names of either PW1 or

PW9. Ex.P26 is also on the same lines. Ex.P27 is fund transfer order payment to the supplier of works through the Bank. This document is crucial to understand as to whether the said MGNREG Scheme of A.P. Government deals with the fund transfer order in the name of any particular person or in the name of the village or in the name of the work and this document disclose the name of the account holder as “Gramapanchayat Cheekirevulapalli’.

Gramapanchayat name was mentioned as Amadagur. Ex.P28 is also on the same lines. It means the name of the person whether it is PW1 or PW9, is nowhere mentioned and these two crucial documents Ex.P27 and P28 clearly disclose that payment will be done to the supplier of works through Bank, but not in the name of a particular person/individual. The evidence of PW4 is to the effect that the village Panchayat members will pass resolutions with respect to the works to be conducted in the village and village receive grant under NREG Scheme and the resolutions passed by Panchayat will reach to

E.E. through D.E and then to S.E. and then to Collector for administrative sanction and also it is his evidence that after the said sanction of the work by the Collector, it will reach the Panchayat office then the village Panchayat will pass resolutions and it will be sent to E.E. through A.E. or MEO and village

Panchayat will execute the work after obtaining the work order. This witness categorically deposed that after completion of works, bills will be submitted to

E.E. and after approval by him, the amount will be credited to village

Panchayat Bank account directly. Ex.P27 and P28 is replica of the evidence

C.C.7/2020-35-ACB Crt., Knl.

of the aforesaid procedure of PW4. Ex.P12 and P13 disclose about the resolutions and the work order. It is pertinent to mention here that PW9 being the then Surpanch of said village, affixed his signature on Ex.P14. Ex.P12 is also the resolution passed by Gramapanchayat and the resolution is to the effect that there should be C.C. road constructed. Being Surpanch/PW9 is expected to affix his signature. It does not mean that contract was given to

PW9.

23.PW5 is the Asst. E.E. who happens to re-measure the work done by PW1. PW6 is the S.E. who also deposed about the procedure mentioned in detail by PW4 and so also PW7. PW8 who is also from the Panchayat Raj

Department as D.E.E., in support of the evidence with regard to the procedural aspects mentioned by PWs 4, 6 and 7 deposed on the same lines and this witness categorically deposed that after quality control check and quality control certificate, it is PW5 who has to prepare bills and during course of cross examination, this witness categorically deposed that depending upon the financial capacity of Panchayat, the work will be done by Surpanch and the funds will go directly into the Account of the Panchayat under this Scheme and

Surpanch and Gramapanchayat Secretary should sign together on the check for withdrawal and amounts will be given to the person who executes the work.

24.Considering the aforesaid oral testimony as well as the documentary evidence mentioned supra, this Court is of the view that contract works were allotted under NREG Scheme to the village Gramapanchayat but not in the name of PW9. Hence, the defence put up by the accused officer that contract of laying C.C. roads two in number was in the name of PW9 and that it was he who completed the work but not PW1, is totally baseless besides being false and denied by this Court and the said defence has no legs at all through which the accused officer can try to escape.

C.C.7/2020-36-ACB Crt., Knl.

25.The defence put up by the accused officer that PW1 is nothing to do with the contract works is totally shattered in the light of the evidence and discussion mentioned supra, and as such now it is clear that PW1 is the person who attended the contract works under Ex.P2. This Court is aware of the defence put up by the accused officer that the signature on Ex.P2 appearing to be the signature of PW9, is not the signature of PW9 and that it is created by PW1. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of cross examination of PW9, it was the accused officer who sought time not to take the specimen signatures of PW9 in open Court when PW9 did not support the version of the prosecution. At that juncture, this Court (My predecessor) did not consider the request of the accused officer and obtained the signatures of

PW9 in the open Court and mentioned in the deposition of PW9 itself that the said signature will be compared by using its power U/Sec.73 of Indian

Evidence Act as requested by the Spl.PP. In view of the findings of this Court in detail supra, there is no necessity of even discussing and comparing the signature of PW9 appearing on Ex.P2 with that of the signature of PW9, as it clearly appears to the naked eye that it is one and the same.

26.Now the basic point to consider is whether the accused officer demanded as per the version of PW1 or not. PW1 in his cross examination categorically deposed that accused officer is the A.E. and used to supervise the works and that PW1 executed entire works under his supervision and requested him to prepare M-books and see that the amounts are sanctioned but the accused officer did not carryout the works. He also deposed that again he met the accused officer in the month of September 2018 and enquired about his bills for which accused officer stated that he usually take 5% of the bribe over total work worth and that out of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) worth work, he will collect 3% i.e., Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the PW1. PW1 also deposed that on 04.10.2018 that he met the

C.C.7/2020-37-ACB Crt., Knl.

accused officer along with PW2 at MPDO office compound and requested about his bill, but the accused officer reiterated the earlier demand and having no other go, this PW1 agreed to give the bribe to the accused officer and that at the said point of time PW1 stated that he was not having that much amount and accused officer stated that whatever the amount is available with PW1, it should be given to him and asked to give the same and on that PW1 gave

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and accused officer asked PW1 to pay the balance amount on 09.10.2018 at the place chosen by the accused officer. PW1 also deposed that at that point of time after returning to the house, he decided not to give the bribe amount to the accused officer and as such, he approached ACB, DSP, Ananthapuram. During the further examination in chief, he also deposed before the mediators much particularly

PW3 and LW3/P. Purusotham, that the contents of complaint Ex.P1, are true and genuine. During the course of cross examination, this witness categorically deposed that in the last week of September, he met the accused officer but cannot give the exact date and further deposed that daily he used to go to office of the accused officer, but accused officer did not allow him to meet him. It is pertinent to mention here that it was the defence of the accused officer that since PW1 is nothing to do with the contract work, he was not permitted by the accused officer to meet him. This PW1 also deposed that he do not remember how many persons were present in the office when he met the accused officer on 04.10.2018. Suggestions were put to this witness that accused officer never demanded any bribe and never accepted any bribe.

These suggestions were denied by this witness. The cross examination of

PW1 disclose that PW1 was strong enough and did not tilt in any manner.

Nothing favouring the accused officer is elicited from PW1 during cross examination.

C.C.7/2020-38-ACB Crt., Knl.

27.The evidence of PW2 was in co-relation with that of the evidence of PW1 and it purely corroborated in the aspect of demand of bribe by the accused officer on 04.10.2018 and this witness deposed that on the said day,

PW1 asked this witness to come to A.E. office with regard to granting of contract bill and accordingly they both went to A.E. office and met the accused officer and requested to process his bill for which accused officer reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to prepare the

M-books or else he will not prepare them. This witness also deposed that

PW1 reluctantly agreed to give the bribe as there is no other go and accused officer asked him to pay the part of the bribe, for which forcibly accused officer took Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from PW1 on the said day and asked to pay balance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) on 09.10.2018. This witness deposed that he came to know that on 09.10.2018, accused officer was trapped. The cross examination disclose that the accused officer tried to elicit and bring before this Court as if PW2 never had been to

MPDO office, but this witness clearly mentioned the entire topography of

MPDO office and so also PW1 mentioned about the topography of entire

MPDO office and as to where the office of accused officer is situated. PW2 never shivered in his evidence in the course of cross examination and categorically stood strong saying that only on 04.10.2018, he accompanied

PW1 to MPDO office, but not later. It is pertinent to mention here that the actual place of accused officer seating in the office was also established by the accused officer from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 while cross examining them. Since the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to demand of bribe by the accused officer is concerned, there was no iota of defence which could convince this Court that no such incident happened at all. Hence, this Court is of the view that the demand of bribe by the accused officer is totally established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Though it is the evidence of PW9 who did not chose to support the version of prosecution in

C.C.7/2020-39-ACB Crt., Knl.

any aspect much particularly deposing that accused officer who is present

before the Court was the M.E. and that he has no knowledge about what

transpired between PW1 and the accused officer, was cross examined by

Spl.PP after getting permission for declaring PW9 as hostile, this PW9 denied all the suggestions that on 08.10.2018 while this PW9 was in the office of

MPDO, Amadagur, PW1 came to him and while they were talking together, accused officer came there and took PW1 aside and talked with him something and that later PW9 came to know that accused officer was trapped by the ACB authorities. This Court is of the view that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is more convincing than that of the evidence of PW9 in this aspect.

28.As far as the demand of bribe by the accused officer on the date of trap is concerned, PW1 categorically deposed that accused officer along with DSP and trap party, proceeded to Odicheruvu in two vehicles at 2.10 P.M.

and reached Sridurga HP Gas Company area at 4.30 P.M. and after getting reiteration of earlier instructions from DSP, ACB, he was asked to go into the house of the accused officer. PW1 also deposed that he proceeded to the house of the accused officer on foot and entered the house at 4.40 P.M. and found the accused officer was sitting in the chair in the hall and on seeing him, accused officer asked him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount or not and on affirmative reply from PW1, accused officer asked him to give the same and PW1 picked up the currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and handed over the same to the accused officer and accused officer received the same with his right hand, counted with his both hands and kept on the plastic stool.

29.During the course of cross examination on this aspect by the accused officer, PW1 categorically denied the suggestion that he never gave any pre arranged signal to the DSP and his staff and that staff of DSP were

C.C.7/2020-40-ACB Crt., Knl.

waiting at the sit out at the house of the accused officer and that PW1 forcibly gave the amount to the accused officer but accused officer resisted with both hands and PW1 kept the amount on tea-poi and asked the accused officer by holding his both hands and that the same was observed by DSP and immediately they all entered along with his staff and accused officer was apprehended. Said suggestion was denied by this witness. So also the suggestion that accused officer never demanded any amount, never counted it and never kept the amounts on the tea-poi infront of him, were denied by

PW1.

30.The evidence of PW3 is crucial in this aspect. He also deposed on the same lines of PW1 that by 4.40 P.M., PW1 went into the house of accused officer and within 5 minutes, he came out, wiped his face and gave pre arranged signal to the DSP, inturn the DSP gave signal to the other trap party and they came and accordingly all of trap party entered the house of the accused officer, immediately along with them. The cross examination of PW3 on this aspect was to the effect that a suggestion was put to this witness that when they all went to the office of accused officer, he was not present and that then they proceeded to the house of accused officer. The said suggestion was denied by this witness. The other suggestion put to this witness that signal was given to DSP and DSP relayed the same as mentioned in the post trap proceedings. This was admitted by this PW3.

31.PW12 deposed in his chief examination that PW1 went into the house of the accused officer at 4.40 P.M., and at 4.45 P.M., he came out of the house and gave signal to him by wiping his face with his right hand thrice and immediately this PW12 gave signal to the rest of the party and they all went into the house of the accused officer by instructing PW1 to stay back outside.

C.C.7/2020-41-ACB Crt., Knl.

32.It is pertinent to mention here that except the evidence of PW1, there is no other evidence as to what happened in the house of the accused officer between both of them. PW1 deposes that on seeing him, accused officer demanded the bribe and after getting affirmative answer from the PW1, accused officer asked to pay the same and tainted currency was handed over to the accused officer by PW1 and accused officer took the same with right hand, counted with both hands and then placed the said amounts on the plastic stool. Accused officer through his defence tried to show that PW1 forcibly tried to give the same to the accused officer and accused officer with his both hands resisted and PW1 placed the amounts on Tea-poi and again held the hands of the accused officer and requested to take the said amounts.

It is also the defence that DSP and his team was watching from the sit out and immediately rushed into the house of the accused officer and apprehended him.

33. Ex.P11 is the post trap proceedings duly projects the events during post trap by the independent mediators i.e., PW3 and

LW3/P. Purusotham. In this post trap proceedings, the immediate response of the accused officer is noted down. The version and the defence projected by the accused officer was as mentioned supra, that PW1 forcibly gave the tainted currency to the accused officer and that accused officer resisted with his both hands and as such PW1 kept the amount on the tea-poi and asked the accused officer to take the said amounts by holding both hands of the accused officer. The version of PW1 is that accused officer demanded as and when he saw PW1 in his house regarding the bribe amount and when PW1 gave affirmative answer, he asked to give away the said amounts, as such,

PW1 gave the tainted currency to the accused officer and accused officer

C.C.7/2020-42-ACB Crt., Knl.

received the same with his right hand, counted with both hands and placed the amounts on the plastic stool.

34.Ex.P11 reveals the other set of act of the accused officer wherein when the DSP, ACB enquired the accused officer, infront of the mediators, accused officer voluntary stated before the mediators that he received the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) from PW1 with right hand and counted with both hands and placed the said amounts on the stool placed abutting to his right side near eastern side wall of the hall. But, the defence projected was that PW1 placed the said amounts on the tea-poi infront of the accused officer, apart from forcing the accused officer to receive the bribe amount etc.

35.Assuming for a moment that the accused officer is speaking truth about the aforesaid defence projected by him, then the same would have been reflected in Ex.P11 which was prepared by the independent witnesses but not by the ACB authorities. Accused officer being Assistant Engineer aged about 58 years by the date of trap, need not be worried about in disclosing the alleged incident which was projected as defence during the course of cross examination of PW1. But, the accused officer gave different version. The said version was the evidence deposed by PW1 before this Court. The oral testimony of PW1 was corroborated with that of the Ex.P11 contents. More over, as per Sec.8 of Indian Evidence Act, there are situations where the previous and subsequent conduct of a particular person becomes relevant. In the present case on hand, the subsequent conduct of the accused officer regarding the said defence put up by him, is true, then the accused officer would have raised his voice shouting at PW1 as to why he was placing

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) cash on the so called tea-poi and accused officer would have followed PW1 without hesitation to return back the

C.C.7/2020-43-ACB Crt., Knl.

amounts or scolded PW1 instructing him seriously to take back the amounts.

These sort of subsequent conduct would be expected from a honest prudent government servant or a genuine person who is not at all ready to accept anything from any other person to which he is not entitled to in any manner. In the present case on hand, the subsequent conduct of the accused officer which was recorded by PW3 was to the effect that he categorically stated about the accepting the bribe amount from PW1. The same became relevant.

This Court is of the view that the defence projected by the accused officer on the aspect of accepting the bribe amount after being demanded soon after looking at the PW1 in the house of the accused officer, is true and highly believable.

36.This Court also observed that the tainted currency/ MO6 particulars are tallying with that of the currency notes particulars noted down in

Ex.P4.

37.The attempt made by the accused officer on this aspect was that the team of DSP, ACB were sitting along with some of his staff at the sit out of the house and soon after observing PW1, holding the hands of the accused officer, rushed into the house and apprehended. From PW3, the very actual place of sitting arrangements of PW1 was elicited during the course of cross examination and PW3 categorically deposed that first there is a sit out and there after a hall in the house of accused officer is situated and immediately it was the suggestion to this PW3 by the accused officer that DSP was waiting in the sit out and observing what happens in the hall of the accused officer and not with the trap party. This suggestion was denied by this witness. PW1 categorically deposed in his cross examination that rough sketch available in the Court records shows to him is true and denied the suggestion that accused officer never called him to his house. Ex.P10 is the document which clearly

C.C.7/2020-44-ACB Crt., Knl.

establishes the entire scene of offence where the rough sketch of house of the accused officer as well as neighbouring houses is clearly mentioned and if the defence of the accused officer is believed, then also it is highly improbable that by sitting in the sit out, if the DSP or DSP and his staff are sitting in the sit out, it is impossible to observe as to what is happening in the hall as there is a wall as per Ex.P10. If they even sit towards east of the said sit out within the said sit out area, even accused officer can have the vision of these people and he would have questioned about them. There is no possibility of DSP and his staff to stay in the sit out as it is quite unnatural and unbelievable that the ACB authorities directly rushed into the house of the accused officer before trap itself. Hence, the defence put up by the accused officer on this aspect, is totally disbelieved and has no legs to stand through which the accused officer can rush away from the clutches of the law.

38.By aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that believing the version of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW2 and Ex.P11, this Court is of the view that the prosecution established the demand made by the accused officer regarding bribe as well as acceptance of the same from PW1 by accused officer.

39.As far as the official favour pending with the accused officer is concerned, PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 who belongs to the P.R. Department, categorically deposed the entire procedural aspects as to how the bills will be prepared for the completion of the work under the said Scheme. In the said procedure, it is observed that supervision of the contract work performance should be done by A.E./ accused officer. As far as the evidence of PW5 is concerned, it is his evidence that M-books were seized by the ACB authorities and this PW5 remeasured the works done by the PW1 and submitted his relevant record to E.E. through D.E.E. Exs.P5 and P6 are the M-books

C.C.7/2020-45-ACB Crt., Knl.

pertaining to the two contract works for laying C.C. roads in Seethireddypalli from the house of G. Venkata Ramana till the house of Prabhakar Raju and from the house of S.Rami Reddy to Goddemma temple of Seethireddypalli.

These M-books clearly disclose the day to day works and quantum of work done and the measurements up to date. The works of road No.1, 2 and 3 details are mentioned and about the changes etc., completed, at all the said roads etc., were all noted down in the said exhibits. A mere suggestion was also not put to this witness regarding MO 5 and 6. The procedure mentioned by the PW5 clearly disclose that unless and until the work is measured in

M-books, they cannot be sent to D.E.E. for checking. As per the evidence of

PW5, it can be understood that D.E.E. has to check the M-books and signs on the same and then work complete report is to be prepared and later on quality control team will issue after inspecting the work and submit a report and basing on the said report, action taken reports will be prepared and then the preparation of bill for the works done in M-book will take place by making entries concerned and after scrutinizing the bills in the office of E.E., payments will be made to the contractor in the name of Gramapanchayat and funds will be transferred accordingly. It is also the evidence of PW6 that the funds will be transferred in the name of Gramapanchayat. It is evidence of PW6 about he aforesaid procedure. This witness categorically deposed that M-books bears the signatures of the accused officer i.e., Exs.P5 and P6. This witness categorically deposed that till the date of trap, he did not receive M-books through D.E. Muster role with respect to unskilled labours and their wages will be prepared by the A.E. at the time of starting the work and details will be entered into M-books and should be submitted to the D.E. and D.E. will pass orders and upload the bills online and FTO will be generated. This witness deposed that A.E. made entries in M-books and D.E. passed orders as per page-7 of Ex.P5 and P6 with respect to muster roles on 10.08.2018 and subsequently, details for all the works were entered by A.E. in the M-book. It

C.C.7/2020-46-ACB Crt., Knl.

is his evidence that since the accused officer was trapped, the work of accused officer was entrusted to PW5 as per Ex.P18 and he re-recorded the works. This witness clearly deposed that the work of accused officer was entrusted to PW5 and that means, this Court observed that all the duties which are performed by PW5 must have to be performed by the accused officer but he did not chose to do so and retained Exs.P5 and P6 with him. PW7 also deposes about the entire procedure and deposed that by 09.10.2018 i.e., date of trap, Exs.P5 and P6 were not sent to the office of D.E. During the course of cross examination he deposed admitting that basing on Ex.P5 and P6, he gave his statement before the DSP, ACB during post trap proceedings/Ex.P11.

40.It is the evidence of PW8 that he spoke about the entire procedural aspect and by the date of trap, both works of Seethireddypalli village were completed and their details were recorded by A.E./ accused officer in M-books thereafter they have to be forwarded to D.E. and that till the date of trap, D.E. i.e., he himself did not receive said M-books. Ex.P5 and P6 were not received by him till the date of trap and they do not bear his signature. He also deposed that after trap, the duties of accused officer was entrusted to PW5 and he entered the details of work in new M-books and PW8 verified and again sent to PW5.

41.It is pertinent to mention here that the cross examination of accused officer was deferred for lunch as per the deposition dated 26.03.2024.

Surprisingly, after the lunch, this witness revert back with his earlier evidence and started admitting that whenever any work is completed, accused officer will check and inspect the work and enter in M-books and forward the same to him. After it is deposed that work started in the 8th month in respect of this case and it took two months minimum for completion of work and unless this witness receive M-book, he cannot say when the work was completed and

C.C.7/2020-47-ACB Crt., Knl.

since work was not completed, this witness did not receive M-books. It appears clearly to this Court that PW8 wants to support the accused officer soon after the lunch, stating that work was not completed and that M-books were not sent by accused officer i.e., Exs.P5 and P6. But, this Court observed his earlier evidence before this Court about the completion of the work which was deposed by himself and is of the view that official favour of sending

M-books to D.E.E. was still pending with the accused officer and even after completion of the work, accused officer did not chose to forward the same to the higher authorities so that the payment of bills can be done after following due procedure. Retaining Exs.P5 and P6 with him, itself shows that there is official favour pending with him as M-books Exs.P5 and P6 are the crucial documents which would explain work done regarding the contracts through which amounts incurred and estimated construction work amount will be paid to the person who attends the contract work.

42.With the aforesaid detailed discussion coupled with crucial documents mentioned therein with that of the oral testimony of witnesses, it can easily be inferred and evident through the oral and documentary evidence that official favour is pending with the accused officer.

43.Exs.P34 and P35 clearly disclose that accused officer was on duty as deposed by PW11 and as per Ex.P41 it can easily be understood the nature of the work of the accused officer and the evidence of PW12 disclose about the investigation done by them and nothing was elicited from the mouth of investigating officer which could help the accused officer and moreover the observation of entire rough sketch/Ex.P10 was elicited from the mouth of this witness. But, a crucial suggestion was put to this investigating officer/PW12 that after lodging Ex.P1 on 07.10.2018, ACB authorities have no proof to show that PW1 met the accused officer on 08.10.2018 and this suggestion was

C.C.7/2020-48-ACB Crt., Knl.

admitted by this witness, but volunteered that as per PW1, accused officer instructed PW1 to come and meet him on 08.10.2018 at his residence.

44.If the several defences projected by the accused officer are presumed to be true, what made the PW1 go and meet the accused officer now and then with regard to the said two contract works of laying C.C. roads, is a big considerable question. A crucial question as to why and how PW1 went to the house of accused officer on the date of trap becomes crucial.

