Sri P Bhaskara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES

: AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : SRI P. BHASKARA RAO, Spl.Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

K A R I M N A G A R.

Dated this the 22 nd day of February, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No. 50 of 2015

Between:

The State through Anti-Corruption Bureau, through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar. … Complainant AND

Sri Chatla Vijay Kumar, S/o Venkatram, 47 Years, Occ: Circle Inspector of Police, Choppadandi Circle, Karimnagar District R/o Yapal Guda, Adilabad District.

… Accused Officer

This case is coming for final hearing on 29-1-2019in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri A.Vishwanath, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till today, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar, filed charge sheet against the Accused, to prosecute him for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused was working as Circle Inspector of

Police, in Choppadandi Circle, Karimnagar District and by virtue of post held by him, he was a public servant within the meaning of

Sec.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.The further case of the prosecution that, complainant-Dhanala

Srinivas Reddy (PW1), had a Civil dispute with one Cheeti Prem

Sagar Rao in respect of agriculture land to an extent of Ac.3.19 guntas in Sy.No. 25, situated at the outskirts of Choppadandi Village.

On the complaint by the said Cheeti Prem Sagar Rao, a case in

Cr.No. 59/2009 u/s. 447, 427 IPC was registered against PW1 and two others in Choppadandi Police Station on 12.4.2009. During the course of investigation in the said case, accused made PW1 to roam

Choppadandi Police Station and demanded him to pay bribe of

Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, PW1 paid the said amount to accused and accused got arranged station bail to PW1 through his Sub Inspector of Police-PW4 on 25.4.2009.

4.It is further alleged that, after few days, accused who was working as Inspector of Police, Choppadandi, again called PW1 to

Choppadandi Police station, made further demand of bribe of

Rs.20,000/- from not to initiating further action in the said case.

When PW1 expressed his inability, accused threatened PW1, that if he fails to pay the demanded bribe, he will make arrest of remaining 3 two accused and seize the JCB and produce in the Court, as there was no other go, PW1 reluctantly agreed to pay the demanded bribe within 2 or 3 days and left the Police Station, but unwilling to give the bribe, he approached Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and lodged Ex.P1 complaint against the accused on 11-5-2009 at 11.20 AM.

5.PW8-Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar, after informing the complaint, its contents to Dy.Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Warangal-PW7 who was Incharge of

Karimnagar Range and on his instructions, he conducted discrete enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the complaint and reputation of accused. Later, PW8 Inspector asked PW1 to attend R & B Guest House, Karimnagar on 12.5.2009 at 7.00 AM along with proposed bribe amount of Rs.20,000/-. PW8-Dy.Superintendent of

Police, after obtaining permission from the competent authority soon after conducting discrete enquiries, registered the complaint as a case in Cr.No.11/ACB-KNR/2009 u/s.7 of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, on 12-05-2009 at 7.00 hours and took up investigation.

6. During the course of investigation, Dy.Superintendent of Police

T.Janardhan-PW7, secured mediators PW3 and LW3-Dandu Krishna

Rao, conducted pre trap proceedings under Ex.P8 in R & B Guest

House, Karimnagar, got applied phenolphthalein powder to currency notes of Rs.20,000/- (1000x20 = 20,000) produced by complainant- 4

PW1, and instructed him to pay bribe to accused only on his demand and not otherwise and further instructed him to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief in case, accused demands and accepts the bribe from him and after that, he demonstrated phenolphthalein test and explained significance of phenolphthalein test to complainant-

PW1 and mediators and after completion of pre trap proceedings

Dy.Superintendent of Police, along with mediators and staff proceeded to Choppadandi Police Station in a TATA Sumo whereas

PW1 came in his personal car and all of them reached near Police

Station at 10.00 AM. Dy.Superintendent of Police allowed PW1 to go and meet accused by reiterating earlier instructions, PW1 entered into the chambers of accused at 10.00 AM and observed one MPP of

Choppadandi Vollala Krishna Hari (PW2) in the room of accused, and after his leaving from room of accused, at 10.25 AM. Then accused enquired PW1 whether he brought the demanded bribe and on affirmative reply by PW1, accused asked to give the same and accordingly PW1 took out the phenolphthalein treated notes of

Rs.20,000/- from his left side pocket and gave to accused, accused accepted the bribe amount with his right hand kept the amount in his right side middle drawer of the office table situated in his chamber, and accused assured that he would not take any further action in criminal case.

7.Then PW1 came out of the office of accused, gave pre arranged signal. After that, accused also came out of his office room 5 and was proceeding towards police quarters, meanwhile, on observing signal from PW1, Dy.Superintendent of Police along with trap party members rushed to the spot and caught accused and conducted phenolphthalein test to his both hand fingers separately, on doing so, right hand wash of accused turned pink but left hand wash remained as it is and when Dy.Superintendent of Police asked accused to produce the tainted amount, accused did not co-operate, then Dy.Superintendent of Police conducted search in the chambers of accused in the presence of mediators and PW2 who came to the scene of offence and conducted search in the room if accused and found wad of currency notes in the middle drawer of Office table of accused and on verification of denomination and numbers of currency notes with the numbers already mentioned in pre trap proceedings, on doing so, both of them are tallied, then

Dy.Superintendent of Police seized the said wad of currency notes of

Rs.20,000/- (1000x40=20,000) in the presence of mediators and

PW2.

8.During the course of post trap proceedings Dy.Superintendent of Police also played audio CD recorded by PW1 in the presence of accused and staff and accused and questioned about the demand and acceptance, but accused denied his voice. Then Dy.Superintendent of Police, seized Ex.P7 case diary in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of

Choppadandi Police Station from PW4, Sub Inspector of Police, later, he effected arrest of accused and produced him before the Court for 6 remand, later, he handed over further investigation to Inspector-

PW8, who completed investigation and after obtaining sanction proceedings Ex.P11 he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988.

9.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 against the Accused on 18-06-2011.

10.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

11.The Learned Predecessor of this Court, examined the accused u/s. 239 Cr.P.C., on 4-7-2012,the accused denied the offences, hence, charges u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12.In order to prove the guilt prosecution cited (12) witnesses but, examined only (8) witnesses. Dhanala Srinivas Reddy-PW1 is the defacto-complainant who reiterated the contents of complaint that accused demanded and accepted Rs.40,000/- from him and arranged station bail to him in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of P.S.Choppadandi on 25.4.2009 and made further demand of Rs.20,000/- or else he will 7 take action against other accused and seized the JCB Machine but, unwilling to give bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar, lodged complaint Ex.P1 on 11.5.2009. He also stated about his participation in pre trap proceedings on 12.5.2009 and following with Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW7 to Choppadandi

Police Station, payment of Rs.20,000/- to accused only on demand, and giving prearranged signal to trap party, and apprehension of accused by ACB officials.

13.PW2-Vollala Krishna Hari, Mandal Praja Parishad President,

Choppadandi said to have present when PW1 met the accused in his office room and at the time of seizure of tainted amount of

Rs.20,000/- from the table drawer of accused, but he did not support the prosecution case fully and he was declared as hostile.

14.PW3-Hasthapuram Kesava Munider Rao, is said to be mediator stated about his participation in trap proceedings along with

Dy.Superintendent of Police and Anti Corruption Bureau officials. He stated about the verification of the complaint with PW1, apprehension of accused and conducting phenolphthalein test, seizure of tainted amount of Rs.20,000/- and connected documents during post trap proceedings.

15.PW4-T.Narayana, sub inspector of Police, Choppadandi P:olice

Station, Karimnagar District, who stated about registration of Cr.No.

8 59/2009 against accused and two others and arrest of PW1 on 25-4-2009 and granting of station bail to him, as per the oral instructions of accused.

16.PW5-Mohd.Mahaboob Ali, Police Constable in Choppadandi

Police Station stated that, on the trap day, while he was on duty he observed PW2 entered into room of accused and after five minutes

PW1 entered into the room of accused and after five minutes PW2 also left the chambers of accused and after 5 minutes PW1 also left chamber of accused then accused came out of his chambers and proceeded towards his quarters at that time, ACB officials came and apprehended accused.

17.PW6-B.Shiva Shankar, Section Officer from Home Department,

T.S.Secretariat, stated about issuance of sanction proceedings by the then Prl.Secretary to the Government Sri P.Goutham Kumar and he identified his signature in Ex.P11 sanction proceedings.

18.PW7-T.Janardhan,Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Warangal, incharge of Karimnagar stated that on 11.5.2009 at 11.30 AM Inspector P.Sambaiah informed about receipt of complaint Ex.P1 from PW1, and he entrusted the same to inspector who made discrete enquiries and submitted report regarding genuineness of complaint and reputation of accused and 9 later, he registered FIR, laid trap, caught hold the accused red handed, and conducting pre and post trap proceedings.

19.PW8-P.Sambaiah, Inspector of Police stated about receipt of complaint, conducting discrete enquiries as per the instructions of

Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW7 and accompanying him in the trap proceedings, conducting investigation and filing charge sheet.

20.Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor has given up Swargam Narsaiah-

LW8 stating that he is relative to accused and will not support prosecution case. Prosecution not examined other mediator LW3-

Dandu Krishna Rao, LW6-N.Venkataswamy, Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, LW9-Judicial Magistrate of

First Class(PCR) who recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 as not

required, hence their evidence was closed.

21.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P1 to P17 and MO's.1 to 7 are marked.

22.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him were recorded separately.

23.Accused filed written statement denying the demand and acceptance of Rs.20,000/- from PW1 on 12.5.2009 and stated that 10 contents of complaint are false and antecedents of PW1 are bad since he involved in several Civil and Criminal cases. He further stated that, he joined in Choppadandi Police Station as Inspector of Police on 27-2-2009 in place of Malla Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police. PW1 has got close friendship with the said Malla Reddy and also to

Satyanarayana Reddy, Inspector of CID and Congress Leader

Ponnam Prabhakar and they were behind back of PW1 to implicate him in this false case since he was not in good terms with them. The accused maintained excellent service record, received two meritorious Service Rewards, three five cash rewards, three appreciations certificates, apart from commendation letters from his superiors and there were 45 good service entries in his service

Register. But, the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, hastily in a biased manner implicated him in this case by colluding with PW1. Actually, on the complaint by one Prem Sagar

Rao, a case in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 was registered against PW1 on 12.4.2009 and PW1 absconded from village and PW4 arrested him on 25.4.2009 at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, in the presence of mediators but, if he did not investigate the said case since it is not a grave case. He never called PW1 to Police Station he never taken

Rs.40,000/- from him as bribe on 25.4.2009.

24.It is further stated that, on 9-5-2009 Sub Inspector of Police-

PW4 produced PW1 before him explained about the case, registered against him on the complaint by Prem Sagar Rao, that PW1 is 11 creating law and order problem taking advantage of his political supporters, on that, he warned him not to indulge such illegal action thereafter, as such, PW1 developed grudge against him and implicated him in this case. He also did not demand any bribe from

PW1 much less Rs.20,000/-. Infact, on 11.5.2009 from morning to evening hours, PW1 was at Hyderabad and there is sufficient material available on record to prove the said fact.

25.PW2 created Ex.P2 compact disk, as if, he demanded bribe from him and approached ACB, Dy.Superintendent of Police gave complaint against him with grudge keeping in mind about the warning given by him. Dy.Superintendent of Police also without properly verifying the said complaint keeping in mind with his grievance against him while he was working with him at Khammam, taken chance to fulfill his ego to get retaliation for his suspension from the service, while working as Circle Inspector of Police, Gundala on the allegation of lock up death, for sake of bribe. In the said enquiry initiated against Dy.Superintendent of Police, this accused gave statement against him hence Dy.Superintendent of Police, with revenge laid this trap against him and made him as scape goat.

Ex.P11 sanction proceedings are not valid in the eye of law and they are not issued on application of mind. Though investigation officer suggested to initiate departmental action against him for not submitting Annual Property Returns for five years but, in the departmental enquiry, he was exonerated. Though, there was no 12 change of colour after rinsing his hands in the sodium carbonate solution but, the Dy.Superintendent of Police with the help of his constable who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes caught his hands and got dipped his fingers in the solution and declared that his right hand wash turned into pink colour and at that time, he raised dispute against Dy.Superintendent of Police that, they are implicating him in false case but, Dy.Superintendent of

Police has shown a false recovery on the information given by SI of

Police, hence, recovery shown by Dy.Superintendent of Police is not binding on him. The alleged CD in which, the alleged voice was recorded is not admissible in law, can't be used against him and same is also not proved against him as per law.

26.According to him, when PW1 came to his office to meet PW2 to attend function, then he offered tea for him and went to wash room attached to his chamber at that time, PW1 clandestinely placed currency notes in his table drawer without his knowledge and left his chamber by giving shake hand and immediately ACB officials came and caught hold. One Madhu, ACB Constable, caught his both hands and he was totally surprised for their acts. Though, he spontaneously narrated entire actual events to Dy.Superintendent of

Police, but he did not heed his explanation and by making false recitals in the post trap proceedings arrested him in the above case and the paper clipping published on the next day news paper shows that PC Madhu, 1772 was found catching his hands, as such, the 13 phenolphthalein particles were transferred to his hands, therefore results came positive, hence, in view of the above stated grounds, the charges against him are not sustainable, hence prayed the Court to acquit him in the above case.

27.On the defence side, the accused had examined Inspector,

Spl.Branch as DW1 and got Ex.D1 & D2 Tower Location of cell phone of PW1 marked on his side.

28.Heard arguments of Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti

Corruption Bureau and Learned counsel for accused. Both Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau and Learned counsel

for accused also filed written arguments.

29. Now, the points for determination are:

i) Whether the accused, while working as Circle Inspector of Police, Choppadandi, had demanded and accepted Rs.20,000/- from PW1 on 12.5.2009 as gratification other than legal remuneration, for not initiating action against other accused and from not seizing JCB involved in Cr.No.59 of 2009 of P.S.Choppadandi?

ii)Whether the accused in connection with his duties i.e., in respect of Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of Choppadandi Police Station made demand and accepted bribe of Rs.20,000/- from PW1?

iii) Whether the accused by corrupt and illegal means accepted Rs.20,000/- from PW1 by abusing his official position, thereby, committed criminal misconduct?

14 iv) Whether prosecution proved the guilt against accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

POINT NO. i:

DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE:

30.There is no dispute that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused was working as Circle Inspector of Police, Choppadandi

Circle, Karimnagar District hence he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

31.It is also an admitted fact that on complaint by one Ch.

Premasagar Rao, Sub Inspector of police, Choppadandi (Pw4) registered a case against complainant-Pw1 and 2 others viz., G.

Laxminarayana and D. Venkatesham in Cr. No.59/2009 of

Choppadandi Police Station U/Ss.447 & 427 IPC, on 12.4.2009 and there were some civil disputes pending in between Pw1 and Ch.

Premasagar Rao regarding property.

32.It is also an admitted fact that, Pw4 Sub Inspector of police arrested Pw1 in the above criminal case registered in Cr.No.59/2009 of Choppadandi Police station on 25.4.2009 and Pw4 granted station bail to Pw1 and released him on the same day. The prosecution also proved the above said aspect by examining Pw4-Sub Inspector of

Police, Choppadandi and by marking ExP7-Case Diary in

Cr.No.59/2009.

15

33.The contention of learned SPP for ACB is that after registration of the said case in Cr.No.59/2009, the accused who was working as

Circle Inspector of Police, Choppadandi Police Station called Pw1 to the police station and harassed him to pay bribe and due to the harassment by accused, Pw1 paid Rs.40,000/- to the accused on 25.4.2009 and on receipt of the same, accused arranged station bail to him with his Sub Inspector-Pw4. Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor further submitted even after collecting Rs.40,000/- from Pw1, accused did not satisfy and made further demand of Rs.20,000/- from Pw1 or else, he threatened Pw1 that he would make arrest of other accused (A2 and A3) and seize the JCB involved in the said case and produce before the court and unwilling to give the bribe,

Pw1 approached ACB and lodged complaint.

34.The accused contended that on 25.4.2009 he was not in the police station and went to Election Duty and on 11.5.2009 Pw1 did not come to the police station and he (Pw1) was at Hyderabad from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm, as per ExD2 tower location of cell phone

No.9885556662 belongs to Pw1 and thereby denied the demand of bribe on 25.4.2009 and also on 11.5.2009

35.Admittedly, accused did not file orders deputing him for election duty in respect of General Elections-2009, which were conducted for the I-Phase on 16.4.2009 and for II-Phase on 23.4.2009. Accused 16 also did not give the particulars of his election duties i.e., the place of his election duty and period from which he worked on election duty.

Further, when Sub Inspector-Pw4 is very much available in the police station, how can inspector alone can be deputed for election duties?

Generally for election duties, entire staff in the police station except one station guard will be deputed for election duties, so presence of

Pw4 in the police station conducting investigation in Cr.No.59/2009 and arresting Pw1 and releasing him on bail creates doubt about the contention of accused that he was only deputed for election duties on 25.4.2009 on which date he was allegedly obtained Rs.40,000/- from

Pw1 in connection with the case registered against Pw1 in

Cr.No.59/2009 of Choppadandi Police Station.

36.Accused also did not file the General Diary entry to show that he was deputed to election duty on 25.4.2009. On the other hand prosecution rightly filed ExP17-weekly diary of accused for the months of April and May shows that “Attended the office work”. The

Learned defence counsel also did not put any questions to Pw4-Sub

Inspector and Pw5-Police Constable of Choppadandi Police Station, about absence of accused in the circle office on 25.4.2009.

37.Further, arrest of Pw1 and granting of station bail to him by

Pw4 as per the oral instructions of Inspector-accused on 25.4.2009 makes contention of Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor is only true.

Though, Pw4 did not mention the oral instructions given by 17

Inspector-accused in his Case Diary-ExP7, but he clearly stated the said fact to ACB officials in his 161 Cr.P.C statement and also in his evidence before the court, therefore, presence of the accused in his office on 25.4.2009 cannot be doubted.