When there are no proper replies and explanation from the accused officer for these, probabilities cannot be attributed to the defences projected by the accused officer. He did not even choose to discharge his burden as to why his hands turned pink. Presumption glaringly comes into play in the given set of facts and this Court is of the view that prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against the accused officer. The accused officer being Asst. Engineer of Panchayat Raj Engineering

Department did not choose to obey the job chart and tried to misuse his official capacity for his own purpose and thereby committed the offence which attracts misconduct.

45.For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the view that accused officer committed the offence and the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused officer for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018, beyond reasonable doubt.

46.In the result, accused officeris found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act , 2018 and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

C.C.7/2020-49-ACB Crt., Knl.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

47.Accused officer is heard on quantum of sentence. Initially, he sought for apologies and stated that he retired from services in the year 2020 as Assistant Engineer and suffering from chronic diabetic and that he is aged about 67 years and that his wife is also there along with him and lenient view is to be showered on him by imposing less punishment. He also stated that he is having capacity to engage a counsel at the appellate stage, when this Court informed him about his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment.

Heard both the learned defence counsel and Spl.PP. The learned defence counsel after reiterating the contention of the accused officer aforesaid mentioned, also informed that the son of the accused officer is living far away from the accused officer and that there is no one to take care of wife of accused officer and that minimum punishment is to be awarded by showering lenient view.

The learned Spl.PP once again reiterated about the attitude of the accused officer in retaining the M-books with him in order to fulfill his desire of receiving the bribe amount and prayed to consider the same and impose severe punishment.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this Case, though the accused officer pleaded mercy and aplogies and prayed this Court to shower lenient view on the ground that he is suffering from diabetic, this Court is of the view that the age of the accused officer at the time of commission of offence was 58 years and even that age is also to be taken into consideration. This

Court having observed the entire record keenly, felt that demanding the bribe is not the aspect of a particular situation, but the nature and mental status of

C.C.7/2020-50-ACB Crt., Knl.

the person misusing his position, as such this Court intends to punish the said mind set of demanding bribe and accepting the same and enriching themselves. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that sentencing the accused officer to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months, and awarding Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) total fine amount to PW1 towards compensation U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of justice.

48.In the result, Accused Officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C.

(Amendment) Act, 2018, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The period of remand already undergone by the accused officer i.e., from 10.10.2018 to 12.11.2018 shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Out of the said fine amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only), the total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) is awarded towards compensation to PW1 U/Sec.357

Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by Accused officer is Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only).

MO-6 i.e., cash of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) is confiscated to State after appeal time is over. Rest of the material objects

MOs.1 to 5, MOs 7 and 8, shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier.

C.C.7/2020-51-ACB Crt., Knl.

Free copy of judgment is furnished to the Accused officer, and accused officer acknowledged the receipt of free copy of judgment.

Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the Engineer in Chief,

Panchayat Raj Department, A.P., Vijayawada, as per Rule-73 of Criminal

Rules of Practice.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution:

Prosecution Name of the WitnessDescription Witness No.

1G.LaxmipathiDefacto complainant.

2G.Siva PrasadYounger brother of PW1.

3B.Peddi ReddyOne of the mediators.

4Y.SreenivasuluPanchayat Secretary of Cheekirevulapalli village.

5Isac Jamal BashaAssistant Executive Engineer.

6K.KondaiahSuperintending Engineer and he was the then Executive Engineer in PR Department.

7Mohammed Hussain BashaAssistant Engineer, PRE Division.

8B.Rama Subba ReddyRetired Govt. servant who worked as DEE

C.C.7/2020-52-ACB Crt., Knl.

in PR Department.

9K.Venkata RamanaSurpanch of Cheekirevulapalli Gramapanchayat 10K.N.V.S.V. PrasadSection Officer.

11Chandra ReddyRetired MPDO.

12C.Jayarama RajuInvestigating Officer.

13T.V.ChakravarthiInvestigating Officer. For Defence: -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution:

Exhibit No.Description of the ExhibitProved by/ Attested by 1Complaint of PW1. PW1 2Agreement entered by PW1 with the Surpanch.PW1 3Copy of Complaint.PW3 4Pre trap proceedings.PW3 5Original M-Book No.1518B2PP/2016-2017.PW3 6Original M-Book No.1519B2PP/2016-2017.PW3 7Photo copy of detailed estimate of work PW3 I.D.No.127054505006080061.

8Photo copy of detailed estimate of work PW3 I.D.No.127054505006080062.

9Original payment order copies for two works vide PW3 I.D.No.127054505006080061 and 127054505006080062.

10Rough sketch containing the signature of PW3.PW3 11Post trap proceedings.PW3 12Attested copy of resolution, dated 13.06.2017.PW4 13Work order, dated 25.10.2017.PW4 14Covering letter of Ex.P13. PW4 15Attested copy of death certificate of Siva Sankar PW4

C.C.7/2020-53-ACB Crt., Knl.

Reddy, dated 28.10.2017.

16Covering letter, dated 15.03.2019 addressed to PW4 Inspector of Police, ACB enclosing Ex.P12 and P15.

17Part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW6/PW4.PW4 18Proceedings issued by E.E Penugonda PW5 dated12.10.2018 placing me FAC of Amadaguru in the place of accused officer.

19M-Book of work laying of CC roads from PW5 G.Venkata Ramana’s house to Prabhakar Raju’s house in Seethireddy palli Village of Amadagur Mandal/ 13 sheets.

19-A andBill entries in Ex.P19 and Ex.P20.PW5 20-A 20M-Book of work laying of CC roads from S.Rami PW5 Reddy’s house to Vaddemma Temple in Seethireddy palli Village of Amadagur Mandal/ 13 sheets.

21Work completion reports of both works PW5 (11 sheets + 17 sheets).

22Work completion reports of both works PW5 (11 sheets + 17 sheets).

23Quality control report dated 03.12.2018 (6 sheets) PW5 of first work.

24Quality control report dated 03.12.2018 (6 sheets) PW5 of second work.

25Action taken reports of both works given by PW5.PW5 26Action taken reports of both works given by PW5.PW5 27Fund transfer orders of relevant bills payment .PW5 28Fund transfer orders of relevant bills payment.PW5 29Administrative sanction order dated 11.10.2017 PW6 issued by District Collector, Anantapuramu.

30Part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8/LW7.PW8 31Part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9/LW5.PW9 32Authorization letter.PW10

C.C.7/2020-54-ACB Crt., Knl.

33Sanction order, dated 04.03.2020.PW10 34Attested copy of attendance register (for the year PW11 2018).

35Attested copy of C.L. register (page No.45).PW11 36First Information Report.PW12 37Letter sent by the Asst. Director, deputing PW3 PW12 and LW3 from the Mines and Geology Department.

38Arrest memo.PW12 39Letter, dated 22.03.2019 from E.E to Inspector, PW13 ACB, Ananthapuram.

40Letter, dated 08.03.2019 from E.E to DSP, ACB, PW13 Ananthapuram regarding processing of bills for laying of CC roads.

41Job chart along with covering letter.PW13

For Defence:- -Nil-

Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution:

MaterialDescription of the ExhibitProved by Object No./Attested by 1Sample of phenolphthalein powder.PW3 2Sample of sodium carbonate powder.PW3 3Resultant solution of right hand of accused officer. PW3 4Resultant solution of left hand of accused officer. PW3 5Resultant solution of cotton swab rubbed at the PW3 surface of plastic stool.

6Currency notes of Rs.2000 x 5 and Rs.500 x 20.PW3 7Cotton swab.PW3 8Sample of sodium carbonate powder.PW3

For Defence: -Nil-

C.C.7/2020-55-ACB Crt., Knl.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

//True Copy//

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

C.C.7/2020-56-ACB Crt., Knl.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES, KURNOOL.

C.C.No.7/2020

1. Date of OffencePrior to 07.10.2018

2.Date of Report or Complaint07.10.2018

3.Date of Apprehension of the Accused10.10.2018

4.Date of Release on bail12.11.2018

5.Date of Commencement of trial09.12.2021

6.Date of close of the trial02.09.2025

7.Date of Sentence of Order 08.05.2026

8.Explanation of delay and remarks - ComplainantThe State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram Range, Ananthapuram. AccusedSri Bandaru Chinna Pullaiah, S/o late Pullaiah, age 58 years, Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, Amadagur Mandal, Ananthapuram District. OffencePublic servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. FindingAccused Officer found guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused officeris found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) or Order Act , 2018 and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. Accused Officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018, and in default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The period of remand already undergone by the accused officer i.e., from 10.10.2018 to12.11.2018 shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Out of the said fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only), the total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) is awarded

C.C.7/2020-57-ACB Crt., Knl.

towards compensation to PW1 U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C. Total fine amount payable by Accused officer is Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only). MO-6 i.e., cash of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) is confiscated to State after appeal time is over. Rest of the material objects MOs.1 to 5, MOs 7 and 8, shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the Accused officer, and accused officer acknowledged the receipt of free copy of judgment. Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the Engineer in Chief, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P., Vijayawada, as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Kurnool. Copy submitted to:

The Registrar(Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN Code No.522237. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau Headquarters, 2nd floor, A.P.Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada.

Copy to:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram. The Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B.Court, Kurnool. (Ananthapuram Range)

APKU160000052021

Presented on : 26-03-2021 Registered on : 26-03-2021 Decided on : 31-03-2026 Duration : 5 years, 0 months, 5 days C.C.4/2021ACB Crt., Knl.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES:

AT KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt.N.Srividya, Spl.Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 31st day of March, 2026

C.C.No.4/2021

Between:

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram.… Complainant

Vs.

Sri Gummala Nagabhushanam, S/o G. Venkobanna, aged 56 years, Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer, Penukonda, Ananthapuram. … Accused Officer

This case has been coming on 23.03.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of

Sri K. Ravindra Babu, and N. Shanmukam, Advocates for accused officer, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

C.C.4/2021-2-ACB Crt., Knl.

The Accused Officer arraigned for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988.

02.In the process of claiming Government incentive of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) due to performing the inter community marriage, the defacto complainant by name K. Ajmath (who married his wife by name

Anasuyamma who belongs to Yerukala community of S.T.) faced a situation where the Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer demanded bribe for sanctioning the said incentive for which the defacto complainant did not wish to pay the bribe and thereby lodged the report with the ACB authorities.

(a)As per the case of the defacto complainant, he is resident of

Rayadurg of Ananthapuram District and that he fell in love with one lady by name Anasuyamma who belongs to Yerukala community and falls within the

S.T. category and that their love marriage was performed in the month of

November 2014, in the Registration Office Chitradurg District, Molkalmur Sub

Registrar Office, Karnataka. It is his contention that he came to know that

Government is providing incentive of Rs.50,000/- for the inter community marriages and accordingly, he along with his wife went to Tribal Welfare

Office, Ananthapuram in the year 2016 and submitted the application along with their marriage certificate, caste certificate, Aadhar cards, ration cards and family photo and claimed for the said incentive of Rs.50,000/-. It is his case that in the month of March 2018, Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer by name

Nagabhusanam from Penukonda visited their village and came to the locality where the house of defacto complainant is situated and conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of inhabitants and also informed the defacto complainant to come and meet in the office and went away and that accordingly in the same month of March 2018, when this defacto complainant went to the concerned office, Penukonda, and met the said officer

C.C.4/2021-3-ACB Crt., Knl.

Nagabhusanam, it was informed to him by said Nagabhusanam that the bill was sanctioned and that said Nagabhusanam has to prepare the bill and send the same to the Treasury and from there getting the amounts sanctioned and to get the amounts credited into the account of the defacto complainant,

Nagabhusanam needs Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards bribe.

It is the contention of the defacto complainant that he was not at all willing to pay any bribe and accordingly, he returned back from the office of Penukonda and later on when the defacto complainant felt that even after several days when they were not getting the said incentive, on 17.04.2018 in the morning hours, the defacto complainant made a phone call to said Nagabhusanam and enquired about the sanctioned incentive and that said Nagabhusanam informed the defacto complainant to come to Pennar Bhavan, Ananthapur and as such on the same day when the defacto complainant went to Pennar

Bhavan and met Nagabhusanam, the said person stated not to irritate him and that defacto complainant is bound to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards his bribe and that unless and until the bribe amount is paid, his work will not be done. Accordingly, when the defacto complainant requested said Nagabhusanam that he is not capable to pay that much amount as bribe and to reduce, the said person reduced it to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and accordingly when the defacto complainant stated that he has no amount readily available with him, said Nagabhusanam informed him to bring the same within one week so that his work would be done and that the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) would be credited into his account. It is also the case of the defacto complainant that the said Nagabhusanam informed him that the said bribe amount should be given directly to him by coming to the place which would be informed to him later and that the defacto complainant should come to the office on 27.04.2018 and pay the said amounts by coming to the place instructed by

C.C.4/2021-4-ACB Crt., Knl.

said Nagabhusanam to him and hand over the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only).

(b)It is further the case of the defacto complainant that since he was not willing to pay the bribe, he got scribed the report through his brother-in-law by name Balanjaneyulu and lodged report with the ACB officials praying to apprehend said Nagabhusanam redhandedly while receiving the bribe amount and to take appropriate action as per law.

(c)As per the case of the prosecution, soon after receipt of the aforesaid report in writing, the same was endorsed on 26.04.2018 at 9 A.M., to one Inspector by name R. Prathap Reddy to cause discreet inquiry on the genuineness of the contents of the complaint and also the antecedents of the defacto complainant as well as the Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer by name

Nagabhusanam of Penukonda and submit the report and accordingly, on 27.04.2018 at 11 A.M., the said Inspector endorsed that he caused discreet inquiry about the Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer by name Nagabhusanam S/o

Venkobanna of Penukonda and also about the genuineness of the complaint and endorsement further disclose that he is carrying bad reputation in respect of corruption and the contents of the complaint are genuine and basing on the said endorsement made by the Inspector, the then Incharge DSP, ACB immediately registered a case in Cr.No.4/RCT/ATP/2018 U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and took up the investigation.

(d)The further case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was asked to come to the office of ACB with the proposed bribe amount and pre trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of two mediators much particularly the mediators being government employees from

MPDO of Garladinne and Superintendent of office of Mandal Praja Parishad,

Raptadu of Ananthapuram. The entire procedure followed by ACB authorities

before the mediators including seizure of phenolphthalein powder, noting the

details of currency notes (Proposed bribe amount) instructing to defacto

C.C.4/2021-5-ACB Crt., Knl.

complainant etc., was clearly typed on dictation of mediators in their presence and that all of them affixed their respective signatures. It is also the case of the prosecution that soon after the pre trap proceedings, all the team members along with the defacto complainant and mediators with the ACB officials rushed to the spot after getting information about the availability of the accused/Nagabhusanam at Pennar Bhavan Tribal Welfare Office, through the defacto complainant as the defacto complainant made a phone call to the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that accused after looking at the defacto complainant demanded bribe amount and received the same from the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant soon after giving the pre arranged signals, the ACB officials including the mediators, caught the accused redhandedly and followed the procedure and post trap proceedings concluded after seizure of the concerned records and after conclusion of chemical test successfully. It is also the case of the prosecution that the inner linings of the trouser of the accused was also subjected to phenopthelien test and ACB officials got successful results, and everything was reduced into writing under post trap proceedings.

(e)After closure of investigation, it is the contention of the prosecution that charge sheet was filed after duly getting sanction orders from the Government to prosecute the accused officer.

03.The learned predecessor of this Court, has taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988, against the Accused officer.

04.On appearance of the Accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

C.C.4/2021-6-ACB Crt., Knl.

05.On 01.11.2021, this Court examined the Accused officer as required U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation levelled against him in his mother tongue Telugu and having understood the same, he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges U/ Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988 were framed against him.

06.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 19 out of 21 listed witnesses. Prosecution exhibited Exs.P1 to P30 and MOs 1 to 8.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused officer was examined as required U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances and material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in his mother tongue Telugu and having understood the same, he denied entire evidence of prosecution and contended that he will file written statement and reported no defence evidence as such defence evidence was closed and accused filed his written statement.

08.The written statement was to the effect that PW1/defacto complainant applied for government benefits at Pennar Bhavan in the year 2015 and in the month of March-2018, accused visited the village of PW1 and after enquiring the neighbours and recording their statements returned back and in the third week of March-2018, the defacto complainant /PW1 went to the office of the accused along with photocopy of Bank Joint Account and handed over the same to the accused and after looking at the same, accused stated that the amount was already granted in their favour but never demanded and never promised to send the bill prepared to the Treasury so that the amounts would be credited into the accounts of the PW1 and that accused never demanded Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards

C.C.4/2021-7-ACB Crt., Knl.

bribe and that PW1 never met him on 17.04.2018 and accused never reduced the alleged bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and never directed PW1 to pay the bribe amount on 27.04.2018. It is the contention of the accused officer through his written statement that the entire alleged facts projected by the prosecution are fabricated and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is false.

(a)The written statement disclose that the evidence of PW7, PW6,

PW12 clearly disclose that accused officer verified the application/Ex.P2 and recommended the same before 19.03.2018 for the financial year 2017-2018 and as per Ex.P7, the proposals were already sent to the Department, in favour of PW1 as well as 5 other couples inclusive of PW1 and his wife and that the same was credited into DDO account and it clearly shows that there is no official favour pending with the accused officer and that accused officer never demanded amount from PW1 and said question does not arise. It is also the contention of the accused officer through written statement that PW1 bore-grudge against the accused officer that accused officer is causing delay in occurrence of disbursement of amount to him and that PW1 unnecessarily lodged a false complaint on 26.04.2018 against the accused officer with ACB officials and that accused officer is no way concerned in disbursement or in crediting the amounts into the account of PW1 and that his role is only to verify and make recommendations of the applications and that he did the same.

(b)It is also the contention of the accused officer that on the day of trap, by that time accused officer was towards south of his office attending nature calls and that PW1 waited there and when accused officer was going into the office of Pennar Bhavan, PW1 tried to give tainted currency to him and that accused officer resisted with his both hands but when the accused officer was going into the office, PW1 thrusted the tainted currency notes into his back trouser pocket on right side and caught hold the both hands of

C.C.4/2021-8-ACB Crt., Knl.

accused officer asking him to do the needful for which accused officer stated that PW1’s work was completed and at that time, observing the same, the trap party came and caught hold of the accused officer and took him into the room.

It is also the contention of the accused officer that there is no evidence that he is carrying a bag with him into Pennar Bhavan with the recovery of Bank Pass

Book from the bag of the accused officer, is totally false and further contended that accused officer never demanded and accepted any amount from PW1 and that no official work of PW1 is pending with the accused officer as on the date of complaint. It is also the contention of the accused officer through the written statement that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the demand and about acceptance of the bribe amount by adducing evidence and that accused officer is entitled for acquittal from the charges levelled against him.

09.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused Officer for

the charges levelled against him, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

10.Heard both sides.

11.It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Spl.P.P.submitted his written arguments and the learned defence counsel submitted his oral arguments.

12.The learned Spl.PP filed written arguments reiterating the basic case of the prosecution as projected in Ex.P1 and reiterated about the pre trap and post trap proceedings initially. Later on, the written arguments were to the extent of the oral testimony of PW1 regarding proof of initial demand of bribe amount and later on subsequent demand made by the accused officer.

C.C.4/2021-9-ACB Crt., Knl.

The written arguments further disclose that PW1 clearly disclosed about the demand made by the accused officer and that his evidence was not shattered and further the written arguments disclose that the evidence of PW1 during trial in support of facts regarding meeting of accused officer by PW1 and the accused officer stating that amount was granted in favour of PW1 and promising PW1 to send the bill prepared to the Treasury office from where the amounts will be credited into the joint account of PW1 and his wife and also about the accused officer demanding Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards bribe to do the needful. It is also the written arguments that since the amount was not credited, in the month of April i.e., on 17.04.2018, PW1 making call to accused officer and enquiring about the amount and all other relevant facts that PW1 as per the instructions of the accused officer went to the office of accused officer wherein the accused officer bluntly stated that he should not be irritated again and again and that bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is to be given to him. The written arguments further disclose that when PW1 requested the accused officer, bribe amount was reduced to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) which is to be given by PW1 on the instructions of the accused officer within one week. It is the contention of the Spl.PP that basing on the sole testimony of PW1, prosecution successfully proved about the demand of bribe amount by the accused officer and that PW3 who is one of the mediators, also supported the version of PW1 in explaining about pre trap and post trap proceedings. It is also the contention of the prosecution through written arguments that making phone calls is proved basing on Ex.P20 CDRs.

(a)The written arguments further disclose about the evidence of

PW1 that his evidence supported the case of the prosecution and also supporting evidence of PW3 regarding Ex.P5, MOs 5 and 6 and also about pre trap and post trap proceedings and the written arguments further disclose about the evidence of PWs 5 and 16 where the employees of District Tribal

C.C.4/2021-10-ACB Crt., Knl.

Welfare Office, Ananthapuram and the aspect of pending official favour and reiterated the evidence of PW1 once again repeated the evidence of PWs 1 and 14 that their application was still pending though they have submitted all the concerned records. It is the contention of the prosecution through written arguments that the evidence of PWs 4, 6, 7 and 15 supported the case of the prosecution in all aspects and as such, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution proved its case.

(b)As far as the defence of the accused officer is concerned, the defence of the accused officer regarding thrusting the amounts into his back trouser pocket, is totally false and that MOs 3, 4 and 6 yielded positive colour and clearly says that accused officer committed the offence and that MOs 3, 4 and 6 are the live material objects destroy the case of the prosecution. But, the written arguments disclose that the said contention is false and due to lapse of 5 years, there can definitely be chemical reaction which would fade colour of the chemical examination and its results which was done on the date of trap i.e., 27.04.2018, and that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt.

(c)The learned Spl.PP relied upon the following judgments:

(1) 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 378 (SC) - Ramesh Harijan vs State of U.P.

(2) AIR 1968 SC 1419 – Shivrajsingh vs Delhi Administration (3) 1997 CRLJ 739 – C.K. Damodara Nair vs Government of India (4) AIR 1998 SC 1474 – State of U.P. vs Zakrullah (5) AIR 1984 SC 63 – State of Maharasthra vs Narasingarao Gangaram

Pimple (6) 2008 Crl.LJ 4772 SC – State vs A. Parthiban (7) AIR 2003 SC 2169 – Subash Parbat Sonrane vs State of Gujarat (8) 1995 Crl.L.J SC – Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh (9) 2011 SCC (Crl) (1) 214 – B. Nagulsharief vs State of A.P.

C.C.4/2021-11-ACB Crt., Knl.

(10)2006 SCC (Crl) 346 – Shankerbhailaljibhai Rot vs State of

Gujarat (11)2013 (8) SCC 199 – State of Maharasthra vs Mahesh G Jain (12)Neeraj Dutta vs State , dated 15.12.2022 (13)2014 (1) ALD Crl 434 – K. Kumara Swami vs State (14)2011 (2) ALD Crl 438 – Pillimarri Venugopala Krishna Murthy vs

State (15) AIR 1984 SC 63 – Maharastra vs Narsingarao Gangaram Pimple (16)2011 Crl. JL SC 975 – CM Sarma vs State of AP (17)2006 SCC (Crl) 346 – Shankerbhailaljbhai Rot vs State of Gujarat (18)AIR 1960 SC 548 – C.I. Emden vs State of U.P.

Finally, prayed this Court to convict the accused.

13.The learned defence counsel submitted oral arguments. As per the contention of the learned defence counsel on behalf of the accused officer, there is no official favour pending with the accused officer as per the job chart of the accused officer and that when there is no official favour pending with the accused officer, there cannot be any demand for bribe and that prosecution miserably failed to establish that there is official favour pending with the accused officer and in that connection accused officer demanded the bribe from PW1. It is urged that there is no proof produced by the prosecution that PW1 made a phone call to the accused officer on the date of trap and that in the absence of said proof, it is highly improbable to believe the case of the prosecution and that benefit of doubt is to be showered on the accused officer on the aspect of absence of demand and bribe and much particularly in the absence of proof of official favour pending with the accused officer.

C.C.4/2021-12-ACB Crt., Knl.

(a)The learned defence counsel urged on the point of thrusting the amounts into the back pocket of the trouser of the accused officer by PW1. It was urged that on the date of trap, accused officer was attending nature call within the compound of Pennar Bhavan, Ananthapuram and at that time, PW1 met the accused officer and enquired about his incentive of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and on that the accused officer stated that nothing is pending with him and suddenly PW1 tried to thrust Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) into the hands of accused officer and when accused officer refused the same with both of his hands, PW1 thrusted

Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) tainted currency in the back pocket of the accused officer while accused officer was moving towards the office. It is urged that MOs 3, 4 and 6 clearly goes to show that their colour was very light pink as observed by this Court (Predecessor of this Court) at the time of marking MOs 3, 4 and 6 and further it is urged that the said colour was due to not touching the tainted currency full-fledgedly and that had it been true story that the accused officer demanded and received tainted currency towards bribe, MOs 3, 4 and 6 would have turned into pink colour rather than very light pink and that benefit of doubt is showered on the accused officer basing on

MOs 3, 4 and 6 as well. It is also urged that MO6 is plain in colour with some particles with water, was the observation of the Court at the time of marking

MO6 and that it can safely be concluded that the story of PW1 is totally false and that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused officer and prayed this Court to acquit the accused officer.

(b)The learned defence counsel also argued on the point of non seizure of alleged bag from which Ex.P3 was alleged to have been handed over to the ACB officials. It is urged that basically accused officer never carried any bag let alone the red bag or brown bag or black bag. It is urged that as per the statement of PW3, Ex.P3 was handed over by the accused

C.C.4/2021-13-ACB Crt., Knl.

officer to them and as per the version of PW6, he clearly deposed during the course of his cross examination that Ex.P3 was not returned to them and denied the suggestion that Ex.P3 was already there in the file and received by him and that he is deposing falsehood. It is urged that Ex.P3 which is nothing but the photostat copy of joint account of Andhra Bank pass book in the name of PW1 and his wife PW14, was handed over by the accused officer along with the concerned file and sent the same to the wing which is dealing with the sanctioning of incentive and that PW18 who is the investigating officer in this case, categorically admitted that Ex.P1 which is report lodged by PW1 do not disclose with regard to handing over of Ex.P3 on 17.04.2018 to the accused officer and that when Ex.P1 is silent about the said crucial point, it can safely be concluded that accused officer is innocent and that nothing was recovered from him much particularly Ex.P3 though contended by the prosecution that it was handed over by the accused officer to PW18 in the presence of PW3.

(c)The learned defence counsel urged that the incentive will be directly credited into the account of the applicants and that there is nothing which can be done by the accused officer and that it was also admitted by

PW6 who categorically deposed that the procedure for crediting amount to beneficiaries is after the bills are submitted to the Treasury, amounts will be credited directly into the accounts of the beneficiaries and that if any problem arises, amount will be credited to the account of DDO.

(d)The learned defence counsel also urged that even PW15 while deposing before this Court, categorically deposed that if the allegations are found proper, bills will be prepared basing on the allotment of the budget and the amounts from the Government will be directly credited into the accounts of the applicants through online process. It is urged that when that is the procedure, the accused officer is nothing to do with the process of submitting the bills and that he is having no official favour pending with him and that his job nature is only to verify the applications, conduct enquiry, record the

C.C.4/2021-14-ACB Crt., Knl.

statements and then submit his report either in favour or against the applicants. It is urged that in the present case on hand, accused officer submitted his report which clearly disclose that he endorsed on the application that everything is proper and Ex.P11, P11A and Ex.P2 clearly disclose about the act of the accused officer that he endorsed on the application and submitted the same and the endorsement on Ex.P2 i.e., “Verified and recommended” with the signature of the accused officer as Asst. Tribal

Welfare Officer, Penukonda clearly disclose that accused officer was not at all the person under the habit of demanding bribe and never demanded the bribe in this case and that a false case is foisted against him and prayed this Court to acquit the accused officer on benefit of doubt basing on the aforesaid defences put up by him. It is also urged that the written statement of the accused officer should also be taken into consideration.

(e)The learned defence counsel urged regarding certain points while cross examining the prosecution witnesses that PW1 categorically admitted during the course of his cross examination that he submitted his application to the clerk concerned in the Pennar Bhavan at Ananthapuram and that when the accused officer visited their village for enquiry regarding his marriage with his wife, villagers confirmed the marriage in Page-29, dated 26.02.2018 and also deposed admitting that there was no budget at the time of their marriage and that they have not received at that time in the year 2016. It is also urged that PW1 categorically admitted that accused officer advised him to open an

Account in a nationalized Bank i.e., Andhra Bank and that Ex.P3 was opened on 07.01.2017. It is also urged that PW1 admitted that he did not mention in his complaint/Ex.P1 that accused officer asked them to get a copy of joint account in any nationalized Bank and to produce the copy before him and also admitted that he did not mention in his complaint regarding handing over the copy of joint account of Andhra Bank pass book to the accused officer in third week of March 2018. It is also urged that considering all the aforesaid

C.C.4/2021-15-ACB Crt., Knl.

admissions made by PW1, it can safely be concluded that Ex.P3 was not at all given to the accused officer so that it can be seized from his alleged imaginary bag during post trap proceedings.

(f)The learned defence counsel also drawn the attention of this

Court towards to the evidence of PW1 that during the cross examination, PW1 categorically deposed that after accused officer visited their village for enquiry, he did not visit the office of accused officer. It is urged that when PW1 did not visit the office of the accused officer, there can never be any point regarding demand of bribe. It is also urged that PW1 in his cross examination also expressed that he has no knowledge whether during the month of March 2018 itself, the District Officer sent proposals to the Treasury for sanction of amount for five such applications including PW1 and that accused officer is not in a position to do any favour to them. It is urged that when PW1 is having no knowledge about the procedure, he hastily lodged a false case with the ACB authorities to get the amounts quickly. It is also urged by the defence counsel that the very case of the prosecution is totally false and for that reason, PWs 8 to 11 categorically deposed that they were not at all examined by the ACB authorities during post trap proceedings and that their signatures were obtained not in the presence of mediators. It is finally urged that when there is possibility of not believing the version of the prosecution witnesses who turned hostile, in the light of some of the prosecution witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution, then definitely accused officer should be showered benefit of doubt and that in the present case on hand accused officer should be acquitted as the prosecution miserably failed in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt creating several doubts in the very case of the prosecution.

14.Perused the record. Charge levelled against the accused officer is:

C.C.4/2021-16-ACB Crt., Knl.

1. Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988 defines :

“ Any public servant who,- (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to

obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to

perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or

dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such

duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage

from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest

performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such

duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform

improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance

of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an

undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years

but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

2. Sec.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 defines :

“Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be

punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less

than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also

be liable to fine.”

3. Sec.13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 defines

“(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal

misconduct,-

(i) “ by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other

person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage “ or (ii) “by abusing

his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person

any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” or (iii) “ while holding office

C.C.4/2021-17-ACB Crt., Knl.

as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or

pecuniary advantage without any public interest”

15.Perused the record. To establish its case, prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 19 out of 21 listed witnesses and exhibited Ex.P1 to P30 and MOs 1 to 8.

16.In order to prosecute the accused officer under the aforesaid charges, prosecution is bound to establish that the accused officer is a

Government employee and the prosecution, by exhibiting Ex.P19 i.e., service particulars along with letter and the annexed duties and functions of Asst.

Tribal Welfare Officer through PW15, successfully proved that accused officer is Government employee who can be prosecuted under P.C. Act, 1988. As could be seen from the cross examination of PW15, there is no dispute with regard to Ex.P19. Since the accused officer is a Government employee, in order to launch prosecution against the accused officer, there must and should be sanction orders from the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the prosecution by exhibiting Ex.P17, the sanction orders dated 22.06.2020 vide

G.O.Ms.No.31 Social Welfare (TW.SER) Department issued sanction orders to prosecute the accused officer. PW16 who is the Section Officer duly authorized under Ex.P16, categorically deposed that after applying the mind by the Secretary to the Government Social Welfare Department, Sri Kanthilal

Dande, accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused officer under Ex.P17 and this witness also deposed that all the relevant documents under preliminary report received on 15.05.2018 from D.G., ACB i.e., radio message, FIR, MR-I, MR-II, gist of statements of witnesses, final report from

D.G., ACB inclusive of relevant documents, explanation of the accused officer and reasons for its rejection, which was circulated among the relevant

C.C.4/2021-18-ACB Crt., Knl.

authorized officers of the Government, Ex.P17 was issued. During the course of cross examination, this PW13 categorically deposed that she gave her evidence in chief basing on the record available with her and that she has no personal knowledge about the facts of the case. The suggestions that basing on the model sanction order, Ex.P17 was prepared, was denied by this witness. This Court is of the view that on careful perusal of Ex.P17, there appears no material which could create doubt in the very sanction orders and issuance of the same by the then Secretary to the Government Sri Khantilal

Dande. Hence, the prosecution proved the crucial points under which the

Government employee can be prosecuted with requisite sanction orders.

17.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused officer, the basic ingredients i.e., demand of bribe, acceptance of bribe, pending of official favour with the accused officer, are crucial. The prosecution witnesses are as follows:

PW1: Defacto complainant PW14: Wife of PW1 PW2: Elder brother of PW14 PW3: One of the mediators PW4: One person by name Nagamuni who happens to forward the application of PWs 1 and 14 to PW7 PW5: Sravanthi, Attender at DTWO, Ananthapuram who deposed about her duties in the office and procedure she followed while dealing with Ex.P2 PW6: Ranganayakulu, Jr. Assistant in the same department. PW7: Lakshmanaik who was the person forwarded 21 applications of inter caste marriages to accused officer PW8: M. Swamy who was Superintendent in DTWO, Ananthapuram PW9: Sr. Assistant in the same office PW10: Accountant by name Venkateswarlu in the same office PW11: Sankar Narayana, Data Entry Operator in the same office PW12: D. Suresh, Superintendent in the District S.T. Welfare and Empowerment Office who worked as Superintendent in DTWO, Ananthapuram

C.C.4/2021-19-ACB Crt., Knl.

PW13: Section Officer at Tribal Welfare Department, Ananthapuram PW15: Kondala Rao who was working on deputation at Vijayawada as Dy. Director in Tribal Supply, previously worked at Tribal Welfare Office, Ananthapuram

PW16: Superintendent of District Tribal Welfare Office, Kadapa, who previously worked at Ananthapuram PW17: Nodal Officer who deposed about call details record/Ex.P20 of the mobile number 95532 70394 PW18: Investigating Officer i.e., DSP, ACB, Kurnool who was incharge for DSP for Ananthapuram during relevant period PW19: Chief Law Inspector who was the then Inspector in ACB office, Ananthapuram

18.The basic case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant /PW1 married PW14 and thereby performed inter caste marriage. He applied for government incentive which encourages the inter caste marriage and in order to get the said incentive, he applied for the same in the year 2015 and in the month of March 2018, accused officer visited his village and conducted enquiry, recorded the statements of the neighbours to find out the genuineness of the marriage of PW1 and PW14 and also enquired with PW1 and instructed PW1 to meet him in the office. Accordingly, when PW1 met him in the third week of March 2018, accused officer assured PW1 that favourbale recommendations are made about his application and that he would see that the amount would be granted and promised that he will send the bill prepared to the Treasury so that amounts would be credited in the joint account of PW1 and PW14 and for that purpose, accused officer demanded

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) bribe for which PW1 was not willing to pay and in the month of April i.e., on 17.04.2018, he made a phone call to the accused officer and accused officer asked him to come to Pennar Bhavan at

Ananthapuram on 17.04.2018 itself and when PW1 went and enquired about the incentive, accused officer stated that PW1 should not irritate him and pay

C.C.4/2021-20-ACB Crt., Knl.

the bribe amount so that work would be done for which PW1 expressed his inability to pay the said amounts and requested to reduce the same for which it was reduced to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and informed PW1 that the said amount should be given to him and that PW1 stated that he would pay the amount after one week and on that, accused officer asked for payment of said amounts on 27.04.2018. Accordingly, PW1 who was not at all willing to pay the bribe amount, approached the ACB authorities and further consequences took place.

19.PW2 is the one who is none other than the elder brother of wife of defacto complainant who was working as private electrician deposed that the marriage of his sister /PW14 and PW1 was love marriage performed in the month of November 2014 and marriage was registered in Molkalmur Taluq,

Chitradurg District, Karnataka State and that he observed the financial difficulties faced by the PWs 1 and 14 and he also helped them now and then but checked in Google whether there are any benefits and came to know that

Tribal Welfare Department will give Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as incentive for inter caste marriage. He also deposed that he obtained relevant records of PWs 1 and 14 including photos, Aadhar cards etc., and went to Pennar Bhavan and on enquiry, came to know that there must be a paper publication in order to approach them and further informed that PWs 1 and 14 should approach them but not himself. His evidence was to the effect that during the year 2015, after verifying the paper publication, he took PWs 1 and 14 to Pennar Bhavan and they both submitted an application which was filled by himself and PWs 1 and 14 signed on it. He deposed that along with relevant documents, application was submitted to UDC in the office of Pennar

Bhavan by PWs 1 and 14, and they returned back. It is his evidence that for 2 ½ years there was no information as to what happened to their application

C.C.4/2021-21-ACB Crt., Knl.

and when he went and enquired in the office, he got information that one officer from Tribal Welfare Department will visit the village.

20.PW1 / defacto complainant deposed that PW2 is his brother-in- law and PW14 is his wife and he clearly deposed that his marriage with PW14 was performed at Karnataka State in a Sub Registrar Office and that PW2 informed him that since PW14 belongs to Yerukali ST Community, they will get Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by Tribal Welfare Department as their marriage is inter community marriage and as such, PW1 applied for

Government benefit in Pennar Bhavan and that it was PW2 who filled the application and that PW1 submitted the related documents along with application in the year 2015.

21.PW14 / Anasuyamma who is wife of PW1 deposed that on 19.11.2014, she married PW1 and that she belongs to Yerukala Community and her husband is Muslim and that in the year 2015, she and her husband applied for grant of incentive for getting inter caste marriage after coming to know the same by going to Ananthapuram in the office of Tribal Welfare Office and submitted application along with marriage certificate, Aadhar cards, joint account pass book of Corporation Bank.

22.PW7 / Laxma Naik deposed that he worked in Asst. Tribal

Welfare Office, Ananthapuram as FAC from 01.04.2014 to 2016 with a gap between 05.03.2015 to 20.07.2015 and that on 21.11.2015, PW1 submitted the inter caste marriage application and that PW5 gave the same to him along with the enclosures.

23.PW5/Sravanthi who was working as Attender in the District

Welfare Office, Ananthapuram since 2011, deposed that Ranganayakulu/PW6

C.C.4/2021-22-ACB Crt., Knl.

gave her Ex.P2 i.e., application of PWs 1 and 14 along with Ex.P6 office note, and asked her to send the same to PW7/Laxma Naik by entering the same in the Local Tappal Register and that she handed over the same to PW7 on 21.11.2015 by making relevant entries i.e., Ex.P11 and Ex.P11A.

24.PW6/ Ranganayakulu deposed that he worked as Junior

Assistant in the District Welfare Office, Ananthapuram from 2014 and in the year 2015, PW1 applied for grant of incentive of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for inter caste marriage and that along with application, he enclosed photostat copies of marriage certificate, Aadhar card, caste certificate, income certificate and photos. He also deposed that

PW15/Kondala Rao made initial on it and thereafter the details were entered in Ex.P8 and Ex.P8A is the relevant entry at Sl.No.199 made by this PW6. He also deposed that note was prepared by this person and obtained signature of

PW12/D. Suresh, then the file was placed before Kondala Rao. PW6 also deposed that when the file was placed before PW15, he accorded permission and signed on the note file in order to send the same to Asst. Tribal Welfare

Officer, Penukonda. PW12/Suresh deposed that earlier he worked as Junior

Assistant, Senior Assistant and Superintendent in District Tribal Welfare

Office, Ananthapuram and that PW4 was incharge of District Tribal Welfare

Officer at that time and that he found his initial on Ex.P2 and from him, Ex.P2 was sent to PW6 and this witness also deposed about relevant entry Ex.P8A and he deposed that PW6 prepared note file and forwarded the same to him and then after verification of the said note file, the signature of PW4 was obtained on Ex.P2. This witness deposed about preparation of a memo to that effect dated 20.11.2015 and Ex.P15 was marked through this witness and he also deposed that Ex.P15 bears his signature. He also deposed that he sent the file to PW7 through PW5.

C.C.4/2021-23-ACB Crt., Knl.

25.All the aforesaid facts clearly disclose that Ex.P2 was submitted by PWs 1 and 14 and the request of PWs 1 and 14 to get incentive of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the government, is true for the sole reason that all the aforesaid mentioned exhibits clearly disclose and in corroboration with each other evidence and nothing was questioned by the learned defence counsel regarding all the aforesaid exhibits and the documents are in corroboration with the oral testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses and evidence was cogent and corroborative in nature with regard to the procedure followed by them as and when they received Ex.P2.

26.When the prosecution successfully established about the filing of

Ex.P2 by PWs 1 and 14 and about processing being done by concerned staff members from time to time soon after submission of Ex.P2 by PWs 1 and 14 as mentioned supra, now it is for the prosecution to establish about the demand of bribe by the accused officer. In order to establish the same, at first instance, prosecution should project the fact that whether accused was the only person who held the post of Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer during the relevant period i.e., during March 2018.

27.It is pertinent to mention here that as per the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses regarding Ex.P2, it is unchallenged fact that Ex.P2 was submitted in the year 2015 and Ex.P2 also on it had a stamp that it was received on 16.11.2015. PW7/Laxma Naik who held the post of FAC of

Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer, Ananthapuram, clearly deposed that on 21.11.2015, when he received the inter caste marriage application of PWs 1 and 14 through PW5 along with enclosures, he affixed his seal on Ex.P11 and further deposed that by then at about 200 Giriputra application and 21 inter caste applications were pending with him and deposed that he did not enquire about the application of PW1 as it was not in the seniority list pending with

C.C.4/2021-24-ACB Crt., Knl.

him. He also deposed that accused officer joined as regular Asst. Tribal

Welfare Officer during December 2016 on transfer from Kurnool. He deposed that he handed over all the above pending applications to the accused officer including the application of PW1. This evidence reveals that accused officer joined as regular Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer, Penukonda during December 2016.

28.As per the said evidence of PW7, it is clear that accused officer held the post of Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer, Penukonda and the evidence of

PW1 clearly goes to show that in the month of March 2018, accused officer visited the village of PW1, enquired the neighbours and recorded their statements and PW1 also deposed that accused officer asked him to get the pass book of Bank joint account to his office at Penukonda and in the month of March 2018, PW1 went to the office of accused officer along with Bank joint account copy and handed over the same to the accused officer. This witness also deposed that accused officer stated to him that amount was granted in his favour and assured to send the bill prepared to the Treasury so that amount will be credited into the joint account and for that, he demanded

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards bribe.

29.During the course of cross examination, this witness admitted that accused officer visited his village for enquiry regarding their marriage and villagers confirmed about the same and they were also enquired by the accused officer at that time. During the course of cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that accused officer never demanded Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in the third week of March 2018. The other suggestion that PW1 never met the accused officer and that accused officer never stated that PW1 should not irritate him and also reduced the bribe amount to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and that PW1 never visited

C.C.4/2021-25-ACB Crt., Knl.

the accused officer on 17.04.2018 and accused officer never asked him to come on 27.04.2018, were all denied by this witness. Except the aforesaid suggestions against the evidence of PW1 that accused officer demanded the bribe in the third week of March 2018, nothing was tried to elicited from the mouth of PW1 regarding demand of bribe is concerned. It was the initial demand of bribe made by the accused officer to PW1, as per the version of

PW1 i.e., in the third week of March 2018.