38.The learned counsel for accused cross examined Pw1 with regard to his capacity Pw1 explained in his evidence that he was having Rs.20,000/- cash in his pocket on 25.4.2009 and secured remaining Rs.20,000/- from Pw2 and paid Rs.40,000/- to accused on 25.4.2009. Pw1 denied the suggestion that he did not pay

Rs.40,000/- to accused on 25.4.2009 and on that date he was on election duty. Though Pw2 was treated as hostile, he stated in his cross examination made by defence counsel that on 25.4.2009 he went to police station on the request of Pw1, so this aspect also strengthens the evidence of Pw1 regarding contribution by Pw2.

39.As far as the further demand by accused on 11.5.2009, for

Rs.20,000/- is concerned, the accused relying on ExD1 application submitted by accused to Addl.S.P(Admn) Khammam, to furnish tower location of mobile phone number of Pw1-9885556662 and ExD2 tower locations of call data of said mobile number 9885556662 from 11.5.2009 to 12.5.2009 which shows that the mobile phone bearing

No.9885556662 belongs to Pw1 was initially at Hanamkonda of

Warangal District from 5.59 am and the movement of the mobile phone shows towards Hyderabad from 9.09 to 22.13 hours of 11.5.2009. Though, ExD1 and D2 show the cell phone movement 18 out of Choppadandi area but they do not show the movement of person (Pw1). At this juncture, learned SPP argued that somebody might have carried the cell phone of Pw1 on that day it did not necessarily be with Pw1 only on the relevant date. Dw1 who filed

ExD1 and D2 admitted in the cross examination that he cannot say who was using the said sim card 9885556662 and he cannot say who was carrying or actually using the said cell phone on the given dates.

40.Further, the particulars given by Dw1 under ExD1 and D2 are not conclusive proof to rule out presence of Pw1 in Choppadandi

Circle office on 11.5.2009. Further, the tower locations at some specified timings in ExD2 were kept blank specially at the trap time which was evidenced by looking at pages 8,9 and 10 of Ex.D2, therefore, these tower locations which were prepared manually by

Dw1, who was working at the same place and in the same department of accused cannot be given much weight than the direct evidence of Pw1, since the technical evidence produced by accused is only artificial evidence and at best, it can be used as corroborative piece of evidence which cannot out weigh the primary and direct evidence of Pw1 which was corroborated by other material particulars.

41.If really Ex.D1 and D2 are genuine, why he did not obtain the same from Karimnagar District police office but, he conveniently obtained the same, from a different district where he was presently working and the alleged incident which has not taken place at all in 19 the said District - Khammam, therefore, in view of the above reasons

Exs.D1 and D2 cannot be given much credence. As far as contradiction with regard to the time of giving complaint stated by

PW1 in this case as 11.30 AM, but in the 164 Cr.P.C statement given by him before Magistrate as evening, however this contradiction is not confronted to the maker i.e., PW1 in the cross examination. The said contradiction in the 164 Cr.P.C statement is also not marked by the accused on his side, hence this contradiction will not become fatal to the case of the prosecution.

42.To prove the demand, prosecution also filed Ex.P2 audio CD in which Pw1 allegedly got recorded the telephonic conversation between himself and accused in his cell phone and gave it to the trap laying officer, who appears to have played in laptop during post trap proceedings, but the accused denied his voice in the audio CD.

Investigation Officer-Pw8 during course of investigation made efforts to collect the voice sample of accused in the court and to analyze

Ex.P2 audio CD in Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and filed a petition to collect voice sample of accused.

43.Admittedly, this court also issued notices to the accused for collecting his voice sample, but, the accused refused to give his voice sample by filing the counter opposing the petition filed by ACB in the court, on that, the learned predecessor of this court passed speaking order in Crl.M.P.No.588/2009, dt.11.8.2009 observing that “since, 20 accused refused to subject himself for voice recording, he cannot be compelled and prosecution can take advantage of the refusal of accused” i.e., to say adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. Since, accused did not come forward for voice testing, prosecution could not get Ex.P2-CD examined in FSL and could not obtain the report.

44.At this stage, Learned counsel for accused contented that, complainant-Pw1 did not mention recording of the telephonic conversation between himself and accused in his complaint cannot form as a ground to reject Ex.P2 at threshold since, First Information

Report is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all the details but, recording of telephonic conversation was stated by Pw1 in ExP5 pre trap proceedings and it was also played before the mediators during pre trap proceedings and they also observed demand of bribe by accused in the C.D. Then, DSP seized the C.D in the presence of mediators and the C.D was also played during post trap proceedings

before accused after his apprehension but, accused denied his voice,

so it cannot be said that Ex.P2 was invented or created by Pw1 during trap proceedings or manipulated by Pw1 to implicate accused.

45.No doubt Ex.P2 is only copy of original C.D. The cell phone or sim card of Pw1 in which the voice conversation was recorded was not seized by the Investigating Officer, whether knowingly or unknowingly and transcription in the C.D was also not prepared by the IO and no efforts have been made during trial to play the C.D in 21 the open court. This court made efforts to know the material in the

C.D find some conversation between two persons pertaining to a criminal case but, it cannot be confirmed or concluded that the said voices belongs to complainant or the accused in the absence of voice expert report.

46.Further, Ex.P2 is only a copy not the original hence, it should necessarily be filed with certificate as required u/s.65 (B) of Indian

Evidence Act, but, the C.D was not complied with the legal requirement, though, it was admitted and marked into as an exhibit without objection by the accused at the time of its marking. However,

Ex.P2 cannot be looked into, except, to draw an adverse inference against accused for refusing to give his voice sample to testify Ex.P2.

Except drawing advserve inference against accused, prosecution cannot use Ex.P2 for any other purpose. From fore going discussion

I hold that prosecution proved the demand on the part of the accused.

47.As far as acceptance is concerned, Pw1 clearly stated that on demand by accused he gave amount to him and accused accepted the same with his right hand and kept in his table drawer. Admitted, phenolphthalein test conducted to the right hand fingers of accused and contacted portion of Ex.P6 in the table drawer yielded positive result. The recovery of tainted amount from the table drawer was also proved by prosecution by examining Pw3-mediator, who verified the said fact in his evidence and his evidence was further 22 corroborated by Trap Laying Officer-Pw7 and Investigation Officer-

Pw8. Theory of accused that phenolphthalein test conducted to the hand fingers yielded positive due to catch holding of his hands by PC

Madhu, who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes is not believable, hence, it can be said the prosecution also proved acceptance of gratification of Rs.20,000/- by accused from Pw1 as a motive or reward for not initiating action against other accused in

Cr.No.59/2009 of Choppadandi Police Station.

RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT:

48.As per prosecution, tainted amount of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the table drawer of accused in his office room. The said fact was proved by prosecution by examining PW1 who clearly stated that after demand by accused he handed over Rs.20,000/- of amount to accused who received the same with his right hand and kept in his right side table drawer. PW3-Mediator stated that when

Dy.Superintendent of Police questioned accused about the tainted amount but he denied and refused to come to his room on that search was conducted in the office room of accused in the presence of mediators and in his presence and during search wad of currency notes were found in the table drawer and on verification of the denomination of currency notes numbers which were already noted in the pre trap proceedings, on doing so both of them are tallied.

This is one of the circumstances to believe the recovery otherwise the same marked currency notes may not find place in the table drawer 23 of accused if it is not tainted amount. Dy.Superintendent of Police-

PW7 also stated in his evidence that accused did not show the tainted amount, meanwhile PW2 came and basing on the version given by PW1 he conducted search in the office room of mediators as well as PW2 and in the search he found currency notes of

Rs.20,000/-(MO1) in the right side middle table drawer of accused.

PW8-Inspector who accompanied Dy.Superintendent of Police also corroborated the said aspect. The Learned defence counsel argued that the said amount was planted by PW1 only, was found to be false and Learned counsel further argued that recovery was not effected on the information given by accused but on the information given by

PW1, same is also not correct. During search only the amount was found and recovery was effected. Pw1 denied the suggestion that he only planted the amount in the table drawer of accused when accused went to washroom. Though he admitted accused going to the washroom came out after two minutes but denied the planting theory of accused.

49.Nodoubt search was conducted basing on the statement given by PW1 during enquiry by Dy.Superintendent of Police in the post trap proceedings since, the accused refused to accompany

Dy.Superintendent of Police to his room and did not co-operate, there is no other option left open to the Dy.Superintendent of Police except to conduct search to confirm the version given by PW1 and ultimately he found tainted amount in the table drawer of accused, 24 for which, it can not be held that recovery is false and accused is not responsible or answerable to the said recovery. Since the amount was recovered from his table drawer immediately after accused leaving from the room within short spell not more than one or two minutes soon after receipt of signal from PW1 and there is no other evidence that except accused no other person entered into his room. The defence theory that, PW1 entered into his room after both of them leaving his room and on seeing him gunman raised alarm and when turned back, PW1 ran away found to be false and not at all believable, therefore, I hold that prosecution also proved recovery of tainted amount from the table drawer of accused in his control and possession.

POINT NO.ii:

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

50.Learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of Choppadandi Police Station, was registered and investigated by Sub Inspector of Police-PW4 and PW4 only granted station bail to PW1, whereas, the accused who was working as Circle

Inspector of Choppadandi Police Station, had no role to play in the investigation taken up by PW4, thereby, no official favour is pending with accused but,PW4 clearly stated before ACB officials and also in the Court that, as per the oral instructions of accused only, he granted station bail to PW1 on 25.4.2009. Evidence of PW1 that he 25 was arrested and released by PW4 by granting station bail as per the instructions of accused was corroborated by PW4.

51.It is well known practice and procedure adopted in all Police

Stations in the State which was also known to the accused that, right from the registration of FIR till filing of the charge sheet, in each and every case investigated by Station House Officer, will be under the supervision of Circle Inspector of the concerned Police Station, without his knowledge or instructions, no FIR will be registered and no arrest will be made. Further, in Ex.P7 Case Diary dt. 25.4.2009 seized by the Investigation officer in the last para it is clearly mentioned by PW4-Sub Inspector of Police “as the involvement of A2 and A3 in Cr.No.59 of 2009 is not established in the commission of offence, he will seek instructions from superior officers and take further steps” and closed the Case Diary for the next day. So, for deleting the names of A2 and A3 in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of

P.S.Choppadandi instructions from accused who is the superior officer is required thereby, it can be said official favour for deleting names of

A2 and A3 is pending with accused only.

52.As per the procedure adopted in the Police Stations in the State for deleting the names of some of accused in a case, for closing FIR and for filing final report by subordinate Police Officers, consent from the superior officer is required. Here, the accused is the immediate superior officer and his consent is required for PW4 for deletion of 26 names of A2 and A3 in Cr.No. 59 of 2009. The allegations in the complaint is that, PW1 who was shown as A1 in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 allegedly tress passed into the disputed land with JCB machine, broken the fencing poles and damaged the barbed wire fencing and caused loss to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to Prem Sagar Rao. The said fact was also mentioned by PW4 in his Case Diary dt. 12.4.2009 in

Cr.No. 59 of 2009. So, for deleting the names of A2, A3 and from not seizing the JCB Machine, the accused further demanded PW1 to pay further amount of Rs.20,000/- as gratification.

53.PW4 though subordinate and though belongs to the same department of accused and worked under him did not support the version of accused but, supported the prosecution case fully and several times, he clearly stated both in chief and cross-examination that, on the oral instructions of accused, he granted station bail to

PW1. He stated about granting of station bail to PW1 and also stated about the trap of accused on 12.5.2009 at 10.30 AM while, he was in the Police Station. Though, he stated in the cross examination that Station house Officer is competent to release accused in bailable cases on bail as per police manual but, he added that, on the instructions of accused who was very much present in one Circle

Office, ofcourse, they normally will not mention in the CD but, the

Circle Inspector will constantly supervise investigation of every case right from registration till filing of charge sheet, without his 27 knowledge or instructions PW4 would not have released him on bail, having arrested him with great efforts.

54.PW5-Police Constable of Choppadandi also stated that on the trap day i.e., on 12.5.2009 at 9 to 9.30 AM while he was in the office room attending office work, he observed initially PW2 entered into the room of accused and after five minutes PW1 entered in to his room, and after five minutes, initially PW2 came out and went away and after five minutes, PW1 also came out from the chambers of accused. Thereafter, accused came from his chambers, and started moving towards his quarters at that time, ACB officials came and apprehended accused. If really, accused had no any official favour or duty in connection with case registered against PW1 in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of P.S.Choppadandi is pending with him, what is the necessity of allowing PW1 into his chambers and allowing him to sit in his chamber, and offering tea to PW2 and PW1 discussing their matter in his presence, therefore, contention of accused that, no official favour is pending with him, is not tenable.

POINT NO.iii & iv:

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

55. As per the case of the prosecution soon after receipt of pre arranged signal from PW1, the Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW7 rushed into the Choppadandi P.S., introduced himself and trap party members to the accused and ascertained the identity of accused, 28 then he informed the purpose of visit, on that accused found shocked and dumb found. Then, Dy.Superintendent of Police got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and requested the accused to rinse his both hand fingers separately in the said solutions and initially the accused did not cooperate and did not rinse his hand fingers and after so many requests,the accused rinsed his hand fingers in sodium carbonate solution. On doing so, right hand fingers wash turned pink but left hand wash remained as it is.

56.Then Dy.Superintendent of Police questioned accused about the demand and acceptance of bribe from PW1 and accused denied the same and shouted at ACB officials stating that they are colluded with

PW1 and when Dy.Superintendent of Police stated to the accused why his hand fingers turned pink, on that, accused kept silent. Then,

Dy.Superintendent of Police asked the accused to produce bribe amount but, the accused denied and did not produce the bribe, then

Dy.Superintendent of Police called PW1, examined him as to what was happened after he left the trap party, then PW1 narrated sequence of events in the presence of PW2 and during enquiry, PW1 revealed that, the accused after accepting the bribe from him, kept the said amount in his table drawer. Then Dy.Superintendent of

Police asked the accused to show the bribe amount but, the accused refused to come to his office room, and did not co-operate with ACB officials, meanwhile, PW2 came there and basing on the information given by PW4 about the ACB raid, Dy.Superintendent of Police 29 conducted search in the office room of accused in the presence of mediators and PW2 and found wad of currency notes in the right side middle table drawer. Then Dy.Superintendent of Police, directed one of the mediators to verify the denomination and currency note numbers and with the marked currency note numbers already mentioned in pre trap proceedings, on doing so, both of them are tallied. Then Dy.Superintendent of Police seized tainted amount of

Rs.20,000/-, (MO1) from the office table of accused.

57.Then, Dy.Superintendent of Police, prepared Sodium carbonate solution in a glass tumbler and subjected the contacted portion of tainted amount to the Ex.P6 petition lying in the table drawer of accused to the phenolphthalein test by swabbing with cotton and on doing so, it was also yielded positive result, then Dy.Superintendent of Police also seized Ex.P6 petition which was filed by Donala Vijaya

W/o accused in I.A.527/2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar. Then he transferred all the resultant solutions in separate glass bottles duly sealed, labelled, attested by mediators.

Mos 5 to 7 are the resultant solutions of phenolphthalein tests. The positive results of phenolphthalein tests is one of the surrounding circumstances and corroborating piece of evidence to prove the acceptance of bribe amount by accused from PW1.

30

58.At this stage, accused raised serious dispute about the resultant solution stating that P.C.Madhu who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes in the pre trap proceedings also participated in post trap proceedings caught his hands while conducting phenolphthalein tests to his hand fingers, therefore, right hand wash yielded positive result. To support his contention, the accused filed paper clipping published in Vaartha Local newspaper on 13.5.2009. This photograph published in newspaper under the caption that “CI ni arrest chesi theesku velthunna ACB

Adhikarulu” so, this photograph not pertains to the aspect of conducting phenolphthalein tests. In trap cases, the phenolphthalein tests generally will be conducted immediately after receipt of pre arranged signal from complainant, the Trap Laying Officer, will rush to the spot and immediately will conduct the phenolphthalein test to the hands of suspect officers and for completion of entire proceedings, it will take minimum 2 to 3 hours and only at the end, the arrest will be affected, so, this photograph relates to the arrest of accused. By that time, entire tests were already completed. Further if Madhu,

Police Constable really caught hold hands of accused, his both his both hand washes would have been yielded positive result, but, in this case, only right hand wash yielded positive but left hand wash did not yield positive.

59.Further, close observation of the photograph in Paper clipping reveals that the constable caught hold only the hand of accused 31 above wrist, but not fingers. While conducting phenolphthalein test only fingers will be rinsed or dipped into the glass tumblers and entire hand will not be dipped and can not be dipped into the small glass tumbler. Since, accused did not co-operate for arrest he was taken into custody forcibly by Anti Corruption Bureau officials to take away to ACB office and to produce him for remand and there is no chance of transferring phenolphthalein particles from the office of

Police Constable Madhu to the hand fingers of accused, thereby, the admission by mediator about presence of Madhu, who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes during pre trap proceedings will not invalidate the results of phenolphthalein tests.

When Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW7 was questioned by confronting the paper clipping but Dy.Superintendent of Police did identify the said person as Madhu and skipped away stating that, he can not identify the said person.

60.On the other hand, the Learned SPP argued that, after registration of FIR on 12.5.2009 at 7.00 AM, it was dispatched to the

Hon'ble Spl.Judge at Hyderabad and Madhu, Police Constable 772 of

ACB, Karimnagar only carried First Information Report to the Hon'ble

Spl.Judge who received the same on 12.5.2009 at 7.45 PM. As per

Ex.P9, Post trap Proceedings were concluded at 3.30 PM and by bus, it will take minimum 3 to 4 hours to reach Hyderabad thereby,

Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor argued that presence of Madhu at Post trap proceedings may not be possible and PW3 mediator might have 32 stated wrongly about the presence of Madhu. Admittedly, in the paper clipping filed by the accused, presence of PC Madhu is not mentioned. It only reveals that one person, nodoubt ACB official caught hold the hands of accused above the wrist, hence, even if PC

Madhu was present during post trap proceedings, it will invalidate results of phenolphthalein test. At any rate, phenolphthalein test, is only a corroborating piece of evidence, even if it was eschewed from record, there is direct evidence of PW1, PW3, PW7 and PW8 is available in record, hence the discrepancy pointed out by accused, will not dismantle entire case of the prosecution.