30.In support of the evidence of PW1 with regard to demand of bribe is concerned, PW2 deposed in his evidence that during the month of April 2018, PW1 made a phone call to him and informed him that Asst. Tribal

Welfare Officer by name Nagabhusanam came and enquired and also stated that amount was sanctioned and sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) was demanded as bribe. This PW2 also deposed that since PW1 was financially facing difficulty, he is thinking to lodge complaint with ACB and on that PW2 informed PW1 to request the accused, but PW1 informed PW2 that the accused officer was not listening. Nothing was questioned with regard to the said demand of bribe during the course of cross examination of this witness, but during the course of cross examination, this witness deposed that two to three times when he went to Ananthapuram on his personal work, at that time, he went to the office at Pennar Bhavan and enquired of application submitted by PW1 and that it was may be in the year 2016 or 2017, and that he never went to Penukonda.

31.PW14 who is wife of PW1 also deposed that her husband/PW1 went to Penukonda and handed over the joint account pass book of Andhra

Bank/ Ex.P3 to the accused officer in the third week of March 2018 and that she came to know from her husband that accused officer demanded

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for processing grant of incentive and

C.C.4/2021-26-ACB Crt., Knl.

also came to know that ten days prior to lodging the complaint, accused officer reduced Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and demanded

Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) for processing their application. She also deposed that as they were not willing to give any bribe, her husband preferred complaint with ACB officials, Ananthapuram. During the course of cross examination of this witness, she categorically deposed that from her husband, she came to know about demand of bribe by the accused officer and that there is no personal knowledge and denied the suggestion that accused officer never demanded either Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) or Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) towards bribe and that she is deposing false and that accused officer never demanded any bribe from PW1 on the date of trap or prior to trap.

32.Both the PWs 2 and 14 are the persons who are in close nit with

PW1 and their evidence with regard to supporting the version of PW1 regarding demand of bribe by the accused officer is concerned, would definitely be a normal thing and PWs 2 and 14 cannot be termed as interested witnesses. This Court is of the view that when PW1 and PW14 submitted their Ex.P2 in the year 2015, the entire evidence of all the witnesses clearly goes to show that all these years till the date of accused officer visiting the village of PW1 i.e., March 2018, neither PW1 nor PW14 tried to enquire about their application. Moreover, it is the evidence of PW2 that Ex.P2 was handed over to one UDC at Ananthapuram office situated at Pennar Bhavan. It is not the case of the prosecution through PW1 or PW14 that Ex.P2 was directly submitted to the accused officer. From the date of submitting Ex.P2 till March 2018, until the accused officer visited the village of PW1, there is no material placed before this Court that PW1 had an occasion of meeting the accused officer at any point of time during said period between the date of Ex.P2 and

March 2018 on which day accused officer visited the village of the PW1. This

C.C.4/2021-27-ACB Crt., Knl.

Court also observed that when there is no action for PW1 to know about the accused officer till visiting of accused officer to his village, this Court believed the version of PW1 that as per the instructions of accused officer, in the month of March 2018, PW1 went and met the accused officer. There is no point to disbelieve the version of PW1 for the sole reason that when he did not complain against any officer till the third week of March 2018, what made

PW1 complain against the accused officer that he is demanding bribe of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) or Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) in order to get the incentive amount credited into the account of PW1.

The evidence of PW1 was not at all shattered during the course of cross examination regarding issue of demand of bribe by the accused officer.

Hence, this Court is of the view that accused officer demanded bribe from

PW1 in order to get his incentive amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) credited into the account of PW1 initially.

33.As far as subsequent demand of bribe amount with regard to reduction of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and demanding

Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) is concerned, it is the evidence of

PW1 that when he made a call to the accused officer on 17.04.2018, PW1 observed that amount was not credited into his account, he made a phone call to the accused officer through is mobile No.95532 70394, and enquired from the accused officer about the amounts. It is the evidence of PW1 that accused officer asked him to come to Pennar Bhavan, Ananthapuram on 17.04.2018 itself. It is pertinent to mention here that PW1 categorically gave the last three digits mobile number of accused officer saying that they are 774. It is also the evidence of PW1 that when he went on the same day and asked accused officer, the accused officer stated him that he should not be irritated by PW1 saying the amount as demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) was not paid to him and that unless it is paid, his work would not be

C.C.4/2021-28-ACB Crt., Knl.

done. PW1 deposed that he cannot give Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), accused officer agreed to take Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and accordingly PW1 stated him that he was not having Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) at that time and for that, accused officer gave time of one week and also asked PW1 to get the said amount on 27.04.2018.

34.It is the contention of the accused officer through arguments that there is no piece of evidence with the prosecution that PW1 made phone call to the accused officer and that it is clearly absent in Ex.P1 with regard to the mobile numbers. It is urged that the version of PW1 should not be believed on this aspect. But, this Court after careful perusal of Ex.P20, it was produced through PW17, observed that on 17.04.2018, as well as on 27.04.2018 there are phone calls from PW1 to accused officer i.e., on 17.04.2018 at 8.37 A.M.,

PW1 called to the mobile of accused officer i.e., 73823 82774 and there are calls from the phone number of PW1 to the accused officer on 27.04.2018 at three timings i.e., 9.58 A.M., 12.28 Noon and 12.52 Noon. Hence, when the document speaks volumes, accused officer cannot attempt to take shelter on baseless arguments much particularly in the light of availability of call details under Ex.P20, when it is the contention of the PW1 that he made phone calls to the accused officer on the particular dates and gave evidence before this

Court. In support of his contention, when the prosecution produced Ex.P20, it is for the accused officer to explain as to what was the reason behind receiving the calls from PW1 and speaking to him for considerable time on all the said occasions. Hence, this Court believes the version of PW1 that subsequent demand of bribe was also made by the accused officer. The evidence of PW2 was to the effect that accused officer i.e., Asst. Tribal

Welfare Officer by name Nagabhusanam demanding to pay the bribe of

Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and it is also the evidence of PW14 who is wife of PW1 stating that initially Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)

C.C.4/2021-29-ACB Crt., Knl.

was demanded by the accused officer in the third week of March 2018, and later on, after ten days, it was reduced to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only). The cross examination of PW2 on this aspect, was literally silent whereas the cross examination of PW14 was to the extent of putting a suggestion that accused officer never demanded the bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) or Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and that accused officer never demanded any bribe from PW1 either on the date of trap or prior to that. The suggestion was denied by PW14. Hence, for the forgoing reasons, this Court believed that the prosecution successfully established the demand of bribe by the accused officer to an extent of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) earlier/initially and later on reduced it to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) beyond reasonable doubt. But, it was for the accused officer to rebut the presumption by producing any material before this Court to disbelieve the version of the PWs 1, 2, and 14 and Ex.P20. Accused officer miserably failed in doing so.

35.Considering all the aforesaid facts, evidence of both oral and documentary and the discussion of this Court, it is clear that the prosecution established that PW1 applied Ex.P2 along with his wife/PW14 by following due procedure, PWs 5, 6, 7, 12 and 15 coupled with the documents Ex.P2,

P8, P8A, P11 and P11A established the case of PW1 as well as Ex.P20 establish the demand in corroboration with the oral testimony of PWs 1, 2 and

PW13.

36.Now the prosecution is expected to prove the pre trap proceedings. By producing Ex.P5 and examining PW3 who was one of the mediators who happens to be the person very much present along with other mediator, coupled with the oral testimony of PW18, PW1 deposed that when he lodged Ex.P1, he was asked to come to ACB office with the proposed bribe

C.C.4/2021-30-ACB Crt., Knl.

amount and that the mediators questioned him after they were introduced to each other by DSP, ACB and PW1 also deposed with regard to the enquiry done by the mediators to him and enquired about whether there were any previous disputes or any financial dealings for which PW1 stated that there were no such instances and narrated the entire content of his grievance to the mediators. PW1 also deposed about the fact of bringing the proposed bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and that the details of such amounts were noted down by the mediators. The importance of sodium carbonate solution and phenaptholein powder as well as the application of phenaptholein powder content by one of the Constable by name Manjunath, were all deposed by this witness. There is no iota of instance to disbelieve the very happening of the entire aspects deposed by PW1. He also deposed that his shirt pocket was made empty and tainted currency was placed in his shirt pocket and he was even given instructions by the DSP, ACB not to touch the said currency notes and not to pay the amount unless demanded by the accused officer and also about giving the pre arranged signal of wiping his face thrice with the hand kerchief. During the course of cross examination, this PW1 by denying the suggestion that ACB authorities did not enquire him in the presence of mediators and further volunteered that on 27.04.2018, he gave voice records between himself and accused officer, to the ACB authorities. He also deposed that he has shown his cell phone to ACB officials to show that he contacted the accused officer on 27.04.2018, before going to ACB office. This witness categorically deposed that he kept his mobile phone in his trouser pocket. PW1 further reiterated in the cross examination as well that tainted currency notes were kept in his shirt pocket after 12 Noon by Home Guard Manjunath and that another Constable emptied his belongings from his pocket. This witness categorically deposed that at about 1 P.M., they all reached Pennar Bhavan. It was the suggestion to PW1 by the accused officer that PW1 stated before ACB officials and Judge that on

C.C.4/2021-31-ACB Crt., Knl.

the advise of DSP, ACB at about 12.25 P.M., PW1 called accused officer from his cell phone and then enquired as to where he should come to give amount for which accused officer replied to come to Pennar Bhavan. This suggestion was denied by PW1. Ex.P5 is pre trap proceedings which was prepared by

PW3, in consonance with the evidence of PW1 deposed each and every fact.

Moreover, PW3 gave the detailed explanation regarding the denomination of the currency notes produced by PW1 for the sake of proposed bribe amount and also mentioned the mobile numbers of both the accused officer and PW1 stating that PW1 stated to him that he contacted accused officer over phone through his phone number at about 10 A.M., on the date when he handed over the copy of Bank pass book/Ex.P3. This witness as well as PW1 clearly deposed that Manjunath was asked to remain at the office and rest of the team proceeded to Pennar Bhavan. This PW3 clearly deposed that the pre trap proceedings commenced at 12 Noon and concluded at 12.45 P.M. and that on his dictation one person by name Ramachandra, Computer Operator in DSP office typed the pre trap proceedings/Ex.P5 and that they all signed on it. This PW3 during the course of cross examination categorically admitted that in Ex.P5, it is mentioned that PW1 stated to them that on 17.04.2018 he met the accused officer at Pennar Bhavan and handed over the copy of joint account Bank pass book held in the name of PW1 and his wife regarding

Andhra Bank, Rayadurg and that PW1 did not state before PW3 and others that on 17.04.2018 accused officer demanded the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) from PW1 while PW1 was handing over the joint account pass book in Pennar Bhavan. This PW3 also deposed that they have not recorded the version between PW1 and accused officer, when PW1 contacted the accused officer from DSP office at 12.25 P.M. and at 12.50 P.M to enquire about the whereabouts of accused officer. PW3 admitted that there is no documentary proof to support the aforesaid contention of PW3. PW3 also deposed that in Ex.P5 it is mentioned that except kerchief, PW1 did not

C.C.4/2021-32-ACB Crt., Knl.

carry anything with him and that it is not at all mentioned that he carried cell phone with him.

37.As could be seen from the aforesaid cross examination of PW3 by the learned defence counsel, it is observed by this Court that the contents of Ex.P5 are not disputed but the defence was to the effect that Ex.P3 was not at all handed over on 17.04.2018 and that if at all it was done, the alleged fact of accused officer demanding Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) on the said day, was not mentioned by PWs 1 and 3. It is pertinent to mention here that Ex.P3 is the joint account pass book of PWs 1 and 14 regarding Andhra

Bank.

38.Ex.P5 remained unchallenged. The pre trap proceedings are clear in support of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and PW18.

39.As far as the seizure of Ex.P3 is concerned, it is the contention of accused officer that on 17.04.2018, accused officer did not demand any bribe and that PW1 never met the accused officer and that PW1 never made any phone call to the accused officer on 17.04.2018. It is the contention of the learned defence counsel that PW1 categorically deposed that “After accused officer visited our village for enquiry, I did not visit the office of accused officer”. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the evidence of PW6 that “Since the PW1’s application contains Corporation Bank Account copy and as it was not in the list of online, details of other four beneficiaries were sent to the Treasury. To avoid lapse of budget, the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) that has been given to PW1 was kept in the account of

DDO. Then, I asked accused officer to get the relevant Bank pass book of

PW1, he did not give to him and kept it with him”. When this is the evidence of the very staff of Tribal Welfare Office, Ananthapuram speaking about Ex.P3

C.C.4/2021-33-ACB Crt., Knl.

and attitude of the accused officer in retaining in Ex.P3, the said situation was during the month of March 2018 and after preparation of the proceedings under Ex.P7, amounts are to be credited into the Treasury and to the accounts of beneficiaries online, it was not credited into the account of PW1, as per the version of PW6 and that he even informed the accused officer to get relevant Bank pass book from PW1, but accused officer did not give the pass book to PW6 and kept it with him. When this is the attitude of the accused officer in retaining the pass book with him, it is now clear that joint

Bank pass book was handed over by PW1 to the accused officer. Whether it is handed over at Pennar Bhavan or office of Penukonda, it will not carry any crucial aspect in deciding the fact that Ex.P3 was handed over by PW1 to the accused officer or not. It is the contention of PW1 that accused officer demanded the bribe of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) on 17.04.2018 when PW1 met the accused officer after making phone call to him on the same day. Ex.P20 clearly disclose the phone call was made by PW1 to the accused officer on 17.04.2018 at 8.37 A.M. The seizure of Ex.P3 was clearly deposed by PW3 who is independent witness noway related to either to ACB officials or office of accused officer or to the defacto complainant /PW1.

Hence, his evidence with regard to seizure of Ex.P3 which was handed over by the accused officer himself during Ex.P10/post trap proceedings, this Court believes his version and there was nothing shown by the accused officer so that this Court can entertain any doubt in that aspect. It is pertinent to remember that accused officer was working as Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer at

Penukonda, but he was very much present on the date of trap at Pennar

Bhavan, Ananthapuram. PWs 4 to 13 and PW15 clearly deposed about his presence at Tribal Welfare Office, Pennar Bhavan, Ananthapuram. The said date of trap was working day and accused officer is supposed to be at working place but not at Pennar Bhavan. It is also not even the case of the accused officer that he visited the head office at Ananthapuram on some work.

C.C.4/2021-34-ACB Crt., Knl.

40.For the foregoing reasons, this Court believed Ex.P5 proceedings and also the seizure of Ex.P3 during Ex.P10 /post trap proceedings.

41.Now the prosecution is bound to prove Ex.P10/post trap proceedings. As per the evidence of PW1, he along with mediators and ACB authorities except the Constable by name Manjunath, proceeded towards

Pennar Bhavan, Ananthapuram after making calls to the accused officer to find out his location. Ex.P20 supports the version of PW1 with regard to making phone call to the accused officer at the relevant time. As per the evidence of PW1, on 27.04.2018, they reached Pennar Bhavan at 1.10 P.M., and after getting reminded of the instructions by the DSP, ACB that on demand, bribe is to be given to the accused officer and later on play the pre arranged signal and not to meddle with the tainted currency, PW1 got down the vehicle and went into Pennar Bhavan and deposed that he found the accused officer in the right side room and on seeing him, accused officer took him to south of the office and they came out of the office and on enquiry, whether PW1 brought the bribe amount or not by the accused officer, PW1 gave positive answer on which, the amount was taken by the accused officer with his right hand and counted with his both hands and kept it in the back pocket of his trouser and that PW1 asked about the Government amount for which accused officer stated that work is over and within one week he will write and send for the above amount.

42.PW1 is the only witness who deposed about the conversation between him and the accused officer on the given point of time. Even as per his evidence, the team of officers took vantage position away from said

Pennar Bhavan. Hence, the evidence of PW1 should be looked into and consider all the crucial points to understand the veracity of the witness

C.C.4/2021-35-ACB Crt., Knl.

whether he is speaking true or otherwise. During the course of cross examination of PW1 on this aspect, the suggestion was put to this witness by the learned defence counsel that by the time when PW1 and others went to

Pennar Bhavan, accused officer was outside the office on southern side attending nature call and that PW1 waited for him to give tainted currency and when accused officer was going into the office of Pennar Bhavan, PW1 tried to thrust the tainted currency to the accused officer and accused officer resisted with his both hands, but when accused officer was going into the office, PW1 thrusted the tainted currency notes in his back trouser pocket on right side and caught hold the both hands of the accused officer and asked him to do the needful though accused officer stated that his work was already over. The said suggestion was denied by this witness. Except this suggestion regarding tainted currency and receiving of bribe amount by the accused officer, nothing was put to this witness. Even the written statement of the accused officer is on the same lines.

43.This Court observed that all the office staff who are examined by the prosecution as prosecution witnesses, categorically deposed that accused officer came to Pennar Bhavan on the date of trap. Hence, the very presence of accused officer is not at all disputed. Even as per the suggestion of the learned defence counsel, accused officer was very much present at Pennar

Bhavan. When it is the evidence of PW1 that he made phone calls (Which is proved as per E.P20), before meeting the accused officer at Pennar Bhavan on the said day, accused officer came to Pennar Bhavan and was sitting in the office as per PW1, in the room of Superintendent. It is for the accused officer to speak and prove the reasons behind his presence in the District

Welfare Office when he was supposed to be in his office at Penukonda. Not even a single scrap of paper is filed before this Court to explain the reason behind his presence at Pennar Bhavan. Obviously, the very contention of the

C.C.4/2021-36-ACB Crt., Knl.

accused officer coupled with the oral testimony of other witnesses, it can safely be concluded that accused officer came to the Pennar Bhavan only for the purpose of receiving bribe amount from PW1.

44.As far as the defence put up by the accused officer regarding thrusting the bribe amount by PW1 into the trouser pocket of accused officer is concerned, the inner linings of the seizure as well as the hands of the accused officer were when subjected to chemical test and was resulted positively. It is the defence of the accused officer that when accused officer was going to the office after attending nature call, PW1 tried to give the bribe amount to the accused officer, but accused officer resisted with his both hands and when entered into the office, PW1 thrusted the amount in the trouser pocket of the accused officer. In order to thrust the tainted currency into the trouser pocket of the accused officer, there will be definitely attempts of placing the amounts in the trouser pocket of the accused officer and such alleged attempts would definitely attract the concentration of the alleged public in and around the compound and the office at Pennar Bhavan. Because placing a hand with currency into the trouser pocket of a moving person is not so easy and too much to imagine. Accused officer can definitely produce any independent witness who could speak the alleged truth to support his defence. No such attempt was made. Moreover, when it is the contention of the accused officer that the true facts are not depicted in post trap proceedings, accused officer would have opened his mouth when he was placed before the Judicial Officer at the time of remand that his contention was not reduced into writing in Ex.P10. No such attempt was made. This

Court strongly believes that the very silence of the accused officer at the time of remand and also at the time of immediate response of the accused officer

before mediators, is nothing but the accused officer demanded the bribe

amount which he intended to receive and accordingly received from PW1, because when his trouser was also removed by ACB authorities by providing

C.C.4/2021-37-ACB Crt., Knl.

alternative ‘Lungi’, no ordinary prudent man will remain silent without agitating about the same during remand or before the mediator who was recording the immediate response of the accused officer under Ex.P10, if he is innocent.

Hence, this Court believes the version of PW1 that accused officer demanded the bribe, gave his location to the PW1 that he is at Pennar Bhavan and received the bribe amount demanded by him, from PW1 and counted the same and placed in his trouser pocket and went inside the office room and within no time, soon after getting pre arranged signal from PW1, all the ACB officials including mediators rushed and followed the subsequent procedure of chemical test, after duly disclosing their identity to the accused officer.

Prosecution clearly established the very case of PW1 and seized all the relevant records. Though it is the argument of the learned defence counsel regarding bag and its colour, PW3 who is an independent Government

Servant, need not speak false and his un-interested, un-shattered evidence un-tilted manner of giving evidence before this Court regarding all the aspects much particularly about the seizure of Ex.P3, this Court is of the view that the defence put up by the accused officer cannot be considered or looked into.

Now it is for the accused officer to rebut the presumption which came into play for the foregoing reasons mentioned by this Court. Accused officer has to explain as to why his hands turned into pink colour so also his trouser when tested. He could not rebut the presumption and this Court is of the view that holding the post of Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer, Penukonda, did not even choose to give respect to his job and when the Government wanted to support the inter caste marriage couples financially, even in that aspect also accused officer wanted to enrich himself.

45.As far as the defence of the accused officer with regard to point of no official favour is pending with the accused officer is concerned, PW6 clearly deposed that he received Ex.P2 evidencing out of Ex.P8 and Ex.P8A

C.C.4/2021-38-ACB Crt., Knl.

and then after getting approval of the office note prepared by PW12 and then sending it back to PW15 and handing over the same to PW7 and the relevant entries under Ex.P11 and Ex.P11A and the evidence of PW4 that he received

Ex.xP2 clearly goes to show that the application process was done and it was sent to the accused officer. PW6 explained the entire procedure. He was working as Junior Assistant in the Tribal Welfare Office at Ananthapuram and during 2015, he dealt with Ex.P2. He deposed the entire procedure that Asst.

Tribal Welfare Officer has to send the report regarding the applications for grant of incentive in respect of inter caste marriage. He also deposed that whenever budget is allotted to the said head, as per the serial number of the applications in the office of Asst. Tribal Welfare Office, the Asst. Tribal Welfare

Officer will send the report for grant of incentive.

46.When that is the procedure, and the evidence of PW6 which clearly goes to show that Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer has to send the report for grant of incentive and that the accused officer is Asst. Tribal Welfare

Officer during 2018, this Court is of the view that accused officer was having the duty of official favour and it is pending with him. As per the evidence of

PW7, accused officer made an endorsement on Ex.P2. Ex.P2 shows that ‘verified and recommended’. It is also the evidence of PW1 that accused officer visited their village and recorded the statements of neighbours and examined PW1 and instructed him to come to the office and meet him.

47.It is the evidence of PW6 that Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) was the budget allotted and that they have to prepare proceedings for five applications regarding grant of incentive for inter caste marriage including PW1 and his wife. These proceedings are very much available and produced by the prosecution under Ex.P7. Ex.P7 includes the name of PW1 and his wife at Serial No.5. Ex.P7 clearly disclose that the date

C.C.4/2021-39-ACB Crt., Knl.

of receipt of application was 16.11.2015. In the said Ex.P7, copy to Asst.

Tribal Welfare Officer, Penukonda was also marked. It means accused officer is having knowledge of issuance of Ex.P7. Hence, defence of accused officer that there was no budget allotted, hence no official favour is pending, is totally false. As per the evidence of PW6, after preparing the proceedings, amounts will be credited into the Treasury, in turn to the accounts of the applicants. It is the evidence of PW6 that the Corporation Bank Account do not reflect in the online Bank list as such, he asked accused officer to get relevant pass book from PW1. But, the accused officer did not give the same to him and kept it with him. It means, intentionally accused officer kept Ex.P3 with him without submitting the same to PW7 so that it can be sent and accused officer could receive the amounts. Holding Ex.P3 with the accused officer and handing over the same during Ex.P10/post trap proceedings by the accused officer to

PW3 clearly goes to show that accused officer intentionally withheld Ex.P3 so as to get the bribe amount. This witness clearly deposed that on the date of trap at 1 P.M., accused officer came to the office and sat in the room of

Superintendent. All these things goes to show that though the payment of amounts are done online without interference of either accused officer or any other person, it will be credited into the accounts of beneficiaries. In the present situation, amounts will be credited in the list of nationalized Banks and to the beneficiaries who are having such accounts, but though PW1 handed over Ex.P3, it was withheld by the accused officer for the reasons best known to him and the said act of withholding the Ex.P3, would definitely result into non payment or non crediting the amounts into the accounts of the PW1 and

PW14. It was always the contention of the learned defence counsel that the joint account of PWs 1 and 14, was not at all disclosing the date of its opening, but on careful perusal of Ex.P3, it clearly disclose that it is in the name of PW1/Ajmath and at the end portion, it is mentioned as jointly …. Y.

Anasuyamma @ K. Ayisha. The said account /Ex.P3 was initially in the name

C.C.4/2021-40-ACB Crt., Knl.

of PW1 alone and that later on it was converted as joint account, as per the evidence of PW1. As such, the very defence put up by the accused officer that there is no official favour pending with him and that since there was no budget allotted, amount was not credited into the accounts of PW1, is totally false and Ex.P7 speaks volumes as well as the evidence of PW7.

48.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that official favour is pending with the accused officer and accused officer cannot take shelter by projecting the defence as if budget is not allotted, Ex.P3 was not seized from him, there is no proof of making phone calls by PW1 to the accused officer and that the bribe amount was thrusted into his trouser back pocket by PW1.

49.The prosecution relied on the following judgments which held different points of law.

1. 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 378 (SC) - Ramesh Harijan vs State of U.P.:

This is a case U/Sec.302 and 376 IPC, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court convicted Accused inspite of discrepancies and inconsistency in the evidence. In the present case, there is no inconsistency, so that this case can be relied upon.

2. AIR 1968 SC 1419 – Shivrajsingh vs Delhi Administration:

In this case the trial court convicted but the Hon’ble High Court acquitted and on appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court convicted on the aspect that there is no necessity that the accused officer must be in position to do the help required by complainant. It is enough that accused officer demand and accepted bribe from complainant.

3. 1997 CRLJ 739 – C.K. Damodara Nair vs Government of India:

C.C.4/2021-41-ACB Crt., Knl.

Thrusting of money in pocket was not accepted by Hon’ble Supreme

Court saying that mediators observed complainant handing over the bribe and accused officer accepting the same and keeping the same in shirt pocket is observed by them and hence thrusting theory not accepted. But not applicable to present case because there is no shadow witness for the same except evidence of complainant. In this case, no such act is found by mediators. After getting signal from PW1, all rushed to the accused officer.

4. AIR 1998 SC 1474 – State of U.P. vs Zakrullah:

Hon’ble Supreme Court convicted accused officer confirming that the

trap party including complainant, mediators, official witnesses cannot be treated as interested witness.

5. AIR 1984 SC 63 – State of Maharasthra vs Narasingarao Gangaram

Pimple:

Hon’ble Supreme Court has ignored minor discrepancies, ommissions

which throws a shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution and convicted the accused. In this case on hand, no such occasion arose so that prosecution can rely on this judgment.

6. 2008 Crl.LJ 4772 SC – State vs A. Parthiban:

Accused found guilty but released on probation. Hon’ble Supreme

Court held when case is proved beyond reasonable doubt probation cannot be applied. This case is no at all applicable to present case.

This case on hand is under P.C. Act.

7. AIR 2003 SC 2169 – Subash Parbat Sonrane vs State of Gujarat:

Acceptance of bribe alone not sufficient for conviction unless demand is proved. In this case demand as well as acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Spl.PP can’t rely on this case.

8. 1995 Crl.L.J SC – Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh:

C.C.4/2021-42-ACB Crt., Knl.

Demand and acceptance was proved and complainant faredwell. In the present case also complainant supported his case and faredwell.

Hence, it is applicable.

9. 2011 SCC (Crl) (1) 214 – B. Nagulsharief vs State of A.P.:

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prosecution story regarding demand

and acceptance of bribe is consistent and defence plea of enmity and thrusting theory disproved. Conviction by Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the present case, enemity was not at all the defence.

10. 2013 (8) SCC 199 – State of Maharasthra vs Mahesh G Jain:

This case is about grant of leave to file an appeal by CBI. Hence, it is not relied by this Court.

11. Neeraj Dutta vs State , dated 15.12.2022:

Neeraj Dutta case not applicable as complainant fared well and demand proved beyond reasonable doubt.

12.2014 (1) ALD Crl 434 – K. Kumara Swami vs State :

This is about recall of witness. Hence, this case is not applicable.

13. 2011 (2) ALD Crl 438 – Pillimarri Venugopala Krishna Murthy vs State:

Multiple pleas were taken and court held demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction upheld.

14. 2011 Crl. JL SC 975 – CM Sarma vs State of AP:

This is about shadow witness. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no necessity for shadow witness in bribery cases. In the present case, there is no shadow witness.

15.AIR 1960 SC 548 – C.I. Emden vs State of U.P.:

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once demand and acceptance proved

beyond reasonable doubt, the court must presume that the amount is bribe and burden shifts to accused. In the present case also, this Court drawn the presumption and accused officer could not discharge his burden.

C.C.4/2021-43-ACB Crt., Knl.

50.This Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court reported in State of Karnataka vs Chandrasha, dated 26.11.2024 and another judgment reported in J. Raghavendra Chary (Died) Per LRs., vs

State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police, ACB.

51.For the foregoing reasons and the judgments relied by this Court, it is felt that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused officer for the offences punishable U/Sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.

Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt.

52.In the result, accused officeris found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31 st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

53.Accused officer is heard on quantum of sentence. At first he went on stating that he should be pardoned but at the same time stated that he has completed his service and further stated that he and his wife are suffering from diabetic ailment and he is a heart patient and was already retired from services and that the marriages of their three daughters was already performed and that there is no one to him and his wife to take care and that his health conditions and family background is to be taken into consideration at the time of sentencing him to the jail and prayed to shower lenient view.

C.C.4/2021-44-ACB Crt., Knl.

Accused officer was informed about his right to prefer appeal, and he stated that he has capacity to engage a counsel at Appellate Court.

Heard both the Spl.PP and the learned defence counsel. The learned Spl.PP urged that the intention and attitude of the accused officer is to be taken into consideration while punishing the accused officer. Whereas, the learned defence counsel reiterated the health conditions and family background of the accused officer and prayed this Court to shower lenient view at the time of imposing sentence and also urged that since the accused officer is retired from services, and aged about 64 years, it should be taken into consideration.

Mere retirement and the regular aliments like diabetic and heart ailments, cannot be considered at all as this Court do not feel that those to be the good reasons in the absence of any proof. This Court is cautious about the mind set of the corrupt officers but not the quantum of the corruption. This

Court found that accused officer is guilt of the offence punishable U/Sec.7 and

Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, and now there is no point for this

Court to reduce and punish the accused officer to the minimum sentence as there is no material placed to consider any of the medical reasons or otherwise by the accused officer. Corruption is an offence which is destroying the entire nation from time to time and when it is complained to the ACB authorities and when it is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the Court to punish the act of the corruption. Hence, this Court is of theview that sentencing the accused officer to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and further sentencing accused officer to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of

C.C.4/2021-45-ACB Crt., Knl.

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months, and awarding

Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand only) out of total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) to PW1 and PW14 towards compensation U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C, would meet the ends of justice.

54.In the result, Accused Officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Further, accused officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of remand already undergone by the accused officer i.e., from 28.04.2018 to 29.05.2018 shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

Out of the said total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only), an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand only) is awarded towards compensation to PW1 and PW14, U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by Accused officer is Rs.1,00,000/- +

Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only).

MO-5 i.e., cash of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) is confiscated to State after appeal time is over. Rest of the material objects MOs.1 to 4 and

MOs 6 to 8, shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier.

C.C.4/2021-46-ACB Crt., Knl.

Free copy of judgment is furnished to the Accused officer, and accused officer acknowledged the receipt of free copy of judgment.

Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the Commissioner, Tribal

Welfare Department, A.P., Vijayawada, as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of

Practice.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31 st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution:

ProsecutionName of the WitnessDescription Witness No.

1K. AjmathDefacto complainant 2Y. BalanjaneyuluElder brother of PW14 3K. Bhaskar ReddyOne of the Mediators 4K. NagamuniWho happens to forward the application of PWs 1 and 14 to PW7 5SravanthiAttender at DTWO, Ananthapuram who deposed about her duties in the office and procedure she followed while dealing with Ex.P2 6V. RanganayakuluJr. Assistant in the same department 7Laxma NaikWho was the person forwarded 21 applications of inter caste marriages to the accused officer 8M. SwamySuperintendent in DTWO, Ananthapuram 9G. RamakrishnaSr. Assistant in the same office 10VenkateswarluAccountant in the same office 11S. Sankar NarayanaData Entry Operator in the same office

C.C.4/2021-47-ACB Crt., Knl.

12Devella SureshSuperintendent in the District S.T. Welfare and Empowerment Office who worked as Superintendent in DTWO, Ananthapuram 13I. AparnaSection Officer at Tribal Welfare Department, Ananthapuram 14Y. AnasuyammaWife of PW1 15I. Kondala RaoWho previously worked at Tribal Welfare Office, Ananthapuram 16B. SureshSuperintendent of District Tribal Welfare Office, Kadapa, previously worked at Ananthapuram 17P. JayalakshmiNodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd., 18C. Jayarama RajuInvestigating Officer 19T.V. ChakravarthiThe then Inspector in ACB office, Ananthapuram

For Defence: -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution:

ExhibitDescription of the ExhibitProved by No./Attested by 1Complaint of PW1.PW1.

2Application of PW1 along with other connected PW1 documents.

3Copy of joint account (2 pages)PW1 4Copy of complaint.PW3 5Pre trap proceedings.PW3 6Original office note of Dist. Tribal Welfare Officer.PW3 7Original proceedings of Dist. Tribal Welfare Officer.PW3 8Attested copy of inter caste marriage incentive PW3 award application register (Relevant pages) 8ARelevant entry at Sl.No.199 in Ex.P8.PW6 9Rough sketch and bears the signature of PW3.PW3

C.C.4/2021-48-ACB Crt., Knl.

10Post trap proceedings and bears the signature of PW3 PW3.

11Photocopy of local Tapal Register attested by PW5 DTWO.

11ARelevant entry made by PW5 in Ex.P11.PW5 12Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9.PW9 13Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW10.PW10 14Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW11.PW11 15Memo, dated 20.11.2025.PW12 16Attested copy of authorization letter.PW13 17Sanction order vide G.O.Ms.No.31, dt.22.06.2020.PW13 18Receipt along with the letter addressed to DSP, PW15 ACB, Ananthapuram 19Service particulars along with letter and the PW15 annexure of duties and functions of Asst. Tribal Welfare Officer.

20Copy of CDR along with e-mail received by PW17 PW17 from ACB officials.

21First Information Report.PW18 22Search proceedings.PW18 23Search list.PW18 24Search proceedings containing the details of PW18 valuables.

25Photostat copy of registered document dated PW19 29.09.2000.

26Photostat copy of registered document dated PW19 22.03.1999.

27Search of lockers.PW19 28Original of Ex.P25 i.e., registered document dated PW19 29.09.2000.

29Original registered document dated 10.08.2005.PW19 30Search list regarding Ex.P27.PW19

C.C.4/2021-49-ACB Crt., Knl.

For Defence:- -Nil-

Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution:

MaterialDescription of the ExhibitProved by Object/Attested by No.

1Sample of phenolphthalein powderPW3 2Sodium carbonate powderPW3 3Resultant solution of right hand of accused officer PW3 (very light pink colour) 4Resultant solution of left hand of accused officer PW3 (very light pink colour) 5Cash of Rs.4,000/- (2000x1 and 500x4)PW3 6Resultant solution of right back trouser pocket of PW3 accused officer (resultant solution is plain in colour with some particles at the water) 7Trouser of accused officer.PW3 8Sample of sodium carbonate powderPW3

For Defence: -Nil-

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

C.C.4/2021-50-ACB Crt., Knl.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES, KURNOOL.

C.C.No.4/2021

1. Date of OffencePrior to 26.04.2018

2.Date of Report or Complaint26.04.2018

3.Date of Apprehension of the Accused28.04.2018

4.Date of Release on bail29.05.2018

5.Date of Commencement of trial26.04.2022

6.Date of close of the trial04.11.2025

7.Date of Sentence of Order 31.03.2026

8.Explanation of delay and remarks - ComplainantThe State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram Range, Ananthapuram. AccusedSri Gummala Nagabhushanam, S/o G. Venkobanna, aged 56 years, Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer, Penukonda, Ananthapuram. OffencePublic servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. FindingAccused Officer found guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused officeris found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of or Order Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. Accused Officer is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Further, accused officer is sentenced

C.C.4/2021-51-ACB Crt., Knl.

to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of remand already undergone by the accused officer i.e., from 28.04.2018 to 29.05.2018 shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Out of the said total fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only), an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand only) is awarded towards compensation to PW1 and PW14, U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C. Total fine amount payable by Accused officer is Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only). MO-5 i.e., cash of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) is confiscated to State after appeal time is over. Rest of the material objects MOs.1 to 4 and MOs 6 to 8, shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the Accused officer, and accused officer acknowledged the receipt of free copy of judgment. Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, A.P., Vijayawada, as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Sd/-N.Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Kurnool. Copy submitted to:

The Registrar(Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN Code No.522237. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau Headquarters, 2nd floor, A.P.Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada.

Copy to:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram. The Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B.Court, Kurnool (Ananthapuram Range).

APKU160000112019

Presented on : 02-07-2019 Registered on : 02-07-2019 Decided on : 19-02-2026 Duration : 6 years, 7 months, 17 days

C.C.10/2019ACB Crt., Knl.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES:

AT KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt.N.Srividya, Spl.Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

KURNOOL.

Thursday, the 19th day of February, 2026

C.C.No.10/2019

Between:

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram Range, Ananthapuram.… Complainant

Vs.

G. Narayanappa, S/o G. Nagamuni, age 41 years, Junior Assistant, Municipal Office, Kadiri, Ananthapuram District. … Accused Officer

This case has been coming on 19.01.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Spl.Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of

Sri A. Viswanath and Sri N. Shanmukam, Advocates for accused officer, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court passed the following:

C.C.10/2019-2-ACB Crt., Knl.

J U D G M E N T

The Accused Officer (A.O) arraigned for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988.

02.A retired employee by name B. Jayaprakash/ defacto complainant who worked as Junior Assistant at Kadiri Municipality till 31.05.2014, lodged a written report with the ACB officials complaining against one person by name

G. Narayanappa who was also working as Junior Assistant in Account

Department, that he demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in order to get the medical bill of the wife of the defacto complainant sanctioned.

(a)As per the written report of the defacto complainant, his wife by name Ramanjulamma suffered from tooth ache in the year 2017 April, and when she was took to the General Hospital for treatment, the doctor informed that General Hospital cannot provide any treatment for the ailment of his wife and suggested the defacto complainant to go and take treatment outside in any hospital and that there is facility of medical reimbursement. On that, it is the contention of the defacto complainant that he took his wife to Ruchitha

Dental Hospital and got the treatment to his wife in three sittings from 17.04.2017 to 16.05.2017 and submitted the bills for medical reimbursement on 06.07.2017 in Kadiri Municipal Office vide three bills and that on 08.06.2017, when the defacto complainant met the clerk by name

G. Narayanappa and enquired about the medical reimbursement bills, who was placed to look after the medical reimbursement bills, the said G.

Narayanappa informed the defacto complainant that in order to forward the medical reimbursement bill through Municipal Commissioner to

Superintendent, Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapur for scrutiny and from there to Sub Treasury and finally to see that the bills are reimbursed, he

C.C.10/2019-3-ACB Crt., Knl.

should be given bribe of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). It is the contention of the defacto complainant that since he was not willing to pay anything towards bribe, he returned back and that on 17.06.2017, when again the defacto complainant met said G. Narayanappa and enquired about the position of the medical reimbursement bill, the said G. Narayanappa once again reiterated about the payment of bribe of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) stating that unless the said amounts are paid, medical reimbursement bill work will not be completed. On that, the defacto complainant requested said G. Narayanappa that he being retired employee, he cannot pay the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), for which said G. Narayanappa reduced the bribe amount from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only). It is the contention of the defacto complainant that though the defacto complainant is unwilling to pay the bribe, having no other go, agreed to pay the same on 19.06.2017 and came out and complained to DSP, ACB that said G.

Narayanappa who is demanding bribe, should be caught redhandedly while receiving the bribe and that he should be punished as per law and thereby do justice to the defacto complainant.

(b)It is the case of the prosecution that basing on the said report,

dated 18.06.2017, endorsement was made to the Inspector by name

R. Prathap Reddy to enquire into the genuineness of the contents of the complaint and antecedents of the defacto complainant and said

G. Narayanappa, Clerk of Kadiri Municipality and to submit the report. Since said Prathap Reddy endorsed on the complaint on 19.06.2017 at 6 A.M., that he caused discreet inquiry about the genuineness of the contents of the complaint and antecedents of the defacto complainant and said G.

Narayanappa and found that the contents of the complaint are genuine and said G. Narayanappa carries bad reputation in respect of corruption activities.

Basing on the endorsement, at 7 A.M., the incharge ACB, DSP, Kurnool

C.C.10/2019-4-ACB Crt., Knl.

registered a case in Cr.No.4/RCT/ATP/2017 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988.

(c)It is also the case of prosecution that after following due procedure, pre trap proceedings followed and then on 19.06.2017, the accused officer was trapped as the accused officer received bribe amount of

Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) and that immediately, the ACB officials in the presence of mediators caught the accused officer redhandedly and followed the entire procedure and same was also noted down in the post trap proceedings by one of the mediators. After receiving of sanction orders from the Government, charge sheet was filed.

03.The learned predecessor of this Court, has taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.7, and Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988, against the Accused officer.

04.On appearance of the Accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

05.On 16.12.2019, this Court examined the Accused officer U/S. 239

Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation levelled against him in his mother tongue

Telugu and having understood the same, he denied and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, charges U/ Sec.7, and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption (P.C.) Act 1988 were framed against him.

06.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 out of 11 listed witnesses and exhibited Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs 1 to 8.

Accused officer examined DWs 1 and 2 and also exhibited Ex.D1 to D3 to prove his innocence.

C.C.10/2019-5-ACB Crt., Knl.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused officer was examined as required U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances and material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in his mother tongue Telugu and having understood the same, he denied and reported that he has defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused Officer for

the charges levelled against him, beyond reasonable doubt or not?

09.Heard both sides.

10.Both the learned Spl.PP and the learned defence counsel apart from submitting their oral arguments, filed written arguments on their behalf.

11.As far as the written arguments of the Spl.PP is concerned,

Spl.PP reiterated the contents of Ex.P1, initially.

(a)As far as the point of initial demand of bribe amount is concerned, the written arguments disclose that Ex.P1 which is filed by PW1 clearly disclose that on 08.06.2017, PW1 went to Kadiri Municipal Office and met the accused officer and that accused officer is one who deals with the medical reimbursement bills and after enquiry by PW1, accused officer informed that forwarding the bills to the General Hospital, Ananthapuram through Municipal

Commissioner, Kadiri and to get the bills scrutinized, and also to send the bills to Sub Treasury and see that the bills are scrutinized and sanctioned, accused officer demanded Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards bribe and that PW1 was not willing to pay the same and also informed about the fact that he is unable to pay the bribe.

(b)As far as the concept of subsequent demand of bribe amount by the accused officer is concerned, the written arguments of the Spl.PP disclose

C.C.10/2019-6-ACB Crt., Knl.

that on 17.06.2017, PW1 went to Kadiri Municipal Office and again met the accused officer in order to find out the stage of his medical reimbursement bills whether they were sanctioned or not and that accused officer once again reiterated about the bribe amount and that subject to payment of the bribe amount, he would attend the work otherwise he would not attend the work.

Written arguments also disclose that as far as the evidence of PW1 is concerned, when he pleaded inability to pay the demanded bribe amount stating that he is a retired employee, then, the accused officer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) and that having no other go, PW1 accepted to pay the demanded bribe of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) to the accused officer saying that he will pay the same on 19.06.2017.