61.The Learned counsel for accused also pointed about the seizure of Ex.P6 Court order from the table drawer of accused and argued that, it was not explained by the prosecution as to how Ex.P6 came into the table drawer of accused. It is for him to explain as to how

Ex.P6 came into his table drawer because, it was seized from his table drawer. According to accused, he has not seen accused placing currency notes covering with Ex.P6 Court Order since, he claims that at that time, he was in wash room at one stage and at later point of time, he stated that while he was leaving his room, and proceeding towards his quarter, PW1 entered into his room and it was observed by gunman who raised alarm and when he turned back, PW1 ran away, so at either point of time accused did not state, PW1 only placed Ex.P6 by wrapping to the currency notes.

33

62.In the pre trap proceedings also, when phenolphthalein treated notes were kept in his shirt pocket after ensuring that no other article was there in his left side shirt pocket. If PW1 was allowed to meet accused with Ex.P6, certainly the said fact would have been mentioned in pre trap proceedings. Both Dy.Superintendent of

Police, PW7 and Inspector-PW8 stated that they do not know when

PW1 handed over Ex.P6 to accused. The said fact also not mentioned in Ex.P1. PW1 was not asked with regard to Ex.P6, while cross examining him. PW1 is the proper person to explain regarding

Ex.P6 but, he was not asked by the defence counsel. Mediator was only asked whether PW1 was again searched before allowing him to meet accused at the Police Station or not. Mediator was also not specifically asked whether PW1 was carrying Ex.P6 with him or not.

So, in the above said circumstances, presence of Ex.P6 in the table drawer of accused which came into contact with tainted amount need not be explained by prosecution. PW1 clearly stated in his evidence that accused accepted the amount with his right hand and kept in his table drawer so, only currency notes were handed over by PW1 and it was accepted by accused with his right hand and kept in his table drawer in which Ex.P6 was lying. Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor argued that the accused would have received from PW1 on earlier occasion when he met him on 25.4.2009 or would have received it from his Sub Inspector-PW4, may be possible so, non explanation by prosecution regarding Ex.P6 will not become fatal to the case of the prosecution.

34

PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 (1) OF PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND U/S.114(a) OF INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT:

63.In this case, prosecution proved demand and acceptance by examining complainant-PW1 who fully supported the prosecution case on all material aspects and gave evidence against the Senior

Police Officer without any fear, recovery of tainted amount of

Rs.20,000/- from the office table drawer of accused was also proved by examining mediator-PW3, who also supported prosecution case, phenolphthalein tests conducted to the right hand fingers of accused and contacted portion of Ex.P6 Court order in the table drawer also yielded positive result. The prosecution also proved that, the accused being Circle Inspector of Police is supervising the case registered and investigated by his Sub Inspector-PW4 and for not initiating action against other accused and from not seizing JCB machine involved in the case only, the accused demanded and accepted bribe of

Rs.20,000/- from PW1, therefore, when prosecution was able to prove all the essential ingredients of the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is incumbent upon the Court to draw mandatory presumption u/s.20(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against accused that, he received Rs.20,00/- from PW1 as legal gratification other than legal remuneration. Except fine for

Traffic offences by way of challan, question of collection of amount by 35 the accused Police Officer will not arise. It is not at all case of the accused that he collected huge amount of Rs.20,000/- from PW1 towards fee or fine in respect of Traffic offences or compounding fee for any offence and amount was recovered from his ofence table drawer. The explanation given by accused that, PW1 only clandestinely planted the amount in his table drawer and implicated him was found to be false and same was created by the accused to escape from the charges. When the explanation given by accused is not plausible or probable in the ordinary course of nature, the Court has to draw presumption against accused under Sec. 20 (1) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by placing probable defence. Likewise, Court also can raise presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since tainted amount was recovered from the office table drawer of accused immediately after his leaving from his room in quick succession without any gap or delay and the presumption is that, accused only accepted the said amount as a gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward.

SANCTION ORDER:

64.Prosecution rightly filed original sanction proceedings bearing

G.O.Ms.No. 128 dt. 25.5.2011 marked as Ex.P11 issued by the then

Prl.Secretary to the Government Sri P.Goutham Kumar and also rightly proved the sanction proceedings by examining the Section

Officer who clearly identified the signature of Sri P.Goutham Kumar, 36

Sanctioning Authority in Ex.P11. Though PW6 may not have personal knowledge but proved issuance of sanction proceedings by the competent authority who verified the entire material on record.

Nodoubt, Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau did not furnish criminal antecedents of PW1 to the Sanctioning Authority which is a question of fact and material for the trial which need not necessarily be placed before Sanctioning Authority. Whether there is a prima facie case is made out against public servant and there is sufficient material available to try the accused is only point to be considered by the sanctioning authority before issuing prosecution orders.

65.In this case, competent authority i.e., Director General, Anti

Corruption Bureau placed relevant material before Sanctioning

Authority and they were properly evaluated by the sanctioning

Authority, then only, he issued sanction proceedings, ofcourse, in the proforma submitted by Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, which will be generally on the same lines in each and every case, for which, it can not be said, sanctioning authority did not apply his mind and issued Ex.P11 sanction proceedings mechanically. The proforma furnished by the Sanctioning Authority will be taken only as a guidance but the Sanctioning Authority will not act as per the directions of investigation agency which is not superior to him and and it will take independent decision after examining entire material placed before it. At this stage, Learned counsel for accused relied on a decision reported in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan on 18th 37

September, 2007 Case No.: Appeal (Crl.) 766 of 2001 it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an orders of sanction should be construed in a pedantic manner.

We agree that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to

judge as to whether the public servant

concerned should received the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not.

For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the

Inspector General of Police, Karnataka

Lokayuktha. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG

Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish 38 existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily,

before passing an order of sanction, the entire

records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the

Court to show that such materials had in fact been produced.

but, in this case on hand, the competent authority i.e., Director

General, ACB placed entire material by sending preliminary report as well as final report enclosing all the relevant material. In para No. 7, the sanctioning Authority clearly mentioned that, after carefully examining the material placed before him i.e., first information report, pre trap and post trap proceedings in respect of the allegations levelled against the accused and having regard to the circumstances of the case and considered that, Sri Ch.Vijay Kumar,

Circle Inspector of Police, Choppadandi Circle, should be prosecuted in a competent Court of Law, for the above said offences, so, the sanctioning Authority not only examined entire material placed before his Court but came to a conclusion to prosecute the accused.

Further, accused did not show what was the prejudice caused to him while issuing sanctioning proceedings, so, in the absence of any 39 prejudice, it can not be said that sanction order is invalid or vitiated, hence, the above decision cited by the Learned counsel for accused, has no application to the facts of the present case.

DEFENCE THEORY:

66.During the course of trial accused has taken planting theory that, on 12.5.2009 PW1 came to his chamber to discuss with regard to the case registered against him and when he went to the washroom, attached to his chamber to attend calls of nature, PW1 clandestinely kept the tainted amount of Rs.20,000/- in his table drawer without his knowledge and till recovery of amount allegedly from his table drawer by ACB officials, he had no knowledge about the same. This much of theory suggested to PW1 was totally denied.

However, during post trap proceedings, the accused has given somewhat different version stating that, on the trap day at 9.00 AM, he went to the office to attend routine work and while he was in office, PW2 came to their office and while they were discussing some general things, PW1 came and joined them and he offered tea to them and after having tea all of them came out from his office room and while he was proceeding towards his quarter on foot, he turned back to the call of his gunman then, saw PW1 entering into his room and when he shouted loudly, PW1 ran away from his office and later

ACB officials came and apprehended him and has shown the recovery from his table drawer, so, this explanation offered by accused during the course of post trap proceedings is contradicting the theory 40 advanced during trial. So, these two different versions given by accused will not go together and ultimately suggests that the planting theory advanced by accused appears to be not correct, in ordinary course of nature, hence same is not believed.

67.Accused took assistance of evidence of PW2, who gave improvised version in his evidence against his earlier statement given to the ACB officials and consequently, he was declared as hostile by the prosecution but, the improvised version of PW2, which was not find place in his previous statement and also in the version given by him during post trap proceedings, is also contradicting the explanation given by the accused during post trap proceedings, because PW2 in his improvised version stated that, when accused went to washroom attached to the chamber, meanwhile, PW1 kept wad of currency notes which were wrapped with papers in the table drawer of accused and after returning the accused from washroom, himself and PW1 shook hands with accused and came out from his chambers, but, as per the prosecution case, initially PW2 entered into the chambers of accused and after five minutes PW1 joined them and after discussing some matter, PW2 initially left the chambers of accused, and after five minutes, PW1 left the chambers of accused and after 30 minutes, PW4-Sub inspector of Police informed him over phone that, Circle Inspector was trapped by ACB officials. However, the explanation by accused during post trap proceedings is that, all of them came out from office room at a time, is contradicting the 41 evidence given by hostile witness-PW2 so, the evidence of PW2 is not corroborating with the explanation given by accused during post trap proceedings, hence defence theory advanced by accused is false.

68.PW2 who was acting as Mandal Praja Parishad President,

Choppadandi at that time was also examined and enquired during post trap proceedings by Trap Laying Officer but, this gentleman did not state about planting of currency notes by PW1 in his presence in the table drawer of accused when accused went to the washroom. If planting of currency notes by PW1 is a true certainly, PW2 would have stated the same to ACB officials at that time, without any fear, since he is not a public servant so, the improvised version given by

PW2 contra to his earlier version is nothing but false and appears to have been advanced by him at the behest of accused. So, it is made clear that, PW2 gave false evidence before the Court intentionally and deliberately, being a respectable person in the society having elected by the people, is not supposed to give false evidence in a

Court of Law intentionally and deliberately in this type of serious cases registered by ACB against senior most Police Officer, hence, in my opinion, he is liable for prosecution for perjury.

69.Accused also did not examine his Gunman, who allegedly raised alarm, when PW1 entered into his chamber to substantiate his explanation given him during post trap proceedings, even to believe the said version. Further, the planting theory advanced by accused 42 who is working as Circle Inspector of Police, having full security and surveillance of Police staff, in my view, a common man, that too, an accused (PW1) before him, may not have such guts to plant some currency notes in his table drawer so as to implicate him in a false case, may not be possible in ordinary course of nature therefore, the planting theory advanced by the accused in this case is somehow not believable

PLEA OF ALIBI :

70.Accused denied initial demand and acceptance of Rs.40,000/- from PW1 on 25-4-2009 AND has taken plea of “alibi” stating that, on the particular day, he did not attend the office since, he was deputed for election duties but, he did not file proceedings to show that, he was deputed to election duties. As per record, General

Elections for the year 2009 for the first phase was completed on 16.3.2009 and second phase was completed by 23.3.2009, so, his contention that he did not come to the office on that day i.e., on 25.4.2009 and he was on election duty is not correct. Accused also did not file any

General Diary entries to that effect. However, prosecution rightly filed Ex.P17 weekly diary of accused for the period from 19.4.2009 to 9.5.2009 which shows that on 25.4.2009 (Saturday) the accused, attended the office work and at 10.00 AM he went to Gangadhara and some other villages to discuss issues in the village with elders and returned to the headquarters at 8.30 PM and halted, so, the 43 accused was very much present in the Police Station on 25.4.2009, and, Ex.P17 falsifies plea of “alibi” taken by accused.

ALTERNATIVE DEFENCE PLEAS:

71.The accused also suggested to PW1 in cross examination that, he foisted this case against the accused by influencing ACB officials to implicate him in this case to affect his calling but it was denied.

Unlike Indian Penal Code Cases, Anti-Corruption Bureau will not register the case soon after receipt of complaint immediately, after receipt of complaint, they will conduct preliminary enquiries. Then, after taking permission from competent authority i.e., Head of the

Department manned by senior most Officers of Anti Corruption

Bureau, in head Quarters at Hyderabad then only, they will register

First Information Report and lay the trap, therefore, influencing Anti

Corruption Bureau officials and foisting case against a senior Police

Officer, is far from the truth. It was also suggested to PW1 that, since he warned PW1 for repeating illegal acts of tress passing and demolishing the wall raised by defacto-complainant-Prem Sagar Rao in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of P.S.Choppadandi, therefore, PW1 bore grudge against him and implicated him in this case was also denied, but it is common in every Police case, to maintain law and order, Police

Officers will give warnings to accused to keep peace between parties.

It is the primary duty of every Police Officer, to prevent crime and maintain law and orders, but for this simple reason, PW1 implicating 44 a senior Police officer (Accused), without there being any demand or harassment for money can't be believed.

72.It was also suggested to PW1 that, at the instance of the then

M.P. Sri Ponnam Prabhakar and previous Circle Inspector Malla

Reddy, who was interested for posting in Choppadandi is behind back of PW1 for implicating him in this case was also denied by PW1 and accused also not substantiated the same by placing any material

before the Court.

73.Accused also has taken another defence plea against Trap

Laying Officer Sri Janardhan that, earlier both of them worked in

Khammam. During that time PW7-Trap Laying Officer Sri Janardhan was involved in a lock-up death case, and an enquiry was initiated against PW7 him in which he (accused) gave statement against Trap

Laying Officer, (PW7) therefore, PW7 with grudge to take revenge against him implicated him in this case is also not substantiated by placing any material except a fact of occurring a death of a person in

Lockup during tenure of PW7 at Khammam and he answered the query in the cross examination that, in the judicial enquiry conducted on the alleged lock-up death, he was totally exonerated, but, the alleged statement given by accused against PW7 in the enquiry, or enquiry report is not placed before the Court except proceedings initiating enquiry to believe the alleged grudge by PW7 against the accused to take vengeance. I already stated above, unlike other 45

Indian Penal Code offences or regular police cases, false implication in these type of Anti-Corruption Bureau trap cases is highly difficult especially, in these back ground facts of the case where trap was laid against senior non Police Officer.

74.The record reveals that, there was long litigation in between

PW1 and his rival Prem Sagar Rao. Several suits filed against each other and criminal cases are filed in respect of property disputes and in connection with one of the criminal case registered on the compliant of Prem Sagar Rao only, PW1 was arrested and he was granted station bail as per directions of accused by collecting some amount from PW1 and only on further demand by accused PW1 unable to bear the harassment, approached Anti-Corruption Bureau, so, PW7 can not create this much of huge record to implicate the accused by overnight, so false implication by PW7 as alleged by accused is also not believable, in these back ground facts of the case.

ANTECEDENTS OF COMPLAINANT:

75. Learned counsel for accused argued that, PW1 was involved in number of criminal cases and also involved in Civil litigation, filed suits by forging and fabricating documents and there were adverse remarks against PW1 in the Judgment delivered in the Civil suit. But, 46 all those criminal cases are outcome of Civil disputes. Admittedly,

PW1 was not charged with serious offences like Rape or

Misappropriation of Government funds, involving of moral turpitude to brand him as man of poor moral fibre. Infact, PW8 also investigated regarding antecedents of complainant by sending requisition to the II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, to know stage of case in Cr.No. 376 of 2003 registered under sec.307 and 427 r/w 34 IPC. Infact, in the said case, PW1 was the complainant but not accused. Adverse remarks passed against PW1 in Civil Suit O.S.No.

150 of 1996 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar dt.

14.6.2004 filed by PW1 against Prem Sagar Rao shows that, suit was dismissed with costs and there was no evidence that the Judgment in the said suit, became final.

76.Further, the reading of the Judgment shows that the defendant in his written statement only levelled the allegations against the plaintiff/PW1 alleging forgery and fabrication of some documents but plaintiff-PW1 denied the same, hence it is an oath against oath. The observation by the Learned Judge is that there was malafide intention on the part of Plaintiff-PW1 in creating such document for the purpose of litigation, that's all. To support his plea, Learned counsel for the accused relied on decision reported in Satpaul Vs.

State Delhi Administration 1996 I SC in which, complainant was a Pimp and haunting at Railway station to solicit customers for his women therefore, he was characterized as questionable and shady 47 character but, there are no such facts in this case Admittedly, there were no instances of PW1 giving false complaint against public servants earlier to ACB and he did not trap any innocent or corrupt

Government official earlier. There was no evidence that, he was convicted by any criminal Court and sentenced to Jail in any case.

So, except on some property disputes, he was involved in two criminal cases i.e., in Cr.No. 171/2009 u/s.420 IPC of

P.S.Choppadandi, in Cr.No. 98/2009 registered u/s. 420, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 IPC and in Cr.No. 377/2003 registered u/s. 448, 427, 506 IPC of Karimnagar II Town Police Station, which do not involve moral turpitude. Further, in the said decision, complainant was found be a man of poor moral fibre, turned hostile and did not support prosecution case, therefore, his evidence was not considered in said decision.

GOOD CONDUCT OF ACCUSED:

77.Accused filed bunch of certificates and service entries, but they only to show that, he is hard working and received cash rewards but, there was no entry with regard to his integrity or honesty. Hard working is different from integrity or honesty. Therefore, these good service entries and meritorious certificates received by him during his service, will not give any help to him to wriggle out from this case.

MINOR DEFECTS IN THE INVESTIGATION:

48

78.As per prosecution case pre trap proceedings was conducted in

R&B guest house, Karimnagar but, no receipt/bill for use of guest house was filed in the court, may be by oversight. Though, Pw1 present in the pre trap proceedings his signature was not obtained in pre trap panchanama may be an accidental slip and same is not mandatory. Though, Ex.P2 C.D was allegedly played during pre and post trap proceedings, but, the transcription of the conversation was not prepared by the Investigation Officer, that is the reason, it was not considered. Corrections and insertions at some areas of pre and post trap panchanamas, is common while drafting number of pages at a stretch.

79.Further, Trap Laying Officer-Pw7, taking PC Madhu, who applied phenolphthalein powder to the post trap proceedings and non making written endorsement on the back of the complaint soon after conducting discrete enquiries by inspector-Pw8, may be to maintain utmost secrecy. However, they are purely minor defects in the investigation which will not affect the very root of the case and they were occurred because of lack of experience or knowledge on the part of investigation officer, for which, he is answerable to the competent authority but, on these defects entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away, when other reliable evidence is available on record, therefore, I hold that the above defects in the investigation is not at all fatal to the case of prosecution.

49

CASE LAW:

80.Learned Counsel for accused relied on a decision in V.Sejappa

Vs. State by Police, Inspector of Lokayukta Chitradurga 2016(2)

Crimes 116(SC)=2016 AIR (SC) 2043, wherein it was held that

Absence of proof of demand on 9.12.1997, coupled with PW2's evidence that the amount was paid by PW1 to the appellant towards purchase of diesel raises serious doubts about the amount being paid by PW1 as illegal gratification. High Court neither considered the defence plea of alibi nor it held that the decision of the trail Court was erroneous or perverse. In our view, evaluation of the evidence made by the trial Court while recording an order of acquittal does not suffer from any informity or illegality or manifest error and the grounds on which the order of acquittal is based cannot be said to be unreasonable.

While so, High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

but, in the above said decision, complainant did not support prosecution case and he was declared as hostile. In that context, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that initial burden of proving demand

and acceptance lies on prosecution only. However, in this case on hand complainant fully supported prosecution case and stated about the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused unevocably and there was other evidence available on record and circumstances are 50 also there, to prove the demand and acceptance, hence, the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

81.The next decision relied by Learned counsel for accused in between Mukhtiar Singh Vs. state of Punjab 2017 (4) AICLR (S.C) 50 wherein it was held as under:

In addition thereto, not only the prosecution version of demand and acceptance of ilelgal gratification in the police station seems to be unusual, contradictions of the witnesses, PW1,

PW2 and PW5 with retgard to Rs.2,000/- also renders it doubtful. It is also noticeably unusual that the currency notes when allegedly handed over by the complainant to the original accused, the same instead of being keenly kept with him, were placed casually in the card board box placed on his table. Though the orignal accused apart from imputing his false implication at the instance of Superintendent of Police, Cheena, said to be the relative of the complainant could not adduce any evidence to consolidate the same, the fact remains that this officer at the relevant point of time was indeed

Superintendent of Police at Mohali and was the superior of PW5 who led the trap operation. The charge against him therefore fails. The Trial

Court as well as the High Court has failed to analyse the factual and legal aspects as involved in their true perspectives and resultantly the determinations made are not 51 sustainable. The impugned Judgment and Order of the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by teh Trial Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

52 but, in the said case there were serious inconsistencies in the case of prosecution regarding location of transaction relating to the payment of bribe by the complainant to the accused. Further, tainted amount was casually placed the card box on his table but in this case on hand, there was no discrepancy regarding location of transaction which admittedly took place in the office room/chamber of accused and tainted amount was recovered from the table drawer of accused only not on cardboard box in a casual manner. The complainant also has spoken the dates of demand clearly in his evidence, hence, the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

82.The Learned counsel for accused while arguing that, mere recovery of tainted amount divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself, cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. To support his contention, he relied on a decision in

Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) ((1979) 4 SCC 725), it is held

View that (at SCC P.727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable.

53

The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, no inference of Corruption may fairly be drawn. A three Judge bench in M.Narsinga Rao Vs. State of

A.P. ((2001) 1 SCC 691 while dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and the prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted t6o gratification, observed: (SCC p. 700, Para 24) “ 24 we think it is not necessary to deal with the matter in detail because in a recent decision rendered by us the said aspect has been dealt with the matter in detail because in a recent decision rendered by us the said aspect has been dealt with at length.

(Vide Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi Vs. State of

Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 571). The following statement made by us in the said decision would be the answer to the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel: (Madhukar case (SCC

P.577 Para 12) 12, The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption.

In the above said case, the Learned Spl.Judge having acquitted 3 accused basing on the evidence of some witnesses viz. PW6, PW8 and PW9 but convicted the remaining two accused who are the appellants in the above said decision basing on the very same evidence of witnesses PW6, PW8 and PW9 and ratio ennunciated in 54 the above said decision was that “if one integral part of story given by witnesses was not believable, then the entire case fails.” But, in this case there is only one accused and substantive evidence of the star witness PW1 was not shaken with regard to the demand and acceptance except few discrepancies which are common in every case, hence the above decision is not applicable to the present case.

83.Next decision relied by accused is P.Sirajuddin Vs. State of

Madras AIR 1971 Supreme Court 520 wherein it is held

The appellant made an application for discharge under S.251-A Cr.P.C., on the grounds of discrimination between him and other officers who were given pardon and, gross irregularities in the investigation. The Special

Judge held, that though there was no basis for

charging the appellant under S. 165.IPC or under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(b), of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, a charge could be framed against him under S.5(2) read with

S.5(1)(d). The appellant thereafter moved the

High Court, the High Court held: 1) that the investigation started on 15 th April, 1964 when the Director of vigilance registered an inquiry

2) that the asking of signed and self- incriminating statements from various witnesses was in violation of Ss.161 to 164

Cr.P.C; 3) that the Special judge erred in directing the framing of the charge without excluding those statements from consideration; 55 and 4) that the Special Judge should take up the matter once again after excluding from consideration those statements.

but, the above decision is in respect of discharge of accused and giving pardon to some of the accused and it was challenged in the

Hon'ble High Court by way of quash proceedings. But, we are at the

fag end of the case since charges were framed against the accused long ago, hence the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case at this stage.

84.Learned counsel for accused to exclude Ex.P2 CD, for want of certificate u/s. 65(B) relied on a decision reported in Anwar P.V.Vs.

P.K.Basheer and Others 2014 (10 Scale 660 2014 Lawsuit

(SC) 783

At electronic record by way of Secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65(B) are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD,

Chip etc.,, the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65(B) obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.

56

This Court has not considered Ex.P2 CD for want of transcription and non filing original CD or hand set of same matter, in which alleged voice of accused was recorded. Further, Ex.P2 was also not examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory, and there was no expert report on Ex.P2, hence the above decision need not be discussed at length, for exclusion of Ex.P2 from consideration.

85.With regard to the standard of proof required to be proved by prosecution and burden of proof on the accused to be discharged under which there was no controversy that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, accused can prove their case on preponderance of probabilities. On this context the Learned defence counsel relied on a decision in between Panjab

Rao Vs. State of Maharastra (AIR 2002 SC 486) wherein it was held

AO is not required to establish his defence by providing reasonable doubt as the prosecution but can establish the same by the preponderance of Probability.

It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by collecting loans in a collection campaign. It is, of course, true as observed by the High Court that when the

Investigating Officer seized the amount from the Patwari-accused, he did not offer the explanation that it was in relation to a 57 collection of loan, but that by itself would not be sufficient to throw away the explanation offered by the accused in his statement under

Section 313 when such explanation could be held to be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case, as indicated by the learned Special Judge while acquitting the accused. It also transpires that the High Court, while setting aside an order of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge, has not focused its attention to the reasoning advanced by the

Special Judge, and by mere re-appreciation has

come to the conclusion, and in our view the conclusion is based upon a mis-reading of the relevant evidence including the evidence of

PW2. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court erred in interfering with the well reasoned Judgment of the Special Judge in an order of acquittal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds stands discharged.

86.Lastly, Learned counsel argued that conviction can not be sustained on the basis of mere trap incident without proving vital parts of the prosecution case and he relied on a decision Haridev 58

Sharma vs. State of delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC 1489

wherein it was held “No conviction can be sustained on the basis of mere trap incident. When the vital parts of the prosecution case which formed the genesis for the trap incident cannot be accepted. It is held in AIR 1979 SC 1408 (Suraj mal Vs. State Delhi

Administration) that, mere recovery of money diverse from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused under 5(20 of PC Act 1947 IPC when the substantive evidence is not reliable).

but in this on hand, there were sufficient material available on record to prove the vital parts of the prosecution case namely demand and acceptance, recovery of tainted amount, pendency of official favour besides prosecution is safe guarded with mandatory presumption, but accused failed to rebut the said presumption, therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

87.The Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Bureau also relied on some decisions reported in Mubarak Ali Vs. State

AIR 1958 M.P.157, Damoder Vs. State (AIR 1995, BOM 61)

wherein it was held mere demand itself will attract the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

59

88.With regard to official favour Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for

Anti-Corruption Bureau also relied on Indur Dayal Das Advani Vs.

State of Bombay on 6th April, 1951, it is held that

Sec.7 does not require that the public servant must himself have power or himself be in a position to show favour or disfavour, for doing or showing which the bribe has paid to him.

Therefore, it is not necessary to constitute an offence u/s. 7 that the Act for doing which the bribe is given should actually be performed.

89.Regarding hostility of PW2, the Learned spl.Publc Prosecutor relied on Harish Chand Khurana Vs. State through CBI, New

Delhi, 30-5-2012, Delhi High Court, held that in case of an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case. The Court may feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent.Whenbesidessuch evidence,there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction.

90.Regarding false defence theory Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Bureau relied on Abdul Gaffar Vs. State of 60

Kerala reported in 2004 SCC (9) 333 – 2004 Crimes – SC 106

the Court held that

When the stand taken by the accused during trials not taken during post trap proceedings, i.e., first available opportunity it is deemed that the defence was not genuine.

91.Regarding bad antecedents of complainant the Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Bureau relied on Shivadas

Darshan Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra on 6 th May, 2008

the Court held that the testimony of PW1 cannot be rejected only because he involved in many cases.

92.Regarding minor discrepancies the Learned Spl.Public

Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Bureau relied on State of AP Vs.

Janardhan Rao 2004(8) SCC 88, the Court held that minor discrepancies and minor contradictions which does not affect the root of the prosecution case is not fatal.

Minor discrepancies and minor contradictions are do not affect the root of the prosecution case and the same will not become fatal.

93.Regarding Ex.P2 CD claimed to be secondary evidence, Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor relied on Damayanthi Vs. K.M.Shraf, (2004) 7 SCC 107, held that 61 when a party tenders certified copy in evidence without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence objection must be taken at the time of admissions and not later stage.

but certificate is required u/s. 65(B) is mandatory. Further, while admitting secondary evidence, party has to satisfactorily explain about the primary evidence, then only, secondary evidence will be admitted. At any rate, in view of larger bench Judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in P.V.Anwar's Case cited by Learned defence counsel, and the decision relied by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for

Anti-Corruption Bureau, need not be taken into consideration.

94.Lastly, to prove the charges u/s. 7 and 13 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti-

Corruption Bureau relied a decision In between Chaitanya Prakash

Audichya Vs. CBI in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 186 wherein it is held

Public accountability – Vigilance – P.C.Act, 1988 – Section 7,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 20 of

P.C.Act, 1988 – illegal gratification – demand and acceptance of – fully established – testimonies of complainant and punch witness – completely consistent – tainted currency notes – recovered from person of accused – phenolphthalein invocable u/s.20 of P.C.Act, 1988 – stood unrebutted – Conviction confirmed.

62

In this case also, prosecution proved all the essential ingredients of the offences 7 and 13 of P.C,.Act. Except, minor discrepancies and variations, testimonies of complainant and panch witnesses are consistent, recovery was also proved by prosecution, further phenolphthalein tests proved positive, but accused failed to rebut the said presumption, hence he is liable for conviction in this case.

63

CONCLUSION:

95. From the forgoing discussion, on point No.i to iv and taking into consideration evidence of Pws 1 to 8 coupled with Ex.P1 to P17 and Mos 1 to 10, I hold that, prosecution in this case has proved the demand and acceptance of gratification of Rs.20,000/- by the accused from complainant-

PW1 by examining complainant-PW1, who fully supported prosecution case, recovery was proved by examining Mediator-PW3 who also fully supported prosecution case and his evidence was further corroborated by Anti-

Corruption Bureau officials PW7 and PW8. Prosecution also proved pendency of official favour with accused by examining Sub Inspector of

Police-PW4, Police Constable-PW5 and by seizing original of Case Diary in

Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of P.S.Choppadandi-Ex.P7, prosecution also proved

Ex.P11 sanction order by examining Section Officer-PW6, phenolphthalein test conducted to right hand fingers of accused and contacted portion of

Ex.P6 in the table drawer from where tainted amount was seized, also yielded positive result, therefore, mandatory presumption u/s. 20 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is drawn against the accused in this case but, accused failed to rebut the said presumption by letting probable defence, the evidence of DW1 is only artificial and not conclusive thereby, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that, amount of Rs.20,000/- recovered from the possession of accused which was obtained by accused from Complainant-PW1, as a gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward from not initiating action against other accused and from not seizing JCB Machine in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of Choppadandi Police

Station, by illegal and corrupt means by abusing his official position, therefore, the accused is found guilty for both the offences punishable u/s.

64 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hence, the accused in this case is liable for conviction accordingly.

96.Accused was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim). Accused stated that, he is aged 56 years and now working as Inspector of Police, DCRB,

Khammam. He got wife and two children and they are prosecuting studies and got aged mother and she was bed ridden due to ill health. He further stated that he is suffering from Blood Pressure,

Diabetes and Spondylitis. He has to look after the welfare of his entire family, thereby he requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against Accused are socio-economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, are also can not extended in these type of cases. When once, offences under

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused, after full pledged trial are proved, accused shall be dealt deterrently. The general and common grounds put forth by Accused can't form basis to escape from compulsory imprisonment and fine hence, lenient view is not taken in this case.

65

97. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and convicted u/s. 248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two years and shall pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and

Accused is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence u/s.

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against accused shall run concurrently.

Remand period undergone by Accused, shall be set off u/s.

428 Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by Accused is Rs.5,000/- +

Rs.5,000/- = Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only).

MO1 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be returned to Complainant-PW1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government

Treasury and rest of the material objects Mos2 to 7 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

66

The material on record reveals that PW2-Vollala Krishna hari intentionally and deliberately gave false evidence in this case contra to his earlier statement given to Anti Corruption Bureau officials and resiled from his earlier statement, hence I am of the opinion that, it is expedient in the interest of Justice to prosecute PW2-Vollala

Krishna Hari, for the offence of perjury that appears to have been committed by PW2 in the above proceedings hence, issue Show

Cause notice to PW2-Vollala Krishna Hari, to appear before this Court for preliminary enquiry as contemplated under section 340 Cr.P.C., to take further action by 22-03-2018.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 22nd day of

February, 2018.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1Dhannala Srinivas Reddy

PW2 Vollala Krishna Hari

PW3 Hasthapuram Kesava Munider Rao

PW4 T.Narayana, Sub Inspector of Police, Choppadandi Police Station, Karimnagar District.

PW5 Mohd.Mahaboob Ali, Police Constable no. 779, Choppadandi Police Station, Karimnagar District.

PW6B.Shiva Shankar, Section Officer, T.S.Secretariat, Hyderabad.

67

PW7T.Janardhan, Dy.Superintendent of Police,Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range.

PW8P.Sambaiah, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar.

FOR THE DEFENCE

DW1U.Venkanna, Inspector of Police, Spl.Branch, Khammam III Town.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P111-05-2009 Complaint given by PW1

Ex.P2---CD containing phone conversation between PW1 and accused

Ex.P3 26-02-2009161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P4 11-05-2009Photostat Copy of complaint

Ex.P512-05-2009Mediator Report-I

Ex.P605-05-2009 Writ petition filed by Dhanala Varija in I.A.No. 527 of 2009

Ex.P7 ---Case Diary file in Cr.No. 59 of 2009 of P.S.Choppadandi Police Station.

Ex.P812-05-2009Rough sketch of scene

Ex.P912-05-2009 Mediator Report-II

Ex.P1012-05-2009Search List

Ex.P1125-05-2011Sanction orders vide G.O.Ms.No.128

Ex.P1212-05-2009 First Information Report

Ex.P1314-08-2009Ownership and call details of BSNL Cell phone of relative of accused (10 sheets) 68

Ex.P14 10-08-2009Ownership and call details of vodaphone of complainant (21 sheets)

Ex.P1513-05-2009Requisition to DIG of Police, Karimnagar containing job chart, service particulars and APRs of accused (14 sheets)

Ex.P1612-07-2010Requisition to Inspector, Karimnagar II Town with regard to case particulars in Cr.No.376/2003 along with reply letter (2 sheets)

Ex.P1718-11-2009Requisition to Inspector, Choppadandi with regard to Weekly report of accused for the month of April and May, 2009 (5 sheets)

Ex.P15 to P17 are marked subject to objection.

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D115-12-2009 Photostat copy of memo issued by Addl.S.P. (Admn), Khammam.

Ex.D2---Information furnished by DW1 under Right to Information Act to accused (11) sheets

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1Tainted amount of Rs.20,000/-.

MO2Sealed cover containing the sample powder of phenolphthalein used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO3Sealed cover containing the sample powder of sodium carbonate used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO4Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used during post trap proceedings.

MO5 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of right hand wash of accused.

MO6Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of left hand wash of 69 accused.

MO7 One Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contacted portion of injunction petition.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES : AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : SRI P. BHASKARA RAO, Spl.Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

K A R I M N A G A R.

Dated this the 12 th day of January, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No. 41 of 2015

Between:

The State through Anti-Corruption Bureau, through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar.