(c)The written arguments also disclose that on 08.06.2017, PW1 met the accused officer and on 17.06.2017, PW1 requested accused officer that he cannot pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) as he is a retired employee and that it was reduced by the accused officer and saying that the bribe amount would be paid on 19.06.2017 to the accused officer, PW1 returned back home. The written arguments disclose that all the aforesaid facts are found in Ex.P1 and also in the evidence of PW1 as such demand of bribe amount by the accused officer was proved by the prosecution. It is also urged in writing that PW2 who is the independent mediator along with another mediator, read the contents of Ex.P1, along with

FIR, genuineness of the said complaint as to whether there are any disputes between PW1 and the accused officer or any financial disputes, was elicited that there was no disputes at all. It is also urged in writing that in corroboration with the evidence of PW1, the report/Ex.P1 without any deviation with respect to the first and second demand, amount of bribe and also all other facts related to the demand and that PW5 being wife of PW1 categorically deposed about the same and corroboration with the evidence of PW1.

C.C.10/2019-7-ACB Crt., Knl.

(d)Written arguments of the prosecution also disclose that in respect to further demand and accepting of bribe amount is concerned on the date of trap, it is the evidence of PW1 that during post trap proceedings, PW1 went to the accused officer on 19.06.2017, who was sitting in the accounts section room of Municipal Office, Kadiri and PW1 also deposed that he found accused officer in his seat and on seeing him, accused officer started demanding bribe amount and enquired with PW1 that whether PW1 brought the same or not and accordingly when it was affirmatively informed to accused officer, the accused officer asked PW1 to come out of the office with him and when PW1 and accused officer reached entrance portico of office, accused officer demanded to pay the bribe and PW1 took out the tainted currency from his left side pocket of his shirt with his right hand and handed over the same to the accused officer with right hand and accused officer received the said amounts with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and placed the tainted currency into left side of shirt pocket with his right hand. It is also the evidence of PW1 that PW1 enquired about the sanction of medical reimbursement bill at that time, wherein accused officer promised to complete the work soon. All these facts are clearly mentioned by the mediators in

Ex.P10/MR-II.

(e)As far as the written arguments in this aspect are concerned, it further disclose that PW1 supported the case by deposing that after leaving the trap party he went to account section and deposed that accused officer inspected surroundings and asked him to give amount as nobody was observing him and that when PW1 took out from his left shirt pocket and handed over the same to the accused officer with his right hand, accused officer took the said amounts with his right hand, counted with both the hands and place the same into his left side shirt pocket and that PW1 asked the accused officer to sanction the bills and accused officer promised to do so. It is the written arguments of the prosecution that when the said oral testimony of

C.C.10/2019-8-ACB Crt., Knl.

PW1 was in corroboration with the evidence of PW1 with regard to demand and with corroborative and the evidence of PW2 supporting the version of

PW1 as on the aspect of demand of bribe by the accused officer and receiving the same and PW2 also deposed that during Ex.P6/pre trap proceedings, PW1 produced Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) and the evidence of PW2 was in corroboration with Ex.P10 contents and also supported the version of

PW1 with regard to receiving of bribe amount by the accused officer. It is the evidence of PW2 that the hands of the accused officer were checked by using the sodium carbonate solution are reacted and resulted into pink and as such when the chemical test of sodium carbonate solution and inner linings of the shirt pocket turned into pink under MO-5, the written arguments further also disclose that the evidence of mediator clearly prove about further demand and acceptance by the accused officer from PW1. Hence, demand by accused officer twice and acceptance of bribe by accused officer from PW1 on 19.06.2017, and the documentary evidence of Ex.P6 and P10 clearly disclose about the chemical test resulting into pink and recovery of tainted currency clearly establish the case of the prosecution. The written arguments further disclose that as per the evidence of PW1, approximately at 11.20 A.M., accused officer caught redhandedly

(f)The written arguments of the prosecution further discloses regarding the point of pending official favour with the accused officer is concerned, is to the effect that as per Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, he took his wife/PW5 to Kadiri General Hospital for treatment for dental problem on his wife in the month of April 2017 and it was advised to him that the problem can be treated in the private hospital and advised PW1 to approach the private hospital and also that there is facility of getting medical reimbursement and as such, PW5 was taken by PW1 to Ruchitha Dental Hospital and got the treatment for his wife’s problem from 17.04.2017 to 16.05.2017 in three sittings and PW1 prepared three bills for medical reimbursement and that he

C.C.10/2019-9-ACB Crt., Knl.

submitted the same on 06.06.2017 and further it is mentioned in the arguments that PW1 met accused officer on 08.06.2017 and enquired about medical reimbursement bill as accused officer was dealing with the said medical reimbursement bills section seat and that accused officer informed

PW1 that for forwarding the bill to the Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuram through Municipal Commissioner, Kadiri and to get the bills scrutinized and to send those bills to Sub Treasury and to get the bill sanctioned, an amount of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is to be paid to him and that PW1 was not willing to pay the said bribe amount and returned back and later on 17.06.2017, when PW1 went back to the accused officer at Kadiri Municipal

Office, accused officer informed him that reimbursement bill sanction will be done only after receipt of bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and that unless it is paid, the said work would not be attended. It is also the contention of the prosecution that PW1 pleaded his inability to pay the demanded bribe amount stating that he retired from his services and on that accused officer reduced the bribe amount from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only), as such, having no other go, PW1 agreed to pay the same. The written arguments further disclose that all the aforesaid contents were deposed by PW1 in his evidence so also the evidence of PW2 wherein Ex.P2 to P4 which was seized by PW2 from the possession of accused officer at the time of Ex.P10/post trap proceedings and handed over the same to the DSP, ACB.

(g)The written arguments also disclose that PW7 who being

Municipal Commissioner, Kadiri also deposed that on 13.06.2017, he received the bills and he approved Ex.P2 to P4 and the said bills should reach the accused officer on the same day and that accused officer is incharge of accounts vide Ex.P15 and that he is one who is to attend the bills and then send the same to Treasury and that for an amount of Rs.30,080/- (Rupees thirty thousand and eighty only) bills were submitted by PW1, an amount of

C.C.10/2019-10-ACB Crt., Knl.

Rs.27,500/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred only) was sanctioned by the hospital authorities as such on the date of trap bills were pending with the accused officer and that it can safely be concluded that official favour is pending with the accused officer.

(h)The written arguments further disclose that the evidence of DW1 clearly establish the fact that Ex.D2 inward register and Ex.D3 outward register of Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuram, there there are no entries in the name of one person by name B. Jayaprakath/PW1. It is the contention of the prosecution that when PW1 was cross examined by the accused officer, suggestion was posted to PW1 that bills were sent to Govt. General Hospital and thereafter they were returned to the office of accused officer on 13.06.2017 with the proposed sanction as stated by DW1. It is the argument that the said suggestion amounts to admission of the accused officer of the above fact that the bills were returned to his seat by 13.06.2017 itself and that the evidence of DW1 is contrary to the said admission by submitting Ex.D2 and D3, cannot be believed and further it is urged in writing by the prosecution that even as per the evidence of DW1, accused officer is the custodian of inward and outward registers and that DW1 clearly admitted that he is no way concerned with the said registers and its maintenance and that whenever any application for medical reimbursement is made by the Govt. employee, it will be in the name of office but not in the name of applicant, on the cover.

Further, it is urged that accused officer wanted to establish that he did not demand the bribe on the date of trap and never accepted the amount from

PW1 and that at that time DW2 is also present and he witnessed one person came and thrusted the currency notes into the pocket of the accused officer and that accused officer thrown away the said amounts on the floor saying that he has not in need of anything. It is the contention of the prosecution that the said defence is completely false and that DW2 in the course of cross examination clearly admitted that he came to know that accused officer was

C.C.10/2019-11-ACB Crt., Knl.

trapped through news column in news paper and that his presence cannot believed. Further, it is contended that even written submission of the accused officer discloses that PW1 did not come inside the room where the accused officer was sitting and that accused officer was along with his family friend/DW1 and they both came out to have a cup of tea and standing at the outside of the office near the main entrance of the gate and that by that movement, when accused officer and the said person came to the portico, which is entrance of the offence, PW1 approached the accused officer and suddenly kept the vade of currency notes in the shirt pocket of the accused officer and that accused officer refused to take it and took out the currency notes from his shirt pocket and thrown it on the ground by shouting on PW1.

But, in fact, the said Chandrappa was not at all examined by accused officer as defence witness and that Ex.D1 explanation given by the accused officer to

PW9 do not disclose the presence of either DW2 or Chandrappa on the date of trap.

(i)The learned Spl.PP also submitted in his written arguments about the plea of animosity stating that accused officer failed to prove the contention of animosity and Ex.D1 do not disclose about the said fact and that accused officer did not even produce either oral or documentary evidence on that aspect. Further, written arguments disclose that when the mediators read over the copy of complaint submitted by PW1 along with the copy of FIR/Ex.P5 and asked PW1, the genuineness of the complaint was elicited by the mediator and that there were no disputes between PW1 and accused officer was the answer given by PW1 as such, the said version was recorded and signatures were affixed on Ex.P5 by the mediators, as such, it can safely be concluded that the plea of animosity was not established by the accused officer.

(j)As far as the plea regarding submission of bills is concerned, during the course of cross examination of PW1, the accused officer took a plea that he explained PW1 that bills can be presented only in the first week of next

C.C.10/2019-12-ACB Crt., Knl.

month and that if the said version is correct, the spontaneous explanation given by the accused officer during post trap proceedings or under Ex.D1, it is not disclosed. As such, the plea of accused officer can be treated as after thought and it shall not be considered by this Court. It is also the argument in writing by the Spl.PP that the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 is of no use and their evidence did not rebut the presumption U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act and that the evidence discloses that accused officer is in a position to discharge his official functions with respect to the work allotted to him i.e., to attend the medical bills and official favour is there with the accused officer and the sanction order/Ex.P13 and the evidence of PW6 clearly disclose about the job nature of the accused officer that he is a public servant and can be prosecuted under

P.C. Act. The written arguments also disclose that the ingredients of section 13(1)(d) are proved i.e.,

It is submitted that Sec.13(1)(d) ingredients are (i) “ by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage “ or (ii) “by abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” or (iii) “ while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest” . It is submitted that official favour words are not present in this section. Hence pendency of official favour is not the ingredient of Sec 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988. The same is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ The State V/s A.Parthiban 2008 Crl.L.J.4772 SC “. The essential ingredients of the offence U/s 7 of PC Act 1988 are “for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in excise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person”. It is humbly submitted that these words are not present in Sec.13(1)(d) or PC Act,1988.

C.C.10/2019-13-ACB Crt., Knl.

(k)It is also urged by the Spl.PP in writing that basing on the oral evidence produced by the prosecution coupled with documentary evidence, it can safely be concluded that presumption U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act, 1988 comes into play the prosecution clearly established the demand, receiving of bribe by the accused officer and accused officer could not establish his alleged innocence by way of putting forth his rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption.

(l)The learned Spl.PP relied on the following judgments.

(i) In 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 378 (SC) Ramesh Harijan Vs State of U.P.

(July, 2013).

(ii) ShivRajsingh V/s Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 1419.

(iii) C.K. Damodara Nair Vs Government of India 1997 CRLJ 739.

(iv) State of U.P. V/s Zakrullah AIR 1998 SC.1474.

(v) AIR 1984 SC 63 State of Maharashtra V/s Narasingarao

Gangaram Pimple.

(vi) The State V/s A.Parthiban 2008 Crl.L.J.4772 SC.

(vii) Subash Parbat Sonrane V/s State of Gujarat. AIR 2003 S.C.2169.

(viii) Ramesh Kumar Gupta V/s State of Madhya Pradesh. 1995

Crl.L.J.- S.C.

(ix).2011 SCC (Crl) (1) 214 B.NagulShariefVs.State of A.P.

(x) 2006 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 346 ShankerbhaiLaljibhai Rot V/s

State of Gujarat.

(xi) State of Maharashtra Vs Mahesh G.Jain’ reported in 2013(8)

SCC 199.

(xii) Neeraj Dutta Vs State dated: 15.12.2022.

(xiii) K.Kumara Swami Vs State 2014 (1) ALD Crl 434 A.P.

C.C.10/2019-14-ACB Crt., Knl.

(xiv) Pillimarri Venugopala Krishna Murthy Vs State 2011 (2) ALD Crl 438 A.P.

(xv) AIR 1984 SC 63 State of Maharashtra V/s Narasingarao

Gangaram Pimple.

(xvi) 2011 Crl,LJ SC 975 CM Sarma Vs. State of AP.

(xvii) 2006 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 346 ShankerbhaiLaljibhai Rot

V/s State of Gujarat.

(xviii) C.I. Emden v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1960 SC 548).

12.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel submitted his written arguments contending that:

The evidence on record, both oral and documentary, fails to prove demand, voluntary acceptance, pending official favour, or conscious receipt of any illegal gratification, all of which are mandatory pre-conditions for conviction in trap cases as the judgments of the Apex Court and prayed that the Accused

Officer is entitled to acquittal.

I. Brief defence narrative (Refined)

1. The Accused Officer, a Junior Assistant working in B-3 Section and in charge of Accounts, was discharging purely ministerial duties, as established through Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.16 during the relevant period. PW-1, the complainant, is himself a retired Junior Assistant of the same Municipality, fully conversant with office procedure and personally familiar with the Accused Officer and staff, having intimacy with them.

2. The medical reimbursement bills of PW-1’s wife (Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4) were processed strictly through the established official channel:

- Received on 06.06.2017 (Ex.P.8 – Tapal Register); - Forwarded to GGH, Anantapur on 07.06.2017 through PW-1 himself (PW-3 & PW-7); - Bills remained pending with GGH from 07.06.2017 to 13.06.2017;

C.C.10/2019-15-ACB Crt., Knl.

- Returned and approved by the Municipal Commissioner on 13.06.2017; - Forwarded to Treasury in the scheduled period of 05–08 July, as required under the supplementary bills procedure.

3. It is submitted that as on the trap date (19.06.2017), no official favour whatsoever was pending with the Accused Officer. Approval had already been granted, and forwarding to Treasury could only occur in the scheduled period of the next month. Thus, there was no occasion, power, or discretion for any illegal demand.

4. The defence case consistently pleaded from the inception, including in

Ex.D1 and in the testimony of DW2, is that PW1 bore a misconception and personal grudge arising from the reduced sanction amount (Rs.27,500/-), which was in fact decided by GGH, not by the Accused Officer. PW1, already familiar with ACB procedures, engineered a false trap by forcibly thrusting currency notes into the Accused Officer’s pocket in the municipal portico, which he immediately threw on the ground, upon which the trap party rushed in.

II. Prosecution case build on contradictions and improvement.

It is submitted that the prosecution’s version is riddled with internal inconsistencies, contradictions with documentary evidence, and material improvements by witnesses, making it wholly unreliable.

A. Contradictions between Ex.P.1 and PW-1’s testimony

1. Incorrect dates & tampering in the complaint: Ex.P.1 mentions the date of submission of bills as 06-07-2017, which PW1 later claims was “corrected.” It is further submitted that PW8/ DSP ACB Ananathapur /Trap Laying officer, however, candidly admits that:

-The correction is not noted in pre-trap or post-trap proceedings; - The correction is not mentioned in the remand report; - He has no record explaining why or when the correction was made.

C.C.10/2019-16-ACB Crt., Knl.

In the above stated circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that this unexplained alteration in the foundational document seriously affects the credibility of the complaint itself.

2. No mention of submitting bills to the Accused Officer - Ex.P1 merely states that PW1 submitted bills “in office.” There is no reference to submission to the A.O. PW8 admits this omission in cross.

- Yet PW1, in a later improved version, claims that on 08.06.2017, he saw the bills on the table of the A.O. and demand was made.

- This assertion is directly contradicted by unimpeachable official records.

3. Impossibility of PW1’s version on 08.06.2017 - Official records (PW3, PW7, Ex.P8 & Ex.P8-A) conclusively establish that:

- The bills were sent to GGH on 07.06.2017 through PW1; They remained there till 13.06.2017; They were not physically available in the Municipality on 08.06.2017. Therefore, PW1’s claim that he saw Ex.P2–P4 on A.O.’s table on 08.06.2017 is demonstrably false. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the alleged “first demand” is impossible.

4. No proof of visits on 08.06.2017 or 17.06.2017 - PW1 candidly admits that no record or proof exists of his alleged visits on these dates.

- He never complained to the Commissioner or any superior, despite being a retired government servant who fully understood the official hierarchy.

- This conduct is wholly unnatural if a genuine demand had been made by the

Accused Officer.

5. False allegation of deduction of Rs.2,580/- – proved motive - PW1 and PW5 repeatedly allege that the A.O. deducted Rs.2,580/-.

- PW7 (Commissioner), however, categorically states that the deduction was made only by the hospital authorities.

C.C.10/2019-17-ACB Crt., Knl.

- Thus, the grievance and subsequent trap were triggered by a misunderstanding and personal grudge, not by any conduct of the Accused

Officer.

-Even PW5 admits that PW1 had an altercation with the A.O. because the bills could not be forwarded during the non-scheduled period. The evidence of

PW5 establishes a strong motive for false implication by her husband PW1.

6. Foundational demand on 08.06.2017 is false – entire chain collapses

A) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Lokayuktha Police v. C.B.

Nagaraj, 2025 INSC 736 held that:

“…when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if payment and recovery are proved, the chain is incomplete.”

Likewise, the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta (2023) 4 SCC 731 reaffirms that demand is sine qua non.

-Since the first demand is proved false by official records, subsequent alleged demands cannot legally stand.

B) Absence of Pending Official Favour

It is respectfully submitted that no official favour was pending with the

Accused Officer on any of the alleged dates of demand.

The schedule for forwarding supplementary bills (5th–8th of the next month) is admitted by PW7.

Thus, A.O. had no discretion, no control, and no capacity to “process,” “push,” or “favour” the complainant in any manner. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the prosecution theory collapses on this ground alone.

C. Defence Version Corroborated by PW3 and PW4

It is humbly submitted that PW-3 and PW-4 state that: A “stranger” (DW2) entered the office on the trap day; A.O. went out with that person; They never saw PW1 entering the A.O.’s room. Their evidence supports the defence and contradicts the prosecution narrative that PW-1 met the A.O. inside the room.

C.C.10/2019-18-ACB Crt., Knl.

III. Mediator/PW2 and trap proceedings are unreliable:

It is respectfully submitted that the testimony of PW2 and the trap proceedings (Ex.P6 and Ex.P10) suffer from material omissions, contradictions, and improvements, rendering them unfit to support a conviction.

A. PW2 has no personal knowledge of any demand.

1. PW2 admits he had no prior acquaintance with the Accused Officer and no personal knowledge of any demand. Whatever he states about demand is derived solely from PW1, making his testimony hearsay on the most crucial aspect.

2. PW2 also admits that, Ex.P6/ pre-trap proceedings does not contain PW1’s signature, though the complainant was allegedly present throughout as he deposed. The absence of his signature on such a vital document weakens the evidentiary sanctity of Ex.P6.

3. Ex.P6 was typed by a police constable on a laptop, and no Section 65-B certificate has been issued for this electronic document. This omission further diminishes its admissibility and reliability.

B. Improvements by PW2 Regarding “Seeing the Handover”

It is respectfully submitted that PW2, for the first time in Court, claimed that he actually saw PW1 hand over money to the Accused Officer.

However:

-This alleged observation does not appear anywhere in Ex.P10/post-trap proceedings.

-PW2 admits this omission in cross. He further admits he did not record anywhere that he saw the Accused Officer count or keep the tainted money.

Thus, his oral testimony constitutes a material improvement, manufactured only at the time of trial to fill gaps in the prosecution case.

C.C.10/2019-19-ACB Crt., Knl.

Under binding precedents such as:

V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand (2015), and

Kashiram v. State of M.P. (2006), material improvements strike at the root of credibility and must be discarded.

C. Contradictions Regarding Vantage Positions:

PW2 claims: There were three vantage positions, and He observed the “handover” from one such position. However: Ex.P9/Rough Sketch shows only two vantage positions; There is no mention of a third team or its location; His statement is therefore contradicted by the prosecution’s own documentary evidence. Furthermore, PW2 admits the distance was 50–70 feet, making visual identification impossible, particularly in an open, busy municipal compound. His additional claim that “nobody else was around” contradicts his own admission that the place was bustling with the public, staff, and parked vehicles.

D. PW2 is not an independent witness. PW2 admits he is a government servant mediator, bound to give statements supporting his report. He acknowledges that departmental action could be taken against him if his testimony contradicts the mediator’s report. Thus, he is not independent in law.

His testimony must be evaluated with heightened scrutiny, as recognized by several Supreme Court decisions.

In this context the Accused Officer relied the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Som Prakash Vs State of Punjab – Reported in 1992 Crl.L.J. 490.

Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) – S.5(2) -Penal Code (45 of 1860) ,S.161 -Offence of accepting illegal gratification -Witnesses forming part of raiding party not independent – Evidence regarding handing over money to accused unbelievable – Conviction cannot be sustained, Judgment of H.C.

(Punj) Reversed.

PW2 mediator admitted in his cross examination that LW3 acted as mediator in two ACB cases and whereas he also acted in another case as a

C.C.10/2019-20-ACB Crt., Knl.

mediator after this case. It shows that these mediators are most obliging witnesses to the ACB officers and hence they were selected to act as mediators. In this context the A.O. relied K.Giri Vs State, ACB Hyderabad

Range, Hyderabad. – Reported in 2008 (2) ALD (Crl) 821 (A.P.).

Criminal Law – Witness- Mediator, solitary testimony of, conviction on basis of – Once a person acts as a mediator on behalf of prosecution

party, he loses his character as an independent witness and

automatically becomes a part of prosecution party- It is not safe to base conviction on solitary testimony of such witness- Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Sections 13 (1) (d), 13 (2), 20 and 7.

T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court

Judgement- dated 31.10.2013. Reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 263 =

AIR SCW 6277.

Civil Servants cannot function on the basis of verbal or oral

instructions.

E. Chemical Test Evidence Is Inconclusive:

1. PW2 admits he does not know the colours of phenolphthalein or sodium carbonate.

2. He wrongly states that phenolphthalein is “transparent,” showing lack of scientific understanding.

3. PW2 further states that the chemical wash bottles (MO-4 and MO-5) showed colour at the time of trap, but not at present—indicating poor preservation.

4. Crucially, M.O.3 to M.O.5 were never sent to FSL; both PW8 and PW-9 admit this.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a phenolphthalein test cannot prove demand or conscious acceptance. At best, it shows contact, which is wholly consistent with the defence case of forced thrusting in a public place. In this context the Accused Officer relied the following judgment of the

C.C.10/2019-21-ACB Crt., Knl.

Supreme Court in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs State of A.P. (2024), has clearly held that when the prosecution relies upon phenolphthalein test as corroborative evidence, scientific confirmation through FSL examination assumes great significance, and failure to do so constitutes a serious procedural lapse, which weakens the prosecution story. In the absence of FSL report, the alleged phenolphthalein test remains unverified and unreliable, and cannot be safely relied upon to prove acceptance of illegal gratification.

5.The A.O. denied about demanding bribe from PW1 consistently, even on the date of alleged trap incident. PW2 mediator categorically deposed this fact in his chief examination at page no. 5 – second para. “A.O. denied about demanding bribe from P.W.1.” Punjab Rao Vs State of Maharashtra – (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases – 371. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, - S.5(1)

(d) r/w 5 (2) – Penal Code, 1860 , S.161- Illegal gratification – Where accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established- The accused can establish his defence by preponderance of probability – If the explanation offered by him under Section 313 Cr.p.c. is

found to be reasonable, then it cannot be thrown away merely on the

ground that he did not offer the said explanation at the time of when the

amount was seized- On facts, explanation offered by accused found to be probable, reasonable and acceptable by trial court ( Para 3)

IV. PW9/Inspector of ACB – Material improvements and procedural

lapses:

It is respectfully submitted that the testimony of PW-9 is contradictory, improved, and contrary to contemporaneous records.

A. PW9’s Claim of “Seeing the Handover” Is a Late Improvement. PW9 deposed in Court that: He followed PW-1 closely, stood 10 feet away under a visitors’ shed, and Personally saw PW1 hand over the tainted money to the

Accused Officer. However, he admits in cross that: This was never recorded in

C.C.10/2019-22-ACB Crt., Knl.

Ex.P6 or Ex.P10; He did not inform the DSP of this alleged eyewitness observation; His vantage position does not appear in Ex.P9 rough sketch; His statement to this effect appears for the first time in Court. In the above said admissions made by P.W.9, It is respectfully submitted that such an improvement, made years after the incident, is inherently unreliable and legally unacceptable.

B. His Version Irreconcilable With PW1 and PW2 - PW1 says the A.O. took him to the main gate, away from observation.

- PW2 claims the transaction was visible from a 50–70 ft vantage position.

- PW9 alleges it happened 10 feet from him, near the portico.

All three versions contradict each other and cannot coexist.

They also contradict Ex.P9, which shows the main gate far from the portico.

Thus, the prosecution cannot establish the place, manner, or visibility of the alleged transaction.

C. Procedural Violations by PW9:

PW9 admits: Discreet enquiry is unrecorded and based only on a bald endorsement; No hospital or treasury officials were examined to verify the schedule for forwarding bills; No independent witnesses present in the open compound were examined; Chemical wash bottles were not sent for FSL; No 65-B certificate was produced for digital pre-trap documents; He received

Ex.D1 (A.O.’s explanation) but failed to investigate the defence version fairly.

It is respectfully submitted that these failures vitiate the integrity of the investigation.

V. Irreconcilable versions about place and manner of the alleged handover:

It is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has presented mutually destructive versions regarding where and how the alleged bribe was passed.

1. PW1’s Version in his chief examination: A.O. took him outside the office, up to the main entrance gate, ensured “nobody was observing”, Only then asked

C.C.10/2019-23-ACB Crt., Knl.

him to give money. If this were true, no one could have witnessed the transaction.

2. PW2’s Version in his chief examination: He watched the entire transaction from a vantage position; Claims he “saw” PW-1 give the amount to A.O. This contradicts: PW1’s claim that the spot was chosen where “nobody was observing”, Ex.P9 sketch (only two vantage points). His own admission that he never recorded this observation.

3. PW9’s Version in his chief examination, he Claims to be 10 feet away at the portico; Says he saw the entire act clearly.

This contradicts: PW1 (transaction at the main gate), PW2 (observation from 50–70 ft vantage position), Ex.P9 (location sketch inconsistent with his placement).

Legal Result: It is settled law that When prosecution evidence is: internally contradictory, contradicted by its own documents, and contradicted by neutral circumstances, no conviction can stand. It is not out of place to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when two or more prosecution versions compete, the one favouring the accused must be accepted.

VI. PW5/wife of PW1 – Hearsay and motive, not proof of demand:

It is respectfully submitted that the testimony of PW5 carries no probative value regarding demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. However, she deposed in her cross examination about the motive part to implicate the

Accused in this false case by her husband.

1. PW5 candidly admits that she never accompanied PW1 to the office at any time. Her evidence is entirely based on what PW1 told her. Thus, it is pure hearsay, inadmissible to prove demand or acceptance.

2. She reiterates the false allegation that the Accused Officer deducted

Rs.2,580/- from the bills. This is conclusively disproved by PW7 /Municipal

C.C.10/2019-24-ACB Crt., Knl.

Commissioner, who categorically states that the deduction was made solely by the hospital authorities, not the A.O.

3. PW5 admits a crucial fact establishing motive for false implication: “My husband was worried because the bills were reduced by Rs.2,580/- and, though he requested, the A.O. did not send them to the Treasury as it was not time. There was an altercation between them.” This supports the defence case that PW1 acted out of frustration and misunderstanding, not in response to any illegal demand.

4. PW5’s evidence does not establish: any demand, any acceptance, any pending official favour, any conscious receipt of money by the A.O. It is humbly submitted that her testimony only proves grudge and motive, not guilt.

VII. Sanction (PW-6 & Ex.P13) — Mechanical and invalid:

It is respectfully submitted that, Ex.P13, the sanction order, is vitiated due to non-application of mind.

1. PW6 was not posted in the relevant office during the period of the incident.

He admits he has no personal knowledge of the facts.

2. PW6 further admits: The sanction order was sent in a draft form from

CDMA. The sanctioning authority merely signed the seven-paragraph draft as it is. No independent scrutiny of the facts was done.

3. Crucially, PW6 admits that no documents relating to Ex.P2–P4 (bills) or note file entries were sent to the sanctioning authority.

4. It is respectfully submitted that a sanctioning authority must independently consider whether the evidence discloses the ingredients of an offence. The mechanical reproduction of a draft without examining relevant documents vitiates the sanction.

5. Numerous judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court hold that a defective or mechanical sanction strengthens the presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the sanction itself is unreliable and cannot sustain a conviction.

C.C.10/2019-25-ACB Crt., Knl.

VIII. PW7/Municipal Commissioner — Prosecution Star witness undermines prosecution case:

It is respectfully submitted that PW7’s evidence is pivotal and strongly supports the defence.

1. PW7 confirms the entire chronology of medical reimbursement bills:

Submitted on 05/06.06.2017 Sent to GGH on 07.06.2017 through PW1.

- Returned on 13.06.2017- Approved by PW7 on 13.06.2017 itself - To be sent to Treasury only between 05–08 July in the scheduled supplementary bills cycle.

2. From this, it is respectfully submitted that:

-On 08.06.2017 (first alleged demand) — bills were not in the municipality at all.

- On 17.06.2017 — bills had already been approved; nothing was pending.

-On 19.06.2017 (trap day) — no official favour was pending.

3. PW7 also confirms that the deduction of Rs.2,580/- was done solely by

GGH, contradicting PW1’s grievance against the A.O.

4. PW7 states PW1 never complained to him about any demand by the A.O., despite being fully aware of the grievance mechanism.

5. PW7 confirms that the A.O. had no discretion and could not forward bills outside the prescribed schedule. Thus, it is humbly submitted that PW7’s evidence destroys the prosecution’s theory of pending official favour, motive, and demand.

IX. Investigation lapses (PW-8 & PW-9) — Prosecution story further weakened:

It is respectfully submitted that the investigation suffers from serious and fundamental defects.

A. Lapses by PW8/Trap Laying Officer.

1. Unexplained delay and blanks in FIR dispatch columns.

C.C.10/2019-26-ACB Crt., Knl.

Ex.P18 FIR reached the Court at 5:05 PM, though registered at 7:30 AM.

Columns regarding dispatch time are left blank. This raises a possibility of post-event manipulation.

2. No mention of correction in complaint (Ex.P1)

He admits he did not record anywhere that the date/month was corrected. This undermines the authenticity of the complaint.

3. Pre-trap and post-trap proceedings lack PW1’s signature

This is highly unusual and contrary to ACB Manual.

4. Typed documents without 65-B certificate. Pre-trap proceedings are electronic records; no certificate issued.

5. Failure to send chemical washes (M.O.3–M.O.5) to FSL. This deprives the prosecution of scientific confirmation.

6. No independent witnesses examined, despite acknowledging public presence.

7. Failure to verify G.O.Ms.No.62 (Cash Management)

PW8 admits he did not ascertain the schedule for forwarding supplementary bills. These lapses cast serious doubt on the integrity of the entire trap.

B. Lapses by PW9 (Investigating Officer)

1. Discreet enquiry unrecorded-

PW9 never interacted with PW1 before making his endorsement.

2. Failure to examine GGH doctors or Treasury staff-

He did not verify whether forwarding bills was indeed pending.

3. Failure to investigate defence explanation (Ex.D1)-

Despite receiving the A.O.’s explanation early, he made no fair enquiry into:

The altercation between PW1 and A.O. The schedule preventing forwarding of bills. The possibility of forced thrusting.

4. Material improvements made during trial-

PW9’s alleged eyewitness account of the “handover” is absent from all contemporaneous records. In light of these omissions, it is respectfully

C.C.10/2019-27-ACB Crt., Knl.

submitted that the investigation was one-sided, incomplete, and biased, rendering the prosecution case unsafe.

X. Defence evidence reliable and consistent:

A. DW1 — Hospital Registers (Ex.D1 & Ex.D2)

DW1’s evidence highlights the prosecution’s failure to collect and produce complete hospital records. While entries are made by institutions rather than individuals, his testimony shows investigative inadequacy and failure to establish a link between any delay and the A.O.

B. DW2 — Eyewitness to the Trap Incident. DW2 provides a natural, consistent, and credible account:

1. He met the A.O. for personal reasons and came out with him.

2. PW1 forcibly thrust money into the A.O.’s pocket.

3. The A.O. immediately threw the notes onto the ground.

4. ACB officials rushed in and lifted the notes.

His version is consistent with: PW3 and PW4, who saw a stranger (DW2) enter and exit with the A.O.;

The defence explanation in Ex.D1;

The open, busy nature of the municipal compound.

-Explanation for the Name Difference (“Chandrappa” vs. “G.

Mallesham”). It is respectfully submitted that: DW2’s Aadhaar card is in the name G. Mallesham; He is commonly known in his village as

Chandrappa; Rural practice commonly includes such dual naming; The prosecution never disputed his identity in cross; There is no prejudice or contradiction in person—only in nomenclature.

From the above stated circumstances, it is humbly submitted that , no adverse inference should be drawn.

It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana

Vs Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426 has categorically held that defence

C.C.10/2019-28-ACB Crt., Knl.

witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and their evidence cannot be discarded merely due to the side on which they deposed.

Similarly, in Dudh Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166, the

Apex Court held that defence witnesses stand on the same footing as prosecution witnesses and their evidence must be tested on merit. In the present case, the testimony of D.W.2 porbabilises the defence version, and creates a serious dent in the prosecution story, particularly when prosecution witnesses themselves suffer from material contradictions and omissions.

The A.O. relied the following judgement of the Supreme Court. Babu Lal

Bajpai Appellant Vs State of U.P. Respondent – Reported in 1994

Crl.L.J.1383.

Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) S.5(1)(a) – Acceptance of bribe-

Defence that complainant tried to thrust money in pocket of accused who resisted and had thrown the same on floor – Version of accused supported by independent witness – No motive for demanding or accepting bribe proved, as no bill of complainant contractor was pending with accused –

Acquittal of accused by trial court justified.

XI. No pending official favour – Demand impossible in law and fact:

It is respectfully submitted that the prosecution case collapses fundamentally because no official favour was pending with the Accused Officer on any of the alleged dates of demand.

A. The entire process was already completed before the trap. The evidence of PW3, PW4, PW7 and Ex.P2–P.4, Ex.P.8, Ex.P8-A conclusively establishes that:

1. Bills were forwarded to GGH on 07.06.2017, through PW1 himself.

2. Bills were sanctioned by hospital authorities and received back in

Municipality on 13.06.2017.

3. The Municipal Commissioner approved the bills on the same day (13.06.2017).

C.C.10/2019-29-ACB Crt., Knl.

4. Forwarding to Treasury had to occur only between 05–08 July, the period prescribed for supplementary bills. The A.O. had no discretion to forward them earlier.

Thus, as on:

-08.06.2017 (first alleged demand): Bills were not even in the

Municipality.

-17.06.2017 (second alleged demand): Bills were already approved, nothing was pending.

-19.06.2017 (trap day): Forwarding to Treasury was not permissible under rules.

Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that there was no official favour, no urgency, and no power with the Accused Officer to grant any benefit. Demand becomes legally and logically impossible.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Lokayuktha Police v. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 INSC 736 held that where official work is already completed, the allegation of demand becomes inherently doubtful, as there would be no reasonable motive for demanding a bribe.

In Trilok Chandra Maurya (T.C.Maurya ) Vs State 2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 672 (AP) , the High Court held that the presumption under Section 20 (1) of the Act is to the limited extent of the official favour and does not extend to more and

when no official favour was pending with the Accused either on the date

of the demand or on the date of the trap , the presumption under section

20 (1) of the Act stands rebutted . ” The High Court has also further observed that ‘mere receipt of the tainted cash by the accused cannot be equated with the acceptance of the said amount as bribe. Adverting to the facts of this case , the High Court observed in para 4 of the said judgment that

the accused was not authority to do an official favour to the defacto-

complainant and in the absence of any such competency , the accused

C.C.10/2019-30-ACB Crt., Knl.

could not have demanded for the payment of bribe and hence , the mere recovery of the tainted cash from the accused could not have given raise to draw the presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act in the absence of the competency of the accused to do an official favor to the defacto-complainant.

2005(1) ALD ( Crl.) 863 ( C.Sivakumar Reddy Vs State of A.P. ) it was held:

The Hon’ble High Court held the proposition of law by observing that

the accused therein had no power to do the official favour to the

defacto-complainant, the High Court held that, under those

circumstances, there was no scope for him to demand and accept the

bribe from the defacto-complainant and merely because money is

recovered from accused , it cannot be said that he demanded and accepted bribe .

XII. Presumption U/Sec.20 — Does not arise/stood rebutted:

It is respectfully submitted that the statutory presumption under Section 20 can arise only when the prosecution proves demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the prosecution has failed to prove both.

A. No presumption arises because demand is not proved - The alleged first demand on 08.06.2017 stands disproved by official records.

- The alleged demand on 17.06.2017 is uncorroborated and based on an unreliable witness.

- The alleged demand on 19.06.2017 is contradicted by PW1, PW2, PW9, and Ex.P9.

Thus, primary facts required to invoke Section 20 are absent. As repeatedly held in: Neeraj Dutta (2023) 4 SCC 731, B. Jayaraj (2014) 13 SCC 55, P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015) 10 SCC 152, demand is sine qua non, and recovery alone cannot lead to presumption.

B. Even if presumption is assumed, it stands rebutted

The defence has established a probable and plausible explanation:

1. PW1 held a personal grudge, believing the A.O. deducted Rs.2,580/-.

C.C.10/2019-31-ACB Crt., Knl.

2. PW5 admitted to a prior altercation with the A.O. regarding the forwarding schedule.

3. The municipal compound was an open public space with movement of vehicles and people.

4. PW1 forcibly thrust the money into the pocket of the A.O., who immediately threw it on the ground.

5. This version is corroborated by DW2 and supported by PW3 and PW4.

From the above stated circumstances, it is humbly submitted that where two explanations are reasonably possible, the one favouring the accused must be accepted. Thus, even assuming presumption arises, the defence has clearly rebutted it.

XIII. Cumulative assessment – Prosecution version unsafe and unreliable:

It is respectfully submitted that the cumulative assessment of evidence demonstrates the following fatal defects:

1. Complaint (Ex.P1) tampered with unexplained correction.

2. First demand on 08.06.2017 impossible, as bills were with GGH.

3. No proof of complainant visiting A.O. on 08.06.2017 or 17.06.2017.

4. False allegation that A.O. deducted hospital amount; actual deduction by

GGH.

5. PW1, PW2, PW9 give mutually destructive versions of the trap.

6. Rough Sketch (Ex.P9) contradicts the prosecution’s story.

7. No independent witnesses examined despite open public place.

8. No FSL analysis of wash bottles.

9. Pre-trap and post-trap proceedings lack PW1’s signature; prepared in violation of ACB Manual.

10. Material improvements by PW2 and PW9 introduced only in Court.

11. Sanction (Ex.P13) is mechanical; based on a draft without application of mind.

C.C.10/2019-32-ACB Crt., Knl.

12. Defence version is consistently supported by DW2, PW3, PW-4 and

Ex.D1.

It is further submitted that it is settled law that when the foundational facts are doubtful, the entire prosecution case collapses. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court has consistently held that: “In corruption cases, where the testimony of the complainant is unreliable, unsafe, contradictory or actuated by animosity, conviction cannot be based on recovery alone.” Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

XIV. Prayer:

It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: 1) Hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused

Officer demanded or voluntarily accepted any illegal gratification from PW-1 for showing official favour; 2) Hold that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted, or in the alternative, that it stands rebutted by the credible defence evidence and surrounding circumstances; 3) Acquit the Accused Officer, of all the charges under

Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, extending to him the benefit of doubt.

13.Perused the record. Charge levelled against the accused officer are:

Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988 defines :

“ Any public servant who,- (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to

obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to

perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or

dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such

duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage

from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest

C.C.10/2019-33-ACB Crt., Knl.

performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such

duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform

improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance

of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an

undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months

but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Sec.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 defines :

“Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be

punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less

than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also

be liable to fine.”

Sec.13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 defines

“(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal

misconduct,-

(i) “ by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other

person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage “ or (ii) “by abusing

his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person

any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” or (iii) “ while holding office

as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or

pecuniary advantage without any public interest”

14.The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 out of 11 listed witnesses and exhibited Ex.P1 to P18 and MOs 1 to 8. On the other hand, accused officer examined DWs 1 and 2, and exhibited Ex.D1 to D3.

PW1:One person by name B. Jayaprakash/retired Junior Assistant/defacto complainant who lodged Ex.P1 before ACB authorities.

C.C.10/2019-34-ACB Crt., Knl.

PW2:Independent witness/one of the mediators for both pre trap/Ex.P6 and post trap proceedings/Ex.P10.

PW3:Office Subordinate working in Municipal Office, Kadiri.

PW4:Senior Assistant working in Panchayat office who was Jr. Assistant in Municipal Office, Kadiri during the period of trap.

PW5:Wife of PW1.

PW6:Asst. Director of Municipal Administration and he was authorized to depose on behalf of his Regional Director and deposed about sanction order/Ex.P13.

PW7:Municipal Commissioner, Kadiri during the period of trap.

PW8:Addl. Superintendent of Police, Investigating Officer.

PW9:Inspector, Investigating Officer.

15.Perused the record. The prosecution by examining PW6 who is

Municipal Commissioner worked at Kadiri between 05.12.2016 to 06.11.2017 established before this Court that accused officer was working as Junior

Assistant in his office during his tenure and that by exhibiting Ex.P14 service particulars and job chart of the accused officer, prosecution established about the services of accused officer that he is a public servant and amenable for prosecution under P.C. Act for the charges levelled against him. Hence, sine quo non i.e., the accused officer is public servant, is proved by the prosecution.

16.As far as the job nature of the accused officer is concerned, it is

PW7 coupled with Ex.P15 which are the proceedings allotting the seat of B3 seat to the accused officer to look after the bills/medical reimbursement bills etc., is job nature of the accused officer and it is established by the prosecution through the evidence of PW7. The said job nature of the accused officer was also deposed by PW3 who was working as Office Subordinate by then at the time of this case and this PW3 categorically deposed that accused

C.C.10/2019-35-ACB Crt., Knl.

officer was attending B3 Section and Accounts Branch. PW4 who is also

Senior Assistant working in the same Municipal Office deposed that accused officer was attending Accounts Branch and B3 seat and with the evidence of all the aforesaid three persons, coupled with Ex.P15, it can safely be concluded that prosecution established that accused officer was the person who was dealing with the Accounts Section seat B3 which deals with accounts, reimbursement bills etc. Ex.P15 disclose that accused officer is directed to assist the accountant in preparation of budget, annual accounts, treasury work and audit and position as B3 Clerk.

17.This is a case where PW1 who is a retired Junior Assistant who worked in Kadiri Municipal Office, submitted three bills to get the reimbursement of the medical bills (Bills regarding to his wife for getting treatment for her dental problem at Ruchitha Dental Hospital during 17.04.2017 to 16.05.2017 in three sittings/three bills). It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 approached the accused officer on 06.06.2017 and met the accused officer in Kadiri Municipal Office and submitted said bills. PW1 deposes before this Court about the same stating that he met accused officer on 08.06.2017 and that accused officer demanded Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as bribe and promised to get the medical reimbursement amounts deposited in his account through Treasury after following due procedure of forwarding the bills through Municipal Commissioner to Govt.