… Complainant AND

Sri Velpuri Mohan Rao S/o Amrutha Rao, 57 Years,Occ:VillageRevenueOfficer, Machapur(V), Medipally(M), Karimnagar District R/o H.No.5-2-149, LIC Colony, Korutla (V) & (M), Karimnagar District. … Accused Officer

This case is coming for final hearing on 21-12-2017in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri V.Surender Rao & Sri T.V.V.Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till today, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar, filed charge sheet against the Accused, to prosecute him for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused was working as Village Revenue

Officer, Machapur Village, Medipally Mandal, Karimnagar District, and by virtue of post held by him he was a public servant within the meaning of Sec.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.The further case of the prosecution is that Bairineni Vijay

Kumar-complainant-PW2, purchased land to an extent of Ac.3.26 guntas in S.No. 53/A of Machapur village of Medipally Mandal of

Karimnagar District from A.Mangabai and A.Venkateshwar Rao for sale consideration of Rs.2,85,000/-, under a registered sale deed dt.6.10.2008 bearing doc.No.2108/2008. Later, complainant-PW2 submitted an application to accused by enclosing copy of registered sale deed and requested to issue pattedar pass book and title deed, for which, accused demanded him to pay Rs.6,000/- as bribe and also insisted complainant-PW2 to obtain one LIC Policy with premium of Rs.50,000/-. Later, complainant-PW2 met accused in the month of December and enquired him about the pattedar pass books and title deeds, on that, accused stated that due to shortage of proceeding forms and pass books, they were not made ready.

Later, complainant-PW2 contacted accused over phones on several times and enquired about his pattedar pass books and title deeds but, accused reiterated his earlier demand of bribe of Rs.6,000/- and stated that unless, bribe is paid, his work will not be done. Again, on 11-3-2009 evening complainant-PW2 went to the house of accused 3 situated at Korutla and requested him to issue pattedar pass book and title deed but the accused again raised demand and on request of complainant-PW2, accused reduced bribe to Rs.4,000/- and gave pattedar pass book to him stating that he will get the signature of

Revenue Divisional Officer in the title deed only on payment of demanded bribe of Rs.4,000/- only, as there was no other option left open, complainant-PW2 reluctantly agreed to pay demanded bribe within 2 or 3 days. However, unwilling to give the bribe, complainant-PW2 approached Anti Corruption Bureau Office,

Karimnagar and lodged ExP1-report on 12-03-2008 at 12.00 PM.

4.Pw5-Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau received complaint and after informing to his higher Authorities, conducted discrete enquiries with regard to the genuineness of complaint and reputation of accused. Later, PW5-Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Warangal range, who was full additional charge of

Karimnagar Range, after obtaining necessary permission from competent authority, registered the Ex.P1-complaint as a case in

Cr.No.8/ACB-KNR/2009 u/s.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 14.3.2009 at 7.00 AM and took up investigation. During course of investigation, Pw5-Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau secured mediators Mediator-PW1 and LW3-Poreddy Abhishek

Reddy, conducted pre trap proceedings under Ex.P3 in Anti

Corruption Bureau office, Karimnagar, in which, he got verified the contents of the complaint with complainant-PW2 by mediators, got 4 applied phenolphthalein powder to currency notes of Rs.4,000/- produced by complainant-PW2, and instructed him to pay bribe to accused only on his demand and not otherwise and further instructed complainant-PW2, to relay signal by wiping his face with kerchief in case, accused demands and accepts the bribe from him.

Later he demonstrated phenolphthalein test and explained significance of phenolphthalein test to complainant-PW2 and mediators and after completion of pre trap proceedings

Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW5 laid trap against accused at his house.

5.It is alleged that PW5-Dy.Superintendent of Police with mediators and staff proceeded to the house of accused situated at

Korutla, reached there at 10.40 AM and after reiterating earlier instructions, he allowed complainant-PW2 to go to the house of accused and accordingly complainant-PW2 entered into the house of accused at 10.45 AM and they took vantage positions around the house of accused but, complainant-PW2 returned immediately without giving any signal and informed to Dy.Superintendent of

Police that accused is not available in the house and further informed that, accused will come after one hour. Later, Dy.Superintendent of Police with trap party returned to the outskirts of village and waited there and again gathered near to the house of accused at 12.00 Noon and allowed complainant-PW2 to enter into the house of accused at 12.10 PM and accordingly, complainant-PW2 entered into 5 the house of accused and came out after 10 minutes and relayed pre arranged signal and on observing signal, PW5-Dy.Superintendent of

Police with his staff and mediators rushed into the house of accused, apprehended accused, conducted phenolphthalein test to his hand fingers, on doing so, both left and right hand washes turned into pink colour. Later, PW5-Dy.Superintendent of Police seized tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- from the top of the table of accused in the presence of mediators under Ex.P7 Post trap panchanama from top of the table. Later, Dy.Superintendent of Police, also seized connected records i.e., Ex.P4 title deed and Ex.P5 mutation register.

Therefore, Dy.Superintendent of Police arrested accused at 4.15

PM and produced him before the Court for remand on 15-3-2009 at 12.00 PM. Soon after trap PW5-Dy.Superintendent of Police handed over investigation to PW6-Inspector-Chand Pasha, who examined witnesses and after completion of entire investigation, he submitted draft final report to Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Hyderabad who obtained sanction orders under Ex.P8 to prosecute the accused and after receipt of sanction proceedings,

PW6, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988.

6.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 against the accused on 11-02-2011.

6

7.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

8.The Learned Predecessor of this Court, examined the accused u/s. 239 Cr.P.C., on 14-06-2012,the accused denied the offences, hence charges u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.In order to prove the guilt prosecution cited (8) witnesses but, examined only (6) witnesses. Mediator-PW1-V.Srinivas Reddy is said to be mediator, stated about the verification of contents of complaint with complainant-PW2 his participation in pre and post trap proceedings, apprehension of accused at his house during trap proceedings and seizure of tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- from the top of the table of accused and also stated about seizure of connected records Ex.P4 and P5 from the house of accused.

10.Complainant-PW2-B.Vijay Kumar, is said to be complainant, who stated about the purchase of land and approaching accused with application enclosing copy of the sale deed for pattedar pass book and title deed and further stated about the demand of accused to pay bribe of Rs.6,000/- to process his pattedar pass book and title 7 deed land on his request, accused reduced bribe to Rs.4,000/- and gave only pattedar pass book but did not give title deed and stated that, he will deliver title deed only on payment of demanded bribe but, unwilling to give bribe Mediator-PW1 approached Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar lodged complaint Ex.P1. He also stated about his participation in pre trap proceedings and proceeding with Dy.Superintendent of Police to the house of accused at Korutla and payment of Rs.4,000/- to accused as per relaying signal to trap party by coming out of the house of accused.

11.Pw3-Rathode Gurusingh, Section Officer, who stated about the issuance of ExP8-sanction proceedings to prosecute the accused by the then Prl.Secretary to Government Sri Asutosh Misra and identified signature of sanctioning Authority in Ex.P8.

12.PW4-Ch.Prabhakar Rao, Tahasildar, Medipally Mandal stated that on 15-12-2008 complainant-PW2 submitted application to

Tahsildar for issuance of pattedar pass book and title deed and his application was sent to B.Section for taking action and from B

Section said application was sent to Village Revenue Officer for enquiry. He further stated that on 6-2-2009 Tahasildar, issued pattedar pass books and title deeds to VRO to handover to accused but the accused, kept the pattedar pass books and title deeds with him on the pretext of getting signatures of Revenue Divisional Officer and demanded bribe from complainant-PW2. Later, he came to 8 know that Anti Corruption Bureau officials trapped accused and in the enquiry conducted by Anti Corruption Bureau officials, he has seen Ex.P4 title deed book.

13.PW5-T.Janardhan, Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar, who stated about receipt of complaint by his

Inspector PW6 and he instructed him to conduct discrete enquiries and after discrete enquiries he registered the complaint as FIR on 14-3-2009 at 7.00 AM, secured complainant-PW2 and mediators and conducted pre trap proceedings in his office, got applied phenolphthalein powder to the proposed bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- produced by complainant-PW2, gave necessary instructions to complainant-PW2 to pay the bribe only on demand not otherwise and give signal in case accused demands and accepts bribe, later, he laid trap against accused at his house in Korutla, proceeded with complainant-PW2, mediators and staff and allowed complainant-PW2 to go to the house of accused. Initially, complainant-PW2 returned back stating that accused is not available and again after one hour, he sent complainant-PW2 to the house of accused accordingly complainant-PW2 entered into the house of accused and came out after 10 minutes, relayed pre-arranged signal indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by accused, immediately he with trap party members rushed to the house of accused, caught accused, red handed seized tainted amount from the top of table in the presence of mediators under Ex.P7 Post trap proceedings and seized 9 connected record Ex.P4 and P5 and effected arrest of accused and produced him before the Court for remand, later handed over further investigation to Inspector-PW6.

14. PW6-B.Chand Basha, Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, stated about receipt of complaint from complainant-PW2 on 12-3- 2008 at 2.00 PM, informing contents of complaint to

Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW5, who instructed him to conduct discrete enquiries and accordingly, he conducted discrete enquiries informed the same to Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW5, who registered FIR, laid trap against accused and he accompanied and assisted Dy.Superintendent of Police in the trap proceedings and after trap of accused, Dy.Superintendent of Police, handed over the investigation to him. He completed the investigation, sent draft final report to Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad who obtained sanction proceedings under Ex.P8, later he filed charge sheet against accused.

15.On the side of the prosecution Exs.P1 to P9 and MO's.1 to 8 are marked.

16.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him were recorded separately.

10

17.Accused filed written statement denying the demand and acceptance of bribe from complainant-PW2 and stated that

Tahasildar is the concerned person to issue pattedar pass book and title deed and Village Revenue Officer is not concerned. In this case, after preparation of pattedar pass books they were delivered to complainant-PW2 but as Revenue Divisional Officer did not sign title deed book due to elections busy, title deed was not delivered to complainant-PW2 and complainant-PW2 also did not show any interest to process his title deed by going into office of Revenue

Divisional Officer and he was under wrong impression that, accused is responsible for delay in delivering the title deed book. It is further stated that on the trap day, he left the house at 10.30 AM to attend his domestic work and after completing his work soon after information received from his friend T.Rangaiah about arrival of one person for him, he returned to the house at that time complainant-

PW2 came to his house and enquired about the title deed and he stated that Revenue Divisional Officer did not sign the title deed due to election busy and at that juncture, complainant-PW2 took out wad of currency notes from his pocket and kept on his table and he pushed away the same with his hands and the currency notes went to the corner of the table and complainant-PW2 left his house without heeding his calling, meanwhile, Anti Corruption Bureau officials came, and apprehended him. Though, he spontaneously stated true facts but, they did not accept the same and implicated him in this case though, he did not commit any offence. It is lastly 11 stated that, no official favour is pending with him as on the trap date and this accused is not responsible for the delay for preparation of title deed by the concerned authorities but, however, complainant-

PW2 who is interested in the trap, implicated him in this false case, hence prayed the Court to acquit him from the charges.

18.Heard arguments of Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti

Corruption Bureau and Learned counsel for accused. Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau also filed written arguments.

19.Now, the points for determination are:

i) Whether the accused, had demanded Rs.4,000/- from complainant-PW2-Bairneni Vijay Kumar, as gratification to deliver title deed book?

ii)Whether accused accepted Rs.4,000/- from Mediator- PW1 on 14.3.2009 to deliver his title deed book by corrupt and illegal means?

Iii) whether, official favour is pending with accused as on the date of trap i.e., 14-3-2009?

iv) Whether the prosecution proved that, the accused who is public servant took gratification of Rs.4,000/- other than legal remuneration to deliver title deed book to Mediator-PW1, punishable u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt?

v) Whether the accused who was public servant committed criminal misconduct by obtaining Rs.4,000/- from Mediator-PW1 to deliver his title deed book by corrupt and illegal means by abusing his position which is punishable u/s. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt?

12

POINT NO. i & ii:

20.There is no dispute that at the time of alleged occurrence the accused was working as Village Revenue Officer at Machapur Village,

Medipally Mandal of Karimnagar District, hence he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

21.It is simple and specific case of the prosecution that, complainant Sri Bairneni Vijay Kumar (who was examined as PW2) alleged to have purchased land to an extent of Ac.3.26 guntas in

S.No. 53/A of Machapur Village, Medipally Mandal of Karimnagar

District, under a registered sale deed dt.6-10-2008, approached accused for mutation of the land in his name and to issue pattedar pass book and title deed, on that, accused demanded him to pay

Rs.6,000/- as bribe and also insisted him to obtain one LIC Policy from him with premium of Rs.50,000/- and when complainant-PW2 expressed his inability and on his request accused reduced bribe to

Rs.4,000/- and though he delivered pattedar pass book to him but did not deliver the title deed book and kept pending with him, but unwilling to give the bribe, complainant-PW2 approached Anti

Corruption Bureau Office, and lodged Ex.P1 complaint on 12.03.2009, and after due enquiries it was registered as FIR on 14-3-2009 and Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW5, laid trap against 13 accused and caught accused red handed, when he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.4,000/- at his house Korutla and seized title deed book from his house and PW6-Inspector, Karimnagar laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)

(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

22.Contention of accused is that as the Revenue Divisional Officer was busy in General elections,2009 he could not obtain signature of

Revenue Divisional Officer on title deed book and could not deliver the same to complainant-PW2 but complainant-PW2 under mistaken impression that he is responsible for delay, implicated him in this case though, he never demanded and accepted any bribe from him.

DEMAND:

23.In order to prove the demand on the part of the accused prosecution examined Complainant-PW2, who supported prosecution case stated that he purchased land to an extent of 3.26 guntas in

Sy.No.53/A in Machapur village, Medipally Mandal of Karimnagar

District for Rs.2,85,000/- under a registered sale deed dt.6.10.2008, later, he approached the accused who was working as

Village Revenue Officer, Machapur village for mutation of his name in

Revenue Records and submitted application by enclosing copy of registered sale deed dt.6.10.2008. He further stated that, accused asked him to pay Rs.6,000/- for effecting mutation and also asked him to take policy for Rs.50,000/- but he stated that he already got 14 policy and expressed his unwillingness to take policy. Complainant-

PW2 further categorically stated that accused demanded him to pay

Rs.6,000/- and on his request, he reduced the bribe to Rs.4,000/- but unwilling to give the bribe, he approached Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar on 12-3-2009 and gave Ex.P1 complaint.

Inspector verified his complaint and asked him to attend ACB office on 14.3.2009 at 7.30 PM along with proposed bribe amount.

24.Complainant-PW2 further stated that accordingly on 14.3.2009 at 7.30 AM he attended ACB office along with proposed bribe amount and met the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Inspector and staff and two mediators were present in the office.

Dy.Superintendent of Police introduced mediators to him and vice- versa, later Dy.Superintendent of Police handed over copy of complaint to mediators and mediators have gone through the same and enquired about the genuineness of the contents of the complaint and he confirmed the contents are true. complainant-PW2 further stated that, he handed over Rs.4,000/- i.e., 100x15, 1000x1, 500x3 = 4,000/- to mediators, who counted and noted the currency note number, Dy.Superintendent of Police handed over the same to one of the constables who applied some chemical powder after mediators noted the currency note numbers.

25.Complainant-PW2 further deposed that Dy.Superintendent of

Police explained phenolphthalein test and explained the significance 15 of the test and further instructed to give proposed bribe amount only on demand and instructed not to shake hands with accused before or after giving payment and further asked to give pre arranged signal by wiping his face with kerchief if accused accepts bribe, later he along with trap party members proceeded to Korutla along with trap party members and went to the house of accused on instructions by

Dy.Superintendent of Police and handed over the amount to accused who received the amount with his right hand and counted with his both hands and kept amount on the table, later, he came out and gave pre arranged signal by wiping his face with kerchief indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by accused. Later he was called by

Dy.Superintendent of Police and enquired him as to what was happened and he narrated the entire events. He also stated that he gave statement before Magistrate under 164 Cr.P.C statement.

26.As seen from the chief examination of the complainant, through he stated all the sequence of events right from the beginning to the end but did not give the specific dates of the demand, infact, he also did not mention the dates of demand in his complaint except saying one week after registration of the land he approached the accused. In the cross examination he stated that, copy of sale deed was given to him 15 days thereafter. However, the suggestion given to him in the cross examination that accused never demanded any amount from him to issue title deed book but, he kept the amount on his table and went away, was denied.

16

Complainant-PW2, also denied the suggestion put to him that accused could not deliver the title deed book, for the reasons beyond his control. It is also denied by complainant-PW2 that he gave false complaint against the accused thinking that accused is responsible for the delay. Learned counsel for accused elicited a discrepancy that, in Ex.P5 Mutation Register, date of registration of sale deed was mentioned as 6.8.2008 but document number is correctly mentioned

as 2108/2008.

27.Version of complainant-PW2 with regard to the prior demand by accused was further corroborated by other circumstances that, complainant-PW2 avouching the demand before the mediators when they verified and enquired the contents with him before the Trap

Laying Officer-PW5, who also stated about the verification of the complaint with PW2. Even complainant-PW2 also did not deny the prior demand. Complainant-PW2 explained at the beginning of the cross examination that, he went to Dubai, returned to India in the year 2004 due to ill-health and went to depression, therefore, in my view, discrepancy with regard to registered sale deed and other dates of demand etc., appears to have been occurred. However, complainant-PW2 not at all denied the demand by accused. The surrounding circumstances that lodging complaint by complainant-

PW2, his avouching contents of complaint before mediators, giving statement before Magistrate on oath stating demand, his giving version before Trap Laying Officer during trap proceedings stating 17 that demand by accused shows prior demand by the accused or otherwise, there is no necessity for PW2 to approach ACB and PW6-

Investigation Officer who conducted discrete enquiries also stated categorically that contents of complaint are genuine and reputation of accused is suspectable. During house search also, Investigation

Officer has seized some of the merit certificates awarded to the accused while doing LIC agency confirms the allegations in the complaint that, accused insisted complainant-PW2 to take a policy to do his work also indicates demand on the part of accused.

28.During pre trap proceedings also, Trap Laying Officer-PW5 explained to complainant-PW2 that only on demand by accused, he was asked to give phenolphthalein coated notes to the accused and further instructed complainant-PW2 to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief indicating demand and acceptance on the part of accused. Accordingly, complainant-PW2 while coming out of the house of accused relayed pre arranged signal indicating the demand and acceptance or otherwise, complainant-PW2 would not have relayed signal. So, all these circumstances and seizure of official favour document i.e., title deed from the house of accused infers prior demand on the part of the accused and also further demand.