General Hospital, Ananthapuram for scrutiny and then to Sub Treasury. This witness also deposed that he informed the accused officer that he cannot give that much amount and returned home. During the course of cross examination, this PW1 categorically deposed that he has seen his bills i.e.,

Ex.P2 to P4, on the table of the accused officer on 08.06.2017 when he met the accused officer on the said date. As far as this point which is crucial in nature, if scrutinized well by perusing minutely, the entire record produced by

C.C.10/2019-36-ACB Crt., Knl.

the prosecution as well as the accused officer under Ex.D2 and D3 as well,

Ex.P2 to P4 disclose the RC No. as 1315/A5/2017, dated /06/2017, 1316/A5/2017, dated /06/2017, and 1317/A5/2017, dated /06/2017, and the reference portion in Ex.P2 to P4, it is mentioned as RC No.577/B3, dated 07.06.2017 in all Ex.P2 to P4 respectively. But, surprisingly, the covering letter of Ex.P2 to P4 which appears to have been received from Govt. General

Hospital, Ananthapuram by the Commissioner, Kadiri Municipal Office, those entries are not found in Ex.D2. It is the contention of PW1 that he has dropped his medical bills in the Tappal meant for and placed in Municipal Office, on 06.07.2017. He mentioned the said date i.e., 06.07.2017 even in his Ex.P1.

Prosecution, during the course of examination-in-chief, clarified from the evidence of PW1 that due to oversight, he mentioned the date as 06.07.2017, but it was placed on 06.06.2017. As could be seen from the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses pertaining to the submission of bills by PW1 seeking reimbursement is concerned, PW3, PW4 as well as PW7 supports the version of PW1 regarding Ex.P2 to P4. As such, submission of medical bills do not create any doubt in the mind of the Court.

18.As far as the alleged demand of bribe is concerned, PW1 deposes that accused officer demanded Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to process Ex.P2 to P4 to follow the entire procedural aspects of forwarding the said Ex.P2 to P4 from Municipal Commissioner, Kadiri to Govt.

General Hospital, Ananthapuram and after getting its scrutinized from Govt.

General Hospital, he will look after the submission of bills in the Treasury

Office and thereby getting the amounts credited into the account of PW1. It is consistent argument of the learned Spl.PP that the sole testimony of PW1 on this aspect is trustworthy and believable. As far as the evidence of PW1 during the course of cross examination is concerned, it reveals that PW1 did not choose to approach the Municipal Commissioner/PW7, and did not even

C.C.10/2019-37-ACB Crt., Knl.

lodge any complaint against the accused officer to the Municipal Authorities or the Chairman of the Municipality. PW1 also deposed that he has seen his bills

Ex.P2 to P4 on the table of the accused officer on 08.06.2017, when he met the accused officer, but Ex.P2 to P4 clearly disclose that they were already sent to the Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuram as the covering letter of

Ex.P2 to P4 clearly disclose the date of reference of receipt of said bills by them, its dated 07.06.2017 in all Ex.P2 to P4. When that could be the point regarding the availability of Ex.P2 to P4 at Govt. General Hospital,

Ananthapuram, the prosecution did not choose to establish anything on this point whether the version of PW1 stating that he has seen Ex.P2 to P4 on the table of accused officer on 08.06.2017. When the documents speaks volumes regarding its availability at Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuram, it is highly improbable and impossible that they are seen by PW1 on 08.06.2017.

Thereby, it can safely be concluded that there cannot be any demand when bills are already sent to Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuram.

19.This Court also observed that as per the pre trap proceedings,

PW1 was when examined by mediators, it was his version that there are no disputes between PW1 and the accused officer and there are not even any financial disputes between PW1 and accused officer. It is also the evidence of

PW2 as far as Ex.P5 and P6 are concerned. But, PW5 who is wife of PW1, clearly deposed before this Court that her husband returned home worried stating that accused officer demanded him bribe and that since he is a retired servant from the same seat and that again two days later when PW1 went and requested the accused officer to attend his bills stating that he is a retired servant, then accused officer reduced the amount to Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) and asked him to give the bribe amount on 19.06.2017 and that her husband was worried stating that he would approach ACB authorities in this aspect and further surprisingly, during the course of her cross

C.C.10/2019-38-ACB Crt., Knl.

examination, she clearly deposed that her husband informed her that when he requested the accused officer to send his medical bills to Treasury Office, accused officer informed him that it was not time for sending them and that in the said connection, there was altercation between both of them. The contention of the accused officer is to the effect that when there was altercation between the accused officer and PW1 in sending the medical bills to the Treasury Office is concerned, it is the basic reason behind PW1 agitating himself and approaching ACB authorities and filing a false case against the accused officer.

20.As far as the procedural aspect is concerned with regard to the treasury rules and regulations are concerned, apart from salary bills, rest of the bills including medical reimbursement or otherwise are the bills claimed as supplementary bills and those bills are to be submitted on or before 10th of every month. In the present case on hand, as per Ex.P2 to P4, there is a seal of Municipal Corporation, Kadiri dated 13.06.2017 showing the receipt of those bills on that day, so also Ex.P8 and Ex.P8A Tappal Register. Ex.P8A clearly disclose that to the seat B3, Ex.P2 to P4 were placed on 16.06.2017. As per these records, it is humanly impossible to any staff member to submit the bills to the Treasury Office and thereby get them sanctioned. When it is highly improbable in getting bills sanctioned, demanding bribe on what aspect becomes crucial. The submission period of bills between 5th and 8th of every month and these rules were placed to ensure the proper budget, cash flow management and control stock arrears and the said revised schedule for submission of supplementary bills were introduced to streamline the finance management with major implementation, taking effect from 01.05.2016.

21.Assuming for a moment that there was demand made by the accused officer, it is for the prosecution to establish the same beyond

C.C.10/2019-39-ACB Crt., Knl.

reasonable doubt. On this aspect, prosecution examined PWs 3 and 4. PW3 who is Office Subordinate and she did not speak anything with regard to the alleged demand made by the accused officer on 08.06.2017, so also PW4 who was working as Junior Assistant by then between 2014-2018. PW7 who is

Municipal Commissioner by then, also was not even having any information or allegation against the accused officer in this regard and it appears there is no information to him either from PW1 or any other person against the accused officer. Moreover, it was the evidence of PW7 during the course of cross examination that there were no complaints against the accused officer prior to this incident. As such, the very demand alleged to have been made by the accused officer on 08.06.2017 remained doubtful and prosecution could not establish the said demand successfully except by projecting the evidence of

PW1.

22.Assuming for a moment that if the evidence of PW1 is believed with regard to the alleged demand of bribe by the accused officer on 08.06.2017, then it is the contention of PW1 that he promised the accused officer that he would pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) as per the demand of accused officer, on 19.06.2017. It is the evidence of PW1 that after pre trap proceedings are completed under Ex.P6 is concerned, then he along with ACB officials and trap team including the mediators, rushed to the spot and PW1 clearly deposed that he went to account section at 11.15 A.M. where the accused officer was seated and that accused officer was present and he asked PW1 whether he brought the amount and when PW1 informed accused officer that he brought the amount, accused officer took PW1 out of the office and after crossing entrance gate, accused officer has inspected surrounding and then asked PW1 to give the amount as nobody was observing him. It is also deposed by PW1 that he took out the amounts from his left side shirt pocket with his right hand and gave the said amounts to the accused officer

C.C.10/2019-40-ACB Crt., Knl.

and then accused officer took the amounts with his right hand, counted with his both hands and kept it in his left shirt pocket and then PW1 asked the accused officer to sanction his bills and accused officer promised to do so.

During the course of cross examination, it was the suggestion put to PW1 by the accused officer that on 19.06.2017, PW1 did not meet the accused officer in his office at his seat and that accused officer was at portico near the entrance of municipal office and that there was public in open place in office and that PW1 wished the accused officer while accused officer was at portico and that inspite of resisting from the accused officer, PW1 suddenly kept vad of currency notes in the shirt pocket of accused officer and that accused officer immediately took out the currency from his shirt pocket and thrown the same on the floor by shouting PW1. These suggestions were denied by PW1.

23.As far as the evidence of PW2 is concerned on this aspect, PW2 after deposing with regard to pre trap proceedings/Ex.P6, deposed that at 11:15 A.M., trap team reached Kadiri and took vantage positions and PW1 went inside the office of Municipal Commissioner by 11.25 A.M., and at 11.30

A.M., he came out of the office along with accused officer and the trap team came to know from PW1 that the person who accompanied PW1 was the accused officer and while PW1 came out, these trap party observed from a distance, PW1 giving amount to the accused officer and after giving amount,

PW1 wiped his face three times and in turn, C.I./Prathap Reddy who was waiting at the gate, went inside the office, gave signal to the team and further proceedings went on regarding DSP instructions the accused officer not to touch anything with his hands. During the course of cross examination, this witness categorically deposed that he has not eyewitness to the incident of

PW1 giving bribe to the accused officer. But, added to his evidence that from distance he observed PW1 giving amount to the accused officer and accused officer keeping the amounts in his pocket. This witness also deposed that he

C.C.10/2019-41-ACB Crt., Knl.

did not mention the same in Ex.P10 post trap proceedings that he observed

PW1 giving amount to the accused officer and accused officer keeping the same in his pocket. This PW2 also admitted that for the first time, he was stating the said evidence before this Court. It was also elicited from the mouth of PW2 that there is open place in municipal office and vehicles will be parked in the open place and both public and official vehicles will be parked at a place and that there was normal rush in the office premises on that day and in one place office of compound, some people were moving and this witness also admitted that bills will be submitted to the Treasury on various dates depending upon the nature of the bills.

24.It is crucial point which was deposed by PW1 that during Ex.P6 proceedings i.e., pre trap proceedings, one Constable by name Satish was the person who brought two glasses of water and all of them including PW1 rinsed their hands in the water and water did not change its colour and that said

Satish applied phenopthelien powder to the currency notes and gave them to

Shaikshavali and that person kept the amount in the shirt left pocket of PW1.

This witness also deposed in his chief examination that on the same day, said

Shaikshavali and Constable Satish who applied phenopthelien powder to the currency notes, accompanied the trap team to the spot. PW2 deposed in his chief examination that the said Constable Satish who applied phenopthelien powder to the currency notes remained in office. These two contrary statements on the same aspect whether Satish accompanied or not, is a crucial point because Satish and Shaikshavali are the two persons who had opportunity of holding the tainted currency. If those two persons are part and parcel of the post trap proceedings, then whether there exist any occasion where they happened to hold the accused officer or not. During the course of cross examination of PW2, this witness categorically deposed that during the post trap proceedings, Shaikshavali was present and deposed that Satish was

C.C.10/2019-42-ACB Crt., Knl.

not present. When it was the evidence of PWs 1and 2 with regard to the alleged incident of trap proceedings on the spot, the defence put up was to the effect that accused officer was already there at portico and PW1 did not go to the seat of accused officer in the office and did not meet the accused officer at the said seat of accused officer and that at the portico, PW1 saw the accused officer and though accused officer resisted, PW1 thrusted vad of currency notes into shirt pocket of the accused officer and that accused officer took out the same and thrown on the ground and shouted on PW1.

25.PWs 3 and 4 are the crucial witnesses to say whether PW1 met the accused officer on 19.06.2017 at the seat of accused officer in the office at the concerned section. PW3 who is Office Subordinate, clearly deposed that on 19.06.2017, she came to office at 10.20 A.M., and when she along with

LW5/Malleswari and Halim who was looking after C1 seat, accused officer was present in Account Section and that at 11.20 A.M. or 11.25 A.M., one stranger came and accused officer with the said person went out of the office. It is crucial to note the evidence of PW3 that she herself deposed that on 13.06.2017, three medical bills of PW1 were received from PW1 and after initials of Manager and Commissioner, this PW3 handed over them to the accused officer by entering the same in Dispatch Register. It means that PW3 knows as to who is PW1 because PW1 is a retired employee working in the same department in the same section, as such PW3 knows as to who is PW1 is. So, accused officer going out when a stranger who came to his seat, is none other than some other person but not PW1.

26.As far as the evidence of PW4 is concerned, he was Junior

Assistant by then on 19.06.2017 in the same office and he also deposed that he came to know that accused officer was apprehended by ACB authorities for receiving bribe amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) from PW1

C.C.10/2019-43-ACB Crt., Knl.

who was a retired employee. This witness also deposed in his chief examination that on 19.06.2017, as usual he came to the office by 10.30 A.M., and at about 11 A.M., one stranger came and met the accused officer and for some time they both talked with each other and later they both went out of the office, by 11.20 A.M. approximately accused officer was caught and brought into the office. The evidence of PW4 also says that he knows PW1 and he deposes that accused officer went out with one stranger on the said relevant time which means it is not PW1, but with some stranger. During the course of cross examination, this PW4 deposed that he has no knowledge as to what transpired between accused officer and PW1.

27.When this was the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 with regard to whether PW1 went to the seat of the accused officer and whether PW1 met the accused officer when accused officer was sitting in his Section or not, it can safely be concluded that PW1 did not go into the Section of Accounts where the accused officer was sitting. Moreover, both these witnesses were stating about a stranger that one stranger came and talked with accused officer in the section and later both of them went out.

28.In order to establish the defence projected by the accused officer by putting suggestions to PW1, DW2 was summoned by accused officer through petition from this Court and this DW2 is one person by name

G. Mallesham and he deposed that on 19.06.2017 at about 10.30 A.M. after having darshan of his family deity, he made a phone call to the accused officer and accused officer asked this witness to come to his office to had a cup of tea and then go to the near by temple and as such this witness went to the office of accused officer and they both came out of the office and have a cup of tea and at about 11 A.M., or so, when this witness along with the accused officer were about to enter the office, one person came and thrusted the currency

C.C.10/2019-44-ACB Crt., Knl.

notes into the pocket of the accused officer and accused officer thrown away the said amounts on the floor saying that he is not in need of anything and that immediately, some persons came and one of them caught hold the hands of the accused officer and some other persons took the currency notes and that this witness was questioning those persons, but they are not listen to this witness. DW2 also deposed that he rushed immediately to the Municipal

Commissioner’s office, but he also tried to convince DW2 saying that all those persons are officers and that they would not listen anybody. This witness also deposed that ACB officials noted down his name and informed that he will be summoned from the Court and that he should come to Court. The cross examination of this witness was to the effect that whether he preserved the bus ticket which he boarded on 19.06.2017. This witness was examined on 10.11.2025 as DW2 in this case and it is highly improbable for this witness to retain the said ticket.

29.It is the contention of the prosecution that the name of this witness is totally different with that of the name taken by the accused officer, but it is the contention of the accused officer that in villages Aadhar card names will be mentioned in a different manner but villagers will be calling the persons with another casual and usual names but not with the names appearing in Aadhar cards and that this DW2 is none other than Chandraiah.

30.The evidence of DW2 was quite convincing because PWs 3 and 4 were speaking about stranger and he is none other than DW2 because there was no resistance from the prosecution when PWs 3 and 4 deposing about a stranger and they were not even subjected to cross examine by Spl.PP.

Hence, this Court believed the version of PWs 3 and 4 with regard to DW2.

C.C.10/2019-45-ACB Crt., Knl.

31.Now the crucial point is whether the tainted currency was thrusted into the pocket of accused officer by PW1 or given by PW1 on demand made by the accused officer. Even in this aspect also, the evidence of DW2 becomes crucial and it is his contention that some person came and thrusted the currency notes into the pocket of the accused officer and accused officer thrown the same on the floor. The evidence of PW2 was to the effect that he was observing PW1 taking out the currency notes and giving the same to the accused officer and accused officer receiving the same with his right hand, counted with his both hands and placing it in his pocket. But, during the course of cross examination, PW2 clearly deposed that he did not choose to mention the same regarding his observation from a distance about the said scene, in Ex.P10. He also deposed that for the first time he was deposing about said content regarding alleged observation made by him. It means and throws doubt in the said observationbecause it being a crucial point, it would have been mentioned in Ex.P10 by PW2 who is the scribe of Ex.P10. No one precluded him from noting down his observation in Ex.P10, as such it can safely be concluded that the version of defence that thrusting the vad of tainted currency into the pocket of accused officer by PW1, much particularly in the light of evidence of DW2, PWs 3 and 4, accused officer created a doubt in the mind of the Court as to very incident of demanding the bribe by the accused officer is concerned, let alone receiving of the same by the accused officer with his own hands. PWs 3 and 4 were cross examined on the aspect of as to how accused officer was brought into the office section from the area of portico. PW3 categorically deposed that accused officer was caught by some officials and brought into the section. PW4 deposed that the hands of the accused officer were caught by one person and accused officer was brought into the section and rest of the officers followed. When the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as far as the presence of one Constable by name Satish who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, and the presence of

C.C.10/2019-46-ACB Crt., Knl.

said Constable as per the version of PW1 and absence of said Constable by name Satish during the post trap proceedings, as per the evidence of PW2 is concerned, there is a serious lapse in the case of prosecution with regard to the presence or absence of said Constable. The presence of Shaikshavali

Constable who placed the tainted currency in the pocket of PW1, was also very much present in the team of officers and mediators at the time of trap proceedings, established his presence at the time of trap. This Court also observed that when the accused officer could create doubt in the mind of

Court regarding handing over the tainted currency by PW1 to the accused officer is concerned, then it is obvious this Court believes the version of accused officer that there is a possibility of himself touching the tainted currency and throwing them on the floor might have happened. The very touching the tainted currency by the accused officer might have resulted the sodium carbonate solution turn into pink.

32.In view of the aforesaid detailed observations made by this Court, coupled with the judgments relied upon by the accused officer, this Court is of the view that there appears vengeance in the attitude of PW1 and it appears a false case is foisted against the accused officer utilizing the ACB authorities misguiding them.

33.Considering the facts and circumstances and observations of this

Court, this Court is of the view that accused officer could create doubt in the mind of the Court and there was no action which arose that this Court could draw presumption U/Sec.20 of P.C. Act and so that accused officer was expected to rebut the presumption. This Court is of the considered view that prosecution was unable to establish its case much particularly in the light of the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 and accused officer could create doubt in the mind

C.C.10/2019-47-ACB Crt., Knl.

of the Court by examining DWs 1 and 2 and hence accused officer is entitled for benefit of doubt.

34.In the result, Accused Officer is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Officer shall be in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MOs 1 to 5 and MOs 7 and 8 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. MO-6 i.e., Rs.2,000/- currency notes (4 in number i.e.,

Rupees eight thousand only) shall be confiscated to the State after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-. Srividya

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE&ACB Cases, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:-

Prosecution Name of the WitnessDescription Witness No.

1B.Jaya PrakashDefacto complainant 2A.Venkata Siva Prasad Mediator 3P.Rekha BaiOffice Subordinate, Municipal Office, Kadiri 4S.MalleswariThe then Jr. Assistant, Municipal Office, Kadiri 5B.RamanjulammaWife of PW1.

6N.NagarajuAsst. Director of Municipal Admn. Who deposed about sanction order.

C.C.10/2019-48-ACB Crt., Knl.

7P.Bhavani PrasadMunicipal Commissioner, Kadiri Municipal Office 8C.Jayarama RajuInvestigating Officer 9R.Prathap ReddyInvestigating Officer For Defence:-

Prosecution Name of the WitnessDescription Witness No.

1Dr. A.S.S.Venkateswara RaoAddl. Director, Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuram 2G.MalleshamNiece of accused officer

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:- ExhibitDescription of the ExhibitProved by/ No.Attested by 1Complaint, dated 18.06.2017.PW1 2Attested photo copies of three sets of bills along withPW1 application of PW1, dated 05.06.2017 (each bills contains 30 pages).

3-do-PW1 4-do-PW1 5Copy of Complaint.PW2 6Pre trap Proceedings.PW2 7Original Attendance Register.PW2 8Attested copy of Tapal Register.PW2 8-ARelevant entry at page No.102 to 104.PW8 9Rough sketch.PW2 10Post trap Proceedings.PW2 11Nil search list.PW2 12Authorization letter.PW6 13Sanction orders.PW6 14Service particulars and job chart of accused officer. PW7

C.C.10/2019-49-ACB Crt., Knl.

15Proceedings allotting B-3 seat to accused officer.PW7 16Proceedings, dated 18.02.2017.PW7 17Letter addressed to DSP, ACB, dated 19.07.2017.PW7 18Original FIR.PW8 For Defence:-

Exhibit No.Description of the ExhibitProved by/ Attested by 1Notice dt.24.07.2017 and its reply dt.07.08.2017PW9 2Inward register from page No.218 to 256, includes the DW1 entries of the month of June.

3Outward register from page No.131 to 159 includes the DW1 entries of the month of June.

Material Objects Marked

For Prosecution:- MaterialDescription of the ExhibitProved by/ Object No.Attested by 1Sample of Sodium carbonate powder.PW2 2Sample of phenolphthalein powder.PW2 3Resultant solution of right hand which is in pinkPW2 colour.

4Resultant solution of left hand which is not in PW2 pink colour.

5Inner lining of right pocket of the shirt of A.O.PW2 6Four Rs.2,000/- currency notesPW2 7Shirt of accused officer. PW2 8Seized sample of Sodium carbonate powder.PW2

For Defence:- -Nil-

Sd/-. Srividya

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

C.C.10/2019-50-ACB Crt., Knl.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES, KURNOOL.

C.C.No.10/2019

1. Date of OffencePrior to 18.06.2017

2.Date of Report or Complaint19.06.2017

3.Date of Apprehension of the 19.06.2017 Accused

4.Date of Release on bail17.07.2017

5.Date of Commencement of 25.04.2022 trial

6.Date of close of the trial10.11.2025

7.Date of Sentence of Order 19.02.2026

8.Explanation of delay and - remarks ComplainantThe State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram Range, Ananthapuram. AccusedG. Narayanappa, S/o G. Nagamuni, age 41 years, Junior Assistant, Municipal Office, Kadiri, Ananthapuram District. OffencePublic servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for offence punishable U/Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. FindingAccused Officer found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, Accused Officer is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of or Order Corruption Act, 1988 and and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Officer shall be in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MOs 1 to 5 and MOs 7 and

C.C.10/2019-51-ACB Crt., Knl.

8 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. MO-6 i.e., Rs.2,000/- currency notes (4 in number i.e., Rupees eight thousand only) shall be confiscated to the State after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-. Srividya,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Kurnool. Copy submitted to:

The Registrar(Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN Code No.522237. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau Headquarters, 2nd floor, A.P.Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada.

Copy to:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuram. The Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B.Court, Kurnool (Ananthapuram Range.)