If complainant-PW2 denies demand by accused or admits suggestions in cross examination, it can be said, that there was no demand. But, complainant-PW2 categorically denied all the suggestions given by Learned defence counsel that accused did not 18 demand any bribe and he falsely implicated him under the mistaken impression that accused was responsible for delay in delivering his title deed book.

29.Though there were some discrepancies elicited in the cross examination of complainant-Pw2 with regard to the date of sale deed under which he purchased the land, date of meeting accused and delay stated by accused due to elections busy are all not serious infirmities to discredit or reject entire evidence of Pw2 because he did not disturb or deviate from the main case viz., accused demanding bribe to issue title deed book, presenting complaint to

ACB against accused for making demand, his participation in pre trap proceedings and following the ACB officials with trap party members to the house of accused and entering into his house giving amount to accused and relaying pre arranged signal to the ACB officials indicating demand and acceptance of bribe, stating his version to the

ACB officials during post trap proceedings admitting demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused before trap laying officer-Pw5 and subsequent seizure of official favour document i.e., original of

ExP4 title deed book from the house of accused and his denial to the suggestions in the cross examination that, AO never demanded and accepted any bribe from him, can be believed and accepted.

30.Though, part of his evidence of PW2 contains some minor variations which will not affect the main core of prosecution case. At 19 the same time, the part of evidence of complainant-Pw2 which is reliable and found to be trustworthy coupled with other circumstantial evidence of official witnesses viz., Thahsildar-Pw4,

Trap laying officer-Pw5 and Investigating officer-Pw6 collaborating reliable part of evidence of Pw2 can be accepted in the absence of any strong motive for complainant to implicate the accused.

31.Admittedly, accused did not attribute any disputes or enmity with complainant-Pw2, therefore there is no necessity for Pw2 to give a false complaint against accused, therefore contents of the complaint and evidence of complainant-Pw2 may not be suspected in this case. Since, accused failed to elicit any animosity with trap laying officer-Pw5 legitimacy of trap also may not be suspected.

32.If really there is no demand by accused, what is the necessity for Pw2 to make a complaint against AO to ACB unnecessarily, why hand washes of AO yielded positive result if really he did not accept the bribe. Theory, advanced by accused that he pushed away the tainted amount kept under table therefore, result of the hand washes yielded positive result was disbelieved by this court, therefore, false explanation offers additional link in the chain of circumstances.

33.The PW2 did not fix the date and time for laying trap at the house of accused, it is Trap Laying Officer, who after conducting discrete enquiries laid trap against accused at his house hence 20 complainant-Pw2, proceeding with trap party members cannot be said that, at the instance of complainant, DSP who is senior most

ACB official laid trap blindly also may not be accepted. It is the trap laying officer who will fix the place of trap and it is not the choice of complainant in any trap case.

34.Except minor discrepancies or variations accused did not elicit any major or material contradictions and did not mark any contradictions while cross examining complainant-Pw2 to disbelieve entire evidence of Pw2 in toto. Since, Pw2 did not change material part of events mentioned above, there is no wrong in accepting his part of evidence which is believable and corroborating with the other evidence available on record.

35.These minor discrepancies or variations will not shake the prosecution story and they can be ignored since, complainant denied the defence theory and did not deviate from the main case.

36.Even assuming for a moment, evidence of complainant-Pw2 is defective and not sufficient, yet there is other evidence viz., mediator-Pw1, Thahsildar-Pw4, Trap Laying Officer-Pw5 and

Investigating Officer-Pw6 is available on record and conviction can be based solely on testimony of trap laying officer if it is trustworthy and reliable as per the decision reported in State of U.P Vs.Zakaullah 21 (1988) 1 SCC 557. From the foregoing discussion, I hold that prosecution proved the demand on the part of the accused.

ACCEPTANCE:

37.As per prosecution case when complainant-PW2 entered into the house of accused, on demand by accused, complainant-PW2 handed over amount to the accused by taking out from his shirt pocket, accused accepted the wad of currency notes with his right hand and counted with his both hands and kept it on the table in front of him. Later, he assured complainant-PW2 that he will obtain signature of Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, within two days in his title deed book and deliver the same. The accused during post trap proceedings admitted that, he accepted the amount but, without demand and kept it on the table but, during the course of trial, he denied the said version and advanced a theory that PW2 kept the tainted amount on the office table and the he pushed away the amount with his hands as such, the amount went up to the corner of the office table and inspite of his calling complainant-PW2 to take away the amount but, complainant-PW2 left his house, but this theory suggested to complainant-PW2 in cross examination was categorically denied. It was also suggested to complainant-PW2 that accused never demanded any bribe from him and also never insisted to take LIC policy of Rs.50,000/- and never accepted any amount and never counted amount with his hands on the trap day, but it was also categorically denied by complainant-PW2. Since, complainant- 22

PW2 denied the defence theory, it is for him to prove the said theory or atleast probabalize his theory by adducing cogent or probable evidence but in this case, accused did not examine any witnesses to prove his theory. Though he stated at the trial, when complainant-

PW2 came to his house at the first instance and also at the time of trap, one person by name Thadoori Rajaiah was present in his house and though he filed list of defence witnesses by mentioning the name of Thadoori Rajaiah, but for the reasons best known to the accused, he did not examine the said Rajaiah to prove his theory, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on the side of accused, his theory as advanced by him is not proved.

38.Further, if the accused really not interested or not inclined to accept the bribe or gratification and when complainant-PW2 kept the amount on the table without demand, normal conduct of a person is to push away the same from the table or ask complainant-

PW2 to take away the amount or should keep the amount as it is without touching the same and inform the concerned authorities to take appropriate action against the bribe giver but, accused did not do any one of such acts. If really, he would have pushed away the amount kept on the table, the amount should have been fallen on the floor and the amount would have been scattered on the ground but, the amount was lying on the table itself on the corner shows that, theory advanced by the accused that he pushed away the petty amount of Rs.4,000/- with his both hands is not correct. As per 23

Ex.P7 Post trap panchanama, at the time of trap, accused was with lungi and banian, so he did not keep the amount in his shirt pocket or pant pocket, that is the reason, he kept the amount on table which shows that the case of the prosecution only apepars to be true.

39.Further, the other circumstances i.e., seizure of official favour document i.e., title deed, and keeping the title deed book with accused through mutation proceedings were issued by the then

Tahasildar long back on 16-2-2009 shows that only on demand by accused, complainant-PW2 gave the amount to accused to get his title deed and accused voluntarily and consciously accepted the tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- from complainant-PW2 can be inferred, hence, I hold that prosecution proved the acceptance on the part of the accused.

RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT:

40.Prosecution proved recovery by examining mediator-PW1 who clearly stated in his evidence that after relaying signal by complainant-PW2 he along with Dy.Superintendent of Police and other trap party members rushed into the house of accused and

Dy.Superintendent of Police after conducting phenolphthalein test to the hand fingers of accused, questioned accused about the trap amount and accused handed over the tainted amount which was kept on the table to him and as per the directions of 24

Dy.Superintendent of Police and they have verified the currency note numbers and denominations of notes, with the numbers of currency notes already mentioned in Ex.P3 pre trap proceedings. On verification, both denomination and currency note numbers of

Rs.4,000/- are tallied. The version of mediator-PW1 was also corroborated by Trap Laying Officer-PW5 and Inspector-PW6 who accompanied Dy.Superintendent of Police in the trap proceedings.

41.In the cross examination, it was elicited from complainant-PW2 by defence counsel that, trap amount was lying on the table towards left side corner of the table. The said fact was also mentioned in

Ex.P7 post trap proceedings itself. It was suggested to complainant-

PW2 that while Dy.Superintendent of Police entered into house complainant-PW2 informed Dy.Superintendent of Police that amount was lying on the table but this suggestion was denied. Learned defence counsel also argued that, when the amount is lying on the table itself and it is visible there is no need to question accused about the tainted amount. But, the Dy.Superintendent of Police may not know whether the said amount is trap amount or personal amount of accused, so this discrepancy pointed out by the defence counsel is not absurd in these type of trap cases. On this point, the

Learned defence counsel cross examined PW5 and PW5 rightly stated that he got verified the numbers of currency notes on production by accused but he did not make an attempt to pick up the amount lying on the table and verify the numbers immediately. The 25

Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW5 also denied the suggestion that complainant-PW2 kept the amount on the table without demand and accused pushed away the same with his hands and the amount went to the corner of the table from where he seized the amount but, this theory was denied by Trap Laying Officer also.

42.Further suggestion to Trap Laying Officer that to circumvent the spontaneous explanation by accused, he got prepared Ex.P7

Mediator Report-II with all false recitals against the actual events, but it was denied. It was also suggested to PW5 that at the instance of complainant-PW2, he laid the false trap in a hasty manner and implicated the accused was also denied. Complainant-

PW2 clearly stated that after accepting the amount the accused kept the tainted amount on his table and Trap Laying Officer also recovered the amount from the top of the table and contacted portion of tainted amount to the table cloth which was subjected to the phenolphthalein test was also yielded positive result. The

Investigation Officer rightly seized the table cloth-MO8 in the presence of mediators, so all these aspects prove the recovery of tainted amount from the possession of accused beyond doubt.

POINT NO.iii:

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

43.The Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau, argued that after receipt of application from a party the Revenue 26

Authorities has to complete the process and deliver the pattedar pass book and title deed within 45 days and in this case PW4-

Tahasildar issued proceedings for mutation on 6-2-2009 and handed over pattedar pass book and title deed to the accused but accused kept those pattedar pass book and title deeds with him and delivered only pattedar pass books to complainant-PW2 but did not deliver the title deed book till date of trap i.e., on 14-3-2009 and demanded complainant-PW2 to pay bribe of Rs.4,000/- to prepare title deed book and unwilling to give bribe complainant-PW2 approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint and on his complaint only, accused was caught red handed when he demanded and accepted Rs.4,000/- to deliver title deed book which was seized from his house and photo copy of title deed book was marked as Ex.P4.

44.On the other hand, Learned defence counsel argued that due to busy in General elections, 2009, Revenue Divisional Officer did not sign the title deed book, therefore, it could not be delivered to complainant-PW2 and the said fact was also informed to complainant-PW2 and he also advised him to go to Revenue

Divisional Office to get his work done but complainant-PW2 did not evince any interest and by blaming the accused only, he gave false complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau and implicated him in this case.

27

45.As per Ex.P5 Mutation register, shows that Tahasildar issued mutation proceedings on 6-2-2009 and handed over pattedar pass book and title deed of complainant-PW2 to the accused by signing them. Though, more than 37 days have been elapsed even after issuing mutation proceedings and handing over the pattedar pass book and title deed to the accused, the accused did not prepare title deed though delivered pattedar pass book and simply disowning his duty on the ground that due to busy in General elections, 2009 he could not obtain signature of Revenue Divisional Officer and could not deliver the same to complainant-PW2 appears to be not correct, because, Notification for General Assembly elections for the year 2009, for the Phase-I was issued on 23-3-2009 i.e., subsequent to the date of trap and notification for the Phase-II was issued on 28- 3-2009, this is also subsequent to the date of trap and polling date for Phase-I notification was held on 16-4-2009 and for Phase-II notification polling was held on 23-4-2009, so both notifications and elections were held after trap only, therefore the contention of accused that, due to elections busy he could not attend the work of complainant-PW2 is not correct. complainant-PW2 also denied the suggestion given by the defence counsel that due to the reasons beyond control of accused, he could not attend his work.

46.Prosecution examined Tahsildar as PW4, he specifically stated his predecessor issued pattedar pass books and title deeds to Village

Revenue Officer-accused to handover the same to complainant-PW2 28 but, accused kept the pattedar pass books and title deeds with him on the pretext of getting signatures of Revenue Divisional Officer and demanded bribe from complainant-PW2 and he has also seen copy of title deeds book i.e., original of Ex.P4 at the time of enquiry by ACB officials during trap proceedings. Though he may not have personal knowledge, but as per records, he stated that the books were already handed over to accused to deliver the same to complainant-

PW2. Ex.P5 Mutation Register corroborates the evidence of PW4.

Accused also did not dispute the receipt of the pattedar pass book and title deed books or seizure of title deed book from his house but, his contention that due to elections busy he could not get the signature of Revenue Divisional Officer and could not deliver the same to complainant-PW2 is found to be not correct in view of elections notifications and elections came after the trap only.

Seizure of title deed book i.e., original of Ex.P4 shows pendency of official favour with accused only. Normally, within one week or 10 days or maximum within 15 days, Village Revenue Officer he has to prepare pattedar and title deed books i.e., by obtaining signature of

Revenue Divisional Officer and deliver the same to the party but, in this case though 37 days have been elapsed after issuance of

Mutation proceeding,by Tahasildar accused did not carry the work and by keeping the work pending with him, he obtained Rs.4,000/- gratification from complainant-PW2 by corrupt and illegal means by abusing his official position as a public servant, therefore, I hold 29 that official favour is found to be pending with accused as on the date of trap.

POINT NO.iv & v:

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

47. Mediator-PW1 clearly stated immediately after receiving pre arranged signal from complainant-PW2 he along with other mediator and ACB officials rushed into the house of accused and

Dy.Superintendent of Police conducted phenolphthalein test to both hands of accused by dipping his both hands separately in Sodium carbonate solution. On doing so, both right and left hand washes of accused turned into pink colour. Mediator-PW1 also stated that after seizure of tainted amount from the trop of the table kept on a table cloth Dy.Superintendent of Police subjected the table cloth, also to phenolphthalein test and it was also yielded positive result. MOs5 to 7 are the resultant solutions.

48.Learned defence counsel elicited a discrepancy that colour of solutions Mos 5 and 6 i.e., left hand wash and right hand wash are not in pink colour now, it may be due to passage of time because, trap took place on 14-3-2009 whereas Mediator-Mediator-PW1 was examined in the Court on 1-3-2017 i.e., after 8 years. So, we can 30 not expect the same colour even after 8 years. Normally, by passage of time, the colour will be faded but the accused did not dispute the results of the tests during post trap proceedings or

before commencement of trial by sending these solutions to the FSL

stating that there was no phenolphthalein particles in it, so, this discrepancy may not be material, when accused did not dispute these results during post trap proceedings and did not challenge the same subsequently and even he authenticated the contents of Ex.P7

Post Trap Proceedings by signing it. Positive results of phenolphthalein test is one of the corroborating piece of evidence to prove the prosecution case that accused accepted the tainted amount and handled the same, therefore the change of colour at this stage, may not become fatal to the case of the prosecution.

PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 (1) OF PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND U/S.114(a) OF INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT:

49.In this case prosecution has proved that, the accused has accepted and obtained gratification of Rs.4,000/- from complainant-

PW2-complainant by examining complainant-PW2, who supported the prosecution case stated about the demand and acceptance by accused, mediator-Mediator-PW1 stated that the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of accused. PW4-Tahasildar stated that the accused kept title deed with him and on the pretext of obtaining signatures of Revenue Divisional Officer he demanded and 31 accepted gratification and seizure of title deed book from his house also proves the fact that in connection with official work only the accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.4,00/- from complainant-PW2 as a motive or reward. The version given by complainant-PW2, Mediator-PW1 was further corroborated by PW5-

Trap Laying Officer and PW6-Investigation Officer, therefore, it is incumbent upon the court shall draw the presumption against the accused that he demanded gratification other than legal remuneration. Defence theory that complainant-PW2 to implicate him in this case he planted the amount was not probabalized by accused, hence, both legal presumption u/s.20 of Prevention of

Corruption Act as well as factual presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 that possession of tainted amount with him may creates presumption of acceptance, hence the same is drawn against accused in this case.

DEFENCE THEORY:

50.The defence theory advanced by accused that, complainant-

PW2 was under wrong impression that he is responsible for the delay in preparing his title deed, hence implicated him in this case appears to be not correct, because, the trap incident took place even before issuing Election notification for General Elections, so, the contention of accused that due to election busy Revenue Divisional Officer did not sign the title deed book so, he could not deliver the same to complainant-PW2 and it is beyond his control and same was 32 suggested to complainant-PW2 in cross examination but, it was denied. Record further reveals that, complainant-PW2 submitted an application for mutation on 15-12-2008 and Tahasildar issued mutation proceedings on 6-2-2009 and though more than 37 days have been elapsed by the date of trap accused did not prepare title deed book. Material on record reveals that after receiving title deed book from Tahasildar and to extract illegal gratification he kept the work of complainant-PW2 pending on the pretext of Revenue

Divisional Officer is busy in General Elections and demanded gratification and complainant-PW2 vexed with attitude of accused, approached ACB and lodged a complaint and in the trap, accused was caught red handed.

51.To prove the defence theory accused did not examine any witnesses, did not mark any documents on his side. He cited one witness T.Rangaiah said to have present in the house on the trap day and mentioned his name in the written statement and also in the list of witnesses but, failed to examine him to probablize his defence, therefore, his theory is not proved and consequently accused failed to rebut the presumption created against him. Though some of the witnesses stated presence of one person in the house of accused but, they did not admit the defence theory. In a residential house, there will be several persons, family members of accused, private persons and friends will naturally available but it is for the accused to prove his defence theory by examining any one of them but, accused 33 in this case, did not do so, consequently, failed to prove his theory as required by law.

SANCTION ORDER:

52.The accused did not seriously dispute Ex.P8 sanction order issued by the then Prl. Secretary to Govt. Sri Asutosh Misra after considering entire material on record. Though, prosecution did not examine Sri Asutosh Misra, the then Prl. Secretary to the Govt, but proved the sanction order by examining the Section Officer-Pw3, who identified the signature of Sri Asutosh Misra, who issued and signed Ex.P8 sanction proceedings. The suggestions given to him that sanction proceedings were issued without application of mind is categorically denied by Pw3. Accused also did not place any material to support his contention that sanction is not valid and it was issued mechanically, therefore, I hold that prosecution also proved the sanction order-Ex.P8 as per law.

DEFECTS IN THE INVESTIGATION:

53.The Learned Counsel for accused pointed out several defects in investigation that non seizure of application submitted by complainant-PW2 for mutation, his registered sale deed enclosed to the application, non examination of Revenue Divisional Officer but in this case, accused did not dispute about submitting application by complainant-PW2, approaching him for pattedar pass book and title deed and his contention is that due to election busy, Revenue 34

Divisional Officer did not sign the title deed book and he could not deliver the title deed book to complainant-PW2, ofcourse, found to be false, therefore, in view of the stand taken by the accused, non filing application of complainant-PW2 along with his enclosures registered sale deed may not affect the case of the prosecution since, notification for General Elections came after the trap, hence

Investigation Officer did not examine Revenue Divisional Officer.

Further, there was considerable time gap in between date of issuance of mutation proceedings by Tahasildar on 6.2.2009 and date of trap on 14.3.2009. and in between there was nearly 37 days gap is there and the VRO can easily obtain signature of Revenue Divisional

Officer even if the Revenue Divisional Officer is busy with proposed elections either one week or 10 days or hardly within 15 days but, in this case even though 37 days have been elapsed from the date of issuing mutation proceedings, accused with an intention to obtain illegal gratification from complainant-PW2 he kept title deed book with him and demanded complainant-PW2 to meet his demand.

54.As far as discrete enquiries is concerned, PW5-Trap Laying

Officer was only Incharge for Karimnagar Range and his posting was at Warangal, Anti Corruption Bureau Office, therefore, he instructed

PW6-Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar to conduct discrete enquiries and accordingly PW6-Inspector Chand Basha conducted discrete enquiries and he stated that contents of the complaint are genuine and reputation of accused is suspectable and 35 he informed the same to Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW5 orally and if it is given in writing and it will be known to others and there is every possibility of the accused escaping from the trap, therefore, non making endorsement with regard to the discrete enquiries specifically on the back of the complaint by Chand Basha, Inspector, soon after discrete enquiries conducted by him, may not be a grave irregularity in the investigation. Though, the accused suggested that complainant-PW2-complainant was involved in a murder case and one more criminal case at Hyderabad but PW6-Inspector who conducted discrete enquiries did not admit the same and accused also did not file any copy of FIR or any record pertaining to the cases in which complainant-PW2 allegedly involved to believe his contention that no discrete enquiries were conducted by Inspector-

Chand Basha.

55.The other defect pointed out by the defence counsel that original of Ex.P4 title deed book did not contain signature of Revenue

Divisional Officer, therefore, counsel argued that accused could not do any official favour but, it is for the accused to get the signature of

Revenue Divisional Officer after the book was handed over to him by

Tahasildar. In the complaint also, it is specifically stated by complainant-PW2 that, after payment of bribe only, accused stated that he will obtain signature of Revenue Divisional Officer in it, therefore, the accused can not take advantage of his own wrong having kept the book with him without obtaining signature of 36

Revenue Divisional Officer in it with a view to obtain gratification from complainant-PW2 hence he can't contend that he could not do any official favour and it is beyond his control can not be accepted.

56.Lastly, it was contended by defence counsel that, in Ex.P5 mutation proceedings book, the date of registered sale deed was mentioned as 6.8.2008 instead of 6.10.2008 but, PW2 stated that date of sale deed is 6.10.2008, however and this discrepancy was not explained by the Investigation Officer properly. The material on record clearly shows that, complainant complainant-PW2 purchased the land Ac.3.26 guntas on 6.10.2008 only but not on 6.8.2008, though there was discrepancy with regard to date but there was no ambiguity regarding the document number 2103/08 and it appears from record that, accused himself wrongly mentioned the date of sale deed as 6-8-2008 instead of 6-10-2008 in Ex.P5 mutation proceedings register. Complainant-PW2, who was under depression also nodded his head in the cross examination that he purchased the land on 6-8-2008 instead of 6.10.2008. Man may change his version but circumstances will not change, therefore, the documents have to be preferred than the oral statements, therefore this discrepancy pointed out by the defence counsel which was occurred only by the act of the accused or his staff in his Revenue office can not be taken advantage by the accused since he is only responsible for the said discrepancy and Investigation Officer also overlooked this discrepancy without examining the records properly while filing 37 charge sheet. If he would have examined entire material meticulously and would have obtained clarification from the concerned Tahasildar regarding the discrepancy in Ex.P5 but he did not do so and did not act diligently and the final Investigation Officer

PW6 also filed charge sheet hurriedly without enclosing basic documents i.e., application of complainant-PW2 submitted for mutation enclosing his registered sale deed. Though, they appears to have been seized but not filed along with charge sheet as such the

Learned Prosecutor also could not mark those documents.

Ofcourse, in view of the stand taken by accused, non filing of those documents may not affect the core of the prosecution case and on these defects entire case of the prosecution can not be rejected as per the decision cited supra by the Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for

Anti Corruption Bureau, reported in 2006(1) ALD (Crl.) SC 212. He also relied on another decision reported in Sukhdev Yadav and

others Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8 supreme Court Cases 86.

“a) Criminal Trial – appreciation of evidence

Contradictions/ inconsistencies/exaggerations / embellishments – minor variations in prosecution evidence –

Probative value of such evidence and acceptability thereof –

Held, once the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same – If the evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in evidence – Despite minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to appellants under S.302 Appeal against conviction – conviction 38 under Sec.302 upheld despite minor variations in prosecution evidence – Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3 and 155 – Criminal

Procedure Code 1973., S.162.

b) Criminal Trial – Infirmities /Lapses / Omissions – lapses – non- production of seizure list – Lapses, when do not affect the prosecution case – held, non-production of seizure list is undoubtedly, a lapse on the part of the prosecution – however, if there exists credible evidence on record, such a lapse would not affect the prosecution case – lapses, if do not have the effect of causing any prejudice to the accused, cannot be used to impeach the testimony of eyewitnesses –

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.102(3) – Non -production of seizure list, held, would not affect the prosecution case.

CASE LAW:

57.Learned counsel for accused relied on the following decisions to support his contentions and sought for acquital.

1) In Meena Vs. State of Maharastra 2000 (1) ALD (Crl) 811 (SC) wherein it is held “Mere recovery of the currency note of Rs.20/- denomination, and that too lying on the pad on the table, by itself cannot be held to be proper of sufficient proof of acceptance of bribe, in the peculiar circumstances of thi case which lend also credence to the case of the appellant that it fell on the table in the process of the appellant pushing it away with her hands when attempted to be thrust into her hands by Mediator-PW1. The results of phenolphthalein test, viewed in the context that the appellant could have also come into contact with the currency note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself by considered 39 to be of any relevance to prove that the appellant relaly acepted the bribe amount. With such perfurnctory nature of materials and the prevaricating type of evidence of Mediator-PW1 and

PW3, who seem to have strong prejudice against the appellant, it would be not only unsafe but dangerous to rest conviction upon their testimony.

In the said case complainant-Pw1 had strong prejudice against accused hence it was held that it is not safe to rest conviction on his testimony, but in this case complainant is resident of Hyderabad whereas, the accused is resident of Korutla and there were no any financial transactions or dealings between them and complainant had no such strong prejudice or enmity against accused, hence the above decision is not applicable to the present case.

2) In Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his LR Vs.

state of Punjab 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 830 (SC) wherein it was held as under:

“ It would thus be patent from the materials on record that th evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification either of rs.3,000/- which had been paid or of Rs.2,000/- as made on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with the prerequisites to constitute the ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged. Not, only the date or time of first demand/payment is not forthcoming and the allegation to that effect is rather ombibus, vague and sweeping, even the person in whose presence Rs.3,000/- at the first instance is alleged to havbe been paid i.e., Santosh Singh

Lamberdar, has neither been produced in the investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation of the complainant 40 with regard to the demand and payment of rs.3,000/- as well as the demand of rs.2,000/- has remained uncorrobroated. Further to reiterate, his statement to this effect lacks in material facts and particulars and pers se cannot form the foundation of a decisive conslusion that such demand in fact had been made by the original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the staement of complainant and the Inspector Satpal, the dhadow wintess in isolation that the orignal accused had enquired as to whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under section 7 or 13 of the act.

In addition thereto, not only the prosecution version of demand and acceptance of ilelgal gratification in the police station seems to be unusual, contradictions of the witnesses, Mediator-PW1, complainant-PW2 and PW5 with retgard to Rs.2,000/- also renders it doubtful. It is also noticeably unusual that the currency notes when allegedly handed over by the complainant to the original accused, the same instead of being keenly kept with him, were placed casually in the card board box placed on his table. Though the orignal accused apart from imputing his false implication at the instance of Superintendent of Police, Cheena, said to be the relative of the complainant could not adduce any evidence to consolidate the same, the fact.

On an overall appreciation of evidence on record, in the context of the elucidation of law pertaining to proof of the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act as adverted to hereinabove, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecuiton has failed to prove teh cahrge levelled against the orignal accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The cahrge against him therfore fails. The trial court as well as the High

Court had failed to analyse the factual and legal aspects as 41 involved in their true perspectives and resultantly the determinations made are not sustainable. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.”

In the said case complainant was found to be distant relative of

Superintendent of Police, who was the superior officer of Pw5 who led the trap operation. Further, there were contradictions regarding the date and time of first demand/payment of bribe amount of

Rs.3,000/- at the first instance alleged to have been paid in the presence of one person by name Santhosh singh lamberdar, has neither examined nor produced at the trial, hence, it was held demand and payment of Rs.3,000/- as well as demand of Rs.2,000/- has remained uncorroborated, as such the accused was acquitted in the said case but, in this case there were no such facts like first payment and payment in the presence of witness and unusual demand like in police station and discrepancy regarding place of transaction to disbelieve the case of prosecution, hence the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

3) In Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of UP AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1538 wherein it was held as under:

No motive for demanding or accepting bribe proved, as no bill of compoainant contractor was pending with accused – Acquittal of accused by trial Court justified.”

In the said case currency notes were lying on the floor and witness 42 to the acceptance of bribe amount not supported prosecution case and no official favour was pending with accused, therefore, accused was acquitted in the said case, but in this case on hand, tainted amount was recovered from the top of the table of accused but, not on the floor, mediator supported prosecution case and official favour document i.e., title deed was also seized from the house of accused, hence the above decision is not applicable to the present case.

4) Diwesh Narayan Raizada Vs. The Staet of Bihar 2007

CRI.L.J 452 wherein it was held “Recovery of tainted money was made from papers kept on table and not from person of appellant – In circumstances, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts guilt of appellant – Appellant entitled to be acquitted.”

In the said case independent witnesses of trap team have contradicted regarding acceptance and taking of amount by accused and different timings of occurrence were given by them and it was proved the trap party officials caught hold the hands of accused, therefore, result of the chemical test came positive, but in this case on hand there were no such inconsistencies to disbelieve the case of prosecution, hence the above decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High

Court is not applicable to the present case.

5) Satish S/o Laxminarayan Nayak Vs. State of Maharastra 1999 CRI.L.J.4407 43 “Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused not proved – Forcible thrusting of currency notes in pocket of accused by complainant cannot be ruled out – Conviction of accused, set aside.”

In the said case accused was found not concerned with the official favour and alleged demands through telephones not proved, since no authorities from telephone department were examined, therefore, accused was acquitted but this case on hand official favour document i.e., title deed was seized from the house of accused and there was no instance of demand of bribe by accused in telephone, hence the above decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court is not applicable to the present case.

6) Kitab Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1999 CRI.L.J.3590 wherein it was held as under:

“Tainted currency notes not recovered from possession of accused – Presence of phenolphthalein powder on right hand of accused was explained by prosecution itself- Evidence of complainant showing that he was in habit of changing version – accused entitled to acquittal.”

6.In the said case prosecution itself explained above presence of phenolphthalein powder on the right hand of the accused further, complainant was found changing versions, hence his evidence was not believed and consequently accused was acquitted, but in this case on hand expect a discrepancy regarding date of registration of document no other infirmity was elicited in the evidence of 44 complainant, hence the above decision of Hon'ble Rajastan High

Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

7) In Banshi Lal Yadav Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1981 Supreme

Court 1235 wherein Supreme Court held as under:

“Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), S.4(1) –

Presumption under – Statement of accused recorded under Sec.

313, Criminal P.C. that currency notes were thrust in his pokcet – not by itself sufficient to raise presumption.”

In the said case basing on the admission by accused about receipt of amount, he was convicted without there being any proof of demand, hence, conviction was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the appellant court, but in this case on hand there was sufficient material to prove demand and acceptance and recovery of tainted amount from possession of accused, official favour is pending with accused and official favour document i.e., title deed was also seized from the house of accused, hence, the above decision in which accused took thrusting theory, is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.

58.Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau relied on the following decisions:

1) In between State of A.P. Vs. K.China Swamy reported in (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 355 wherein it was held.

Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of

Corruption – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss 7 45 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(ii) – Illegal gratification –

Respondent, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer demanded bribe for issuing registration certificate for PW-1' Kirana & General Stores – A trap was laid and he was caught red handed with bribe money – Conviction restored.

Trial Court convicted respondent under Ss 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act – high Court set aside conviction on basis that the phenolphthalein powder was also on the day book which the respondent had signed, and that normal practice is to receive money with right hand whereas the respondent had allegedly received the amount with his left hand.

Held, it was never the contention of accused that the daybook itself had traces of phenolphthalein powder –

It was so contended the Investigation Officer could immediately have subjected the daybook itself to appropriate test – The other contention that a person would not normally receive money by his left hand, again has no basis – Respondent – accused accepted

Rs.400 only out of Rs.500 offered by Mediator-PW1 as per demand and instructed that Rs.100/- be given to V, which would negate the theory of any accidental touching of tainted notes – This part of the case and aspects concerning demand and acceptance completely stood proved – Conclusions of the High

Court cannot be even be termed as possible view in the matter – Appeal Allowed.

2) in between D.Velayutham Vs. State Represented by

Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Chennai in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 105 wherein it is held

Criminal Trial – Witnesses – Trap witnesses – not to be treated on par with accomplice/particeps criminis/ - Trap 46 witnesses is on a higher pedestal – Corroboration is not mandatory in case of trap witness.

3) In between Chaitnaya Prakash Audichya Vs. CBI in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 186 wherein it is held

Public accountability – Vigilance – P.C.Act, 1988 – Section 7,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 20 of P.C.Act, 1988 – illegal gratification – demand and acceptance of – fully established – testimonies of complainant and punch witness – completely consistent – tainted currency notes – recovered from person of accused – phenolphthalein invocable u/s.20 of P.C.Act, 1988 – stood unrebutted – Conviction confirmed.

4) In between Indra Vijay Alok Vs. State of Madhyapradesh reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 540 wherein it is held “P.C.Act, 1988 – Section 7, 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 and Section 20 – demand and acceptance completely established – evidence of complainant, corroborated by statement of punch witnesses – presumption u/s.20 unrebutted –

Conviction confirmed.”

5) In Reparla Venkata Gopala Ratnam Vs State of A.P. reported in 2014 (1) ALD Crl 434 wherein it was held “The Hon’ble High court of AP held that the prosecution need not be proved by direct evidence.”

6) In Raghubit Singh Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 1974 SC 1516wherein it was held “The Hon’ble Supreme Court held seizure - of currency – trap is resipsa loquitut.” 47

7) In Hazari lal Vs Delhi administration reported in AIR 1980

SC 873 wherein it was held

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that raised presumption u/s 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act recovery notes from AO would raise presumption that the AO received the bribe amount. “

8) In B. Noha Vs State of Kerala and another reported in 2007 (1) SCC Crl 711 wherein it was held “The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while referring the judgment in State of AP vs Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000 (9) SCC 752), that when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. That burden was not discharged by accused.”

9) In State Vs. Jhan chand reported in 1984 Crl.J.NOC (104)

Delhi wherein it was held

Regarding the question as to the capacity of accused to do favour or disfavour at the time of demand of bribe, the fact that he was not in a position to show any favour is of no consequence.

10) In Phula Singh V. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in

AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1256 wherein it was held (A) P.C. Act, Ss 7, 13 (2) – Illegal Gratification – Proof –

Complainant lodged FIR alleging demand of bribe by appellant for cancelling demarcation repot – No explanation furnished by appellant in respect of recovery of Rs.1,000/- form pocket of his pant – Nor he could furnish any information as to how his fingers turned pink on being washed , with sodium carbonate solution – Appellant also failed t o furnish explanation in his statement under S.313 Cr.P.C. regarding any incriminating 48 material that has been produced against him – Order of High

Court reversing Judgment of acquittal is not perverse - No interference.

Cr.P.C. (2 o f 1974), S. 313 (Paras 6, 8, 9, 11) (B) Cr.P.C. (2 of 1974), S. 313 – Examination of accused – Accused has right to maintain silence during examination or even remain in complete denial when his statement u/s 313 is being recorded – But in such an event adverse inference against him could be drawn .

11) In M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2001 (1)

ALD (Crl.) 407 (SC) wherein it was held

I) P.C. Act 1988 – Section 20 (1) – Presumption under when the gratification is found accepted by the Accused, a legal presumption can be drawn that such gratification was accepted as a renewal for doing public duty - It is a compulsory presumption – Presumption U/s. 114 of evidence Act – Can also be drawn.

II) Evidence Act, 1872 –Sections 4 and 114 – P.C. Act 1988,

Section 20 (1) – “Factual presumption” and legal presumption” – Explained.

III) Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – work “proved”- explained.

12) In B.Prameshwara Rao Vs. State reported in 1999 Crl.L.J.

2059 wherein it was held “ (A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S. 13(1)(d)

(i)I(ii) – Criminal misconduct by public servant – Proof – Trap case – Accused a Railway employee demanding bribe to help complainant in getting appointment in Railway restaurant –

Recovery of money from accused - Phenolphthalein test proved – Fact that money changed from hand of complainant to accused not disputed – Reason given therefore by accused not acceptable – Certificate of complainant recovered from drawer 49 of accused – No reason for false implication – Requirement of

S.13(1)(d)(i)(ii) – Satisfied – Conviction proper. (Para 5,6)

13) In Md.Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1979

S.C. 677 : 1979 Crl.L.J.633 wherein it was held that “it is incumbet on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the office and grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived by it.”

14) In Madhukar Bhaskar Rao V/s. State of Maharastra reported in 2001 (1) ALD (Crl) 77 (SC) wherein it was held “P.C. Act, 1988 – Section 20 and 7 – Word ‘gratification ‘ mans any payment for giving satisfaction to a public servant who received it –Public servant found in possession of currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein – presumption can be drawn that he accepted the gratification.”

15) In State of Maharastra Vs. Narsingara Rao Gangaram

Pimple reported in AIR 1984 S.C.-63 wherein it was held “B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 133 – Trap witnesses Evidence of Appreciation of – Touchstone to be applied – Decision of

Bombay High Court. D/22-23/1/1976 Reversed (PC 1860

S.161 and 162)

Where in a trap case, the judge magnified every minor detail or omission to falsify or throw even shadow of doubt on the 50 prosecution evidence then, it would be the very antithesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witnesses in a trap case. In deed, if such harsh touch stone is prescribed to prove such a case it will be difficult for the prosecution to establish any case at all. Decision of Bombay High Court D-22/23-1- 1976, reversed. (Para 36) 16 ) In State of A.P. Vs. R.Jeevaratnam reported in 2004 (6)

S.C.C.488 wherein it was held “(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss, 20(1), 7 and 13(1)(d) and (2) – Presumption under S.20(1) – Applicability –

Prosecution under S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) – Evidence of

Prosecution witnesses including that of an independent witness showing that for clearing the tender file of the complainant, the accused officer of the Port Trust had demanded and received money in the specified hotel room and was caught by CBI red handed with marked money (Rs.10,000 in this case) in a briefcase in his possession – Prosecution evidence not shaken in cross-examination – On evidence, accused's statement that money must have been placed in his briefcase when he had gone to the bathroom found to be unbelievable – No explanation by the accused for going into the hotel room – In such circumstances, held, the presumption under S.20(1) did arise – Contention S.13(1)(d) demand has also to be proved, rejected as in the present case the accused was also charged of an offence under S.7 and even otherwise the demand had been established by evidence .

17 ) In Sham Swarup Bhatnagar Vs. The state reported in 1983 (1) Crimes - 77 “Even One truthful witness is sufficient to convict a person under Prevention of Corruption Act if tainted money is recovered.” 51

18) In State of Kerala Vs. M.M.Mathew and another reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 1571 “A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 2 – Evidence – Appreciation of - Interested witness – Evidence of I.O.

The courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognized test of basic human probabilities. The evidence of the I.O. can not be branded as highly interested on ground that they want that the accused are convicted. Such a presumption runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic wroth and can not discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case.” (Para 3)

19) In Dr. Subrahmanian Swamy Vs Dr. Manmohan singh reported in 2012 CrlJ 1519 wherein it was held “The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption beings, all rights end.” “Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambles vision. Therefore, the duty of

the court is that any anti corruption law has to interpreted

and worked out in such a fashion as two constructions are

eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that

seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to

perpetuate it.” 52

20) InMlukut Bihari & another Vs State of Rajasthan reported in Crl. Appeal No.870 of 2012 SC

It is not necessary that evidence of reliable witness is necessary to corroborate by another witness – Presumption u/s 20 of P.C.

Act.

21) In M.S.Varaprasad Vs. Inspector of Police, ACB,

Hyderabad 2014(1) ALD (Crl) 429 AP wherein it was held “No spontaneous explanation given by accused before trap party members to that effect – Theory put forth by accused, an afterthought – Defence plea rightly rejected by trail court

Conviction upheld – Criminal appeal dismissed.

22) In Billa Nagal Sharief Vs State of A.P. reported in 2011 (1) ALT Crl. 144 SC

Plea of thrusting the money is to appellants pocket not fit to be belived in the face of categorical and consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses. N merit in appeal – Dismissed accordingly.

23) In Syed Abdul Moiz Vs State of A.P. reported in 2013 (1) ALD (Crl) 158 wherein it was held

P.C. Act, 1988 Sec 7 & 13 (2) r/w 3 (1) (d) – Conviction –

Rejection of defence theory and failure of accused to discharge his burden – Appellant working as Asst. Environmental

Engineer issued show cause notice against the company stating that it was casing smell nuisance in the vicinity – Defence theory put forward by appellant rightly rejected by Trial Court –

Conviction.

53

24) In N.K. Seetharama Sarma Vs State reported in 2013 (1) ALD (Crl) 431 (AP) wherein it was held

In the post trap proceedings appellant merely stated that he did not demand any bribe from complainant and allegations against him are false – Defence theory that money was thrust into fold of his lungi by complainant rightly rejected by trial court as being highly unconvincing – Appeal dismissed.

25) In K. John Devasahayam Vs State of AP reported in 2014 (1) ALT (Crl) 280 wherein it was held

Case of the prosecution is that chemical test conducted on the fingers yielded positive results. Bribe amount was recovered.

Numbers of the currency notes in the pre trap proceedings tallied with the notes recorded.

The very theory put-forth by the appellant that Mediator-

PW1 thrusted the amount into his pocket and ran away is quite unconvincing and unacceptable.

26) In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V.Vasudeva Rao reported in AIR 2004 (SC)-0-960, 2004-SCC-9-3-19 wherein it was held “ (i) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Section 5 (2) r/w 5(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 161 – Evidence

Act, 1872 – Section 4 – Accepting illegal gratification – No explanation offered for presence of phenolphthalein powder –

However, High Court acquitted accused holding that prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance of money by the accused – Whether approach of the High Court is justified – (NO) – when receipt of money was admitted it was for accused to prove as to how the presumption u/s. 4 of the Act is not available – Accused convicted of offence u/s. 161 IPC and

Section 5(2) r/w (1)(d) of the Act of 1947.

54

27) P.Satyanarayana @ Satteiah Vs State

Appreciation of evidence – Eye witnesses supported prosecution case in chief examination – Case adjourned to subsequent date for cross examination as defence counsel not ready –

Meanwhile manipulation made and witnesses turned hostile witnesses recorded in one sitting and consistent with medical evidence and othr evidence has to be accepted – Second version be rejected – Courts in such case shall take steps to initiate proceedings per perjury against the persons concerned as reported in 1994(2) ALT (Crl) 95 Division Bench.

28) In Shiv Nandan Dixit Vs. State of U.P. reported in

2003(8) SC 901 = 2004 CCR (1) 86 SC = 2004(1) Crimes 219

A.2 receiving money on behalf of AO1 – Presumption can be raised

a) Sec.161 and 120-B – Explained.

b) Sec.5(1)(d) & 4 of P.C.Act 1947 words obtains for himself – cannote not only receiving bribe personally but receipt of any bribe either directly or indirectly – though demand of bribe made by A1 and the same was not received by him but by A2 –

Contention that presumption of guilt u/s was not available for offence u/s 5(1)(d) liable to be rejected.

c) Order passed by ITO was an official order – any act to comply with the said order will also be an official act – When

A1 was directed return said document, A1 was doing an official act – demand of bribe by A1 in that process is an offence u/s.161.

d) Involvement of A2 who was found receiving money alleged to have been demanded by A1 – demand made in the presence of

A1 class 4 employee in the same office – document promise to be returned outside the office at 5:30 pm on the same day – A2 refusing to reduce the amount by saying that A1 would be 55 suspicious on him – A2 was a party to the conspiracy – A2 obtained money on behalf of A1 – Conviction upheld.

29) Abdul Kaffar Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2004 SCC (9) 333 – 2004 Crimes – SC 106.

When the stand taken by the AO during trials not taken during post trap proceedings, first available opportunity the defence was not genuine.

30) In The State Vs A. Parthiban reported in 2008 Crl. L. J.

4772 SC wherein it was held “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 13 (1) (d).”

31) In Shiv Raj Singh Vs. Delhi Administration reported in

AIR 1968 SC 1419 wherein it was held “No official favour or intention to do any official favour - Case made out under 7 & 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act. “

32) In Girija Prasad Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 SCC (Crl) (3) – 475 wherein it was held

A) P.C.Act, 1947 – S.4 and S.5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) presumption under section S.4 regarding acceptance of illegal gratification –

Invocation of – Prerequisites for - Rebuttal of said presumption – Held, once it is proved that the amount has been received by the accused presumption under S.4 would get attracted – In such a case, it would be wholly immaterial whether the said acceptance of amount was for him or for someone else – It would also be immaterial whether the accused was or was not 56 in a position to oblige the complainant – However, the said presumption is not absolute – Accused can rebut the said presumption by leading evidence – In the present case, there was evidence as to acceptance of amount by the accused.

Hence, presumption under S.4 of the PC Act, 1947 got attached – accused failed to rebut the said presumption as he did not adduce any evidence whatsoever in that regard. Therefore,

High Court as justified in reversing his acquittal and convicting him under the PC Act 1947 and S.161 IPC – Penal Code 1860,

S. 161 (since repealed) – prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 –

S.20 and S.13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2).

E) Criminal Trial – Witness – Police witness – Recording of conviction solely on basis of testimony of police officials –

Permissibility of held, can be recorded if on careful scrutiny of their evidence the same is found to be reliable and trustworthy – Not necessary to be corroborated by independent evidence –

Evidence Act 1872 S. 3 114 III (e) and 4.

33) B. Noha Vs State of Kerala and another reported in 2007 (1) SCC (Crl.) – 711 wherein it was held

a) There is no basis for Mediator-PW1 to falsely implicate the accused – Evidence on record clearly show why the illegal gratification was demanded and accepted by the appellant –

Evidence of Mediator-PW1 does not suffer from any infirmity and evidence of complainant-PW2 is also clear credible and cogent.

b) When it is proved that there was voluntarily and conscious acceptance of money by the accused there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive.

c) When the amount is found to have been passed to the Public

Servant the burden is on the Public Servant to establish that it was not byway of illegal gratification – No case of accused that 57 he was legally entitled to collect the amount from Mediator-

PW1–the burden held was not discharged by accused.

34) Between Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujrat

Supreme Court of India Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel vs The State Of

Gujarat on 16 April, 1976 Equivalent citations: AIR 1976 SC 1497, 1976 CriLJ 1180, (1976) 0 GLR 804, (1976) 3 SCC 46, 1976 3 SCR 1052 wherein it was held “ Indeed, when a public servant, being a police officer, is charged under Section 161, Penal Code and it is alleged that the illegal gratification was taken by him for doing or procuring an official act, the question whether there was any offence against the giver of the gratification which the accused could have investigated or not, is not material of that purpose. If he had used his official position to extract illegal gratification, the requirement of the law is satisfied. It is not necessary in such a case for the Court to consider whether or not the public servant was capable of doing or intended to do ay official act of favour or disfavour ( see Bhanuprasad Hariparasad Vs. State of

Gujarat and Shiv Raj Singh Vs. Delhi Administration.).

In the light of what has been said above, it is clear that the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption arising against him under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is true that the burden which rests on an accused to displace this presumption is not as onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. Nevertheless, this burden on the accused is to be discharged b y bringing on record evidence, circumstantial or direct, which establishes with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by the accused, other than as a motive or reward such as is referred to in section 161. The appellant had hopelessly failed to show such a balance of probability in his favour.

58

59.Though all the decisions referred by Learned Spl.Public

Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Bureau, may not be applicable to the facts of the present case, but the ratio laid regarding sole testimony of complainant can base conviction, recovery of tainted amount from possession of accused, positive results of phenolphthalein tests,

Mandatory Presumption u/s.20(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and defective investigation can't form as aground to reject the entire case of prosecution can be applied to the facts of the present case, because criminal cases are decided on facts and evidence rather than case law and precedents. Each case will rest on its own facts.

CONCLUSION:

60. From the forgoing discussion, on point no.1 to 5 and taking into consideration evidence of Pws 1 to 6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P9 and Mos 1 to 8, I hold that, prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of gratification of Rs.4,000/- by the accused from complainant-PW2 by examining complainant-PW2, who supported prosecution on material points, recovery was proved by examining

Mediator-PW1 who fully supported prosecution case. Prosecution also proved pendency of official favour with accused by examining

Tahasildar-PW4 and by seizing original of Ex.P4-Title deed and Ex.P5-

Mutation Register from the house of accused, prosecution also proved Ex.P8 sanction order by examining Section Officer-PW3, phenolphthalein test conducted to both right and left hand fingers of 59 accused and contacted portion of table cloth on which accused kept amount from where it was seized, also yielded positive result, therefore, mandatory presumption u/s. 20 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, and factual presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act 1872 was drawn against the accused in this case but, accused failed to rebut the said presumption by letting probable defence since he did not examine any witnesses and did not mark any documents on his side to displace the presumption thereby, it is proved beyond doubt that amount of Rs.4,000/- recovered from the possession of accused was obtained by Accused from Complainant-

PW2 as gratification only, by illegal and corrupt means by abusing his official position, therefore, the accused is found guilty for both the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, hence, the accused in this case is liable for conviction accordingly.

61.Accused was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim). Accused stated that, he is aged 66 years and retired from service. He got wife and two daughters and one son and they are not settled. He further stated that he has been suffering from Blood Pressure, Diabetes and

Asthama. He further stated that entire family is depending upon him and therefore, requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against Accused are socio-economic offences, 60 which are considered to be serious in nature, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under

Probation of Offenders Act, are also can not extended in these type of cases. When once, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused, after full pledged trial are proved, accused shall be dealt deterrently. The general and common grounds put forth by Accused can't form basis to escape from compulsory imprisonment and fine hence, lenient view is not taken in this case.

62.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and convicted u/s. 248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One year and shall pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and

Accused is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One year and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence u/s.

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against accused shall run concurrently.

61

Remand period undergone by Accused, shall be set off u/s.

428 Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by Accused is Rs.5,000/- +

Rs.5,000/- = Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only).

MO1 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- is ordered to be returned to Complainant-PW2 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the

Government Treasury and rest of the material objects Mos2 to 8 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of January, 2018.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1Vummenthala Srinivas Reddy

PW2 Bairneni Vijay Kumar

PW3 Rathode Gurusingh, Section Officer

PW4 Chakilam Prabhakar Rao, Tahasildar

PW5 Sri T.Janardhan, Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau

PW6 Sri B.Chand Basah, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau 62

FOR THE DEFENCE - NIL -

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P112-03-2009Original complaint given by Mediator-PW1

Ex.P214-03-2009Attested copy of photo copy of FIR

Ex.P3 14-03-2009Pre Trap Proceedings

Ex.P4 ---Copy of Pass Book

Ex.P5---Mutation Register

Ex.P614-03-2009Rough sketch of scene

Ex.P7 14-03-2009Post Trap Proceedings

Ex.P831-03-2010Sanction order vide G.O.Ms.No.259

Ex.P914-03-2009Original First Information Report in Cr.No. 8/ACB-KNR/2009

FOR THE DEFENCE - NIL -

63

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1Tainted amount of Rs.4,000/-.

MO2Sealed cover containing the sample powder of phenolphthalein used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO3Sealed cover containing the sample powder of sodium carbonate used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO4Sealed cover containing the sample of sodium carbonate powder.

MO5 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of right hand wash of accused.

MO6Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of left hand wash of accused.

MO7 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contacted portion of table drawer

MO8Black and red colour table cloth

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES : AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : SRI P. BHASKARA RAO, Spl.Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

K A R I M N A G A R.

Dated this the 16 th day of February, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No. 115 of 2015

Between:

The State through Anti-Corruption Bureau, through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad.

… Complainant AND

Sri Edla Pochaiah S/o Balaiah, 57 Years, Occ: Deputy Inspector of Survey O/o Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District R/o H.No. 10-2-26, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad. … Accused Officer

This case is coming for final hearing on 30-1-2018in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.S.Prasad, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till today, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad

Range, Nizamabad, filed charge sheet against the Accused, to prosecute him for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused was working as Deputy Inspector of

Survey, in the Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy,

Nizamabad District and by virtue of post held by him, he was a public servant within the meaning of Sec.2(c) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

3.The further case of the prosecution that, complainant-

Kamindla Narender-PW1, purchased Ac.5.03 guntas of land in

S.No.488/20, 488/18, 489/4 and 488/38 at the outskirts of

Maddikunta village. The land was mutated in his name in Revenue

Records about two years back. MRO, Macha Reddy, also issued pattedar pass book and title deed to him. While so, when, he visited in the land, he observed part of his land was encroached by neighbouring land owners. On that, he submitted an application to

Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, on 2-6-2010 by paying

Rs.500/- challan, for survey of his land and Revenue Divisional

Officer, endorsed his application to the accused who was working as

Dy.Inspector of Survey. Then he met accused on 4-6-2010 requested to conduct survey, but accused stated that, the land records are in the office of Asst.Director's, Nizamabad and asked him to come after 3 days. Again, he met accused on 7-6-2010 and requested him to conduct survey of his land, on that, accused demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe to survey his land. Then, 3 complainant requested accused that, he is poor and could not pay such huge amount but, accused did not heed his request. Later, the accused issued notices to the neighbouring farmers to conduct survey on 17-10-2010 informing PW1 that, if the demanded bribe amount is paid before to 17-6-2010, he will conduct survey or otherwise he will not proceed with survey. As, PW1 did not give the demanded bribe to accused, the accused did not conduct the survey on 17-6-2010. Finally, on 12-8-2010 PW1 met accused and again requested him to conduct survey but, the accused reiterated the earlier demand and on request of PW1, accused reduced the bribe to

Rs.6,000/- and asked him to pay within 2 or 3 days at his house

Kamareddy or otherwise, he will not conduct survey. As there, is no other go, PW1 reluctantly agreed and left the place but unwilling to give the bribe, he approached Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau Nizamabad and lodged complaint on 12-8-2010.

Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW6 after due verification and after obtaining permission from the competent authority, registered the complaint as a case in Cr.No.5/RCT-NZB/2010 u/s.7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, on 16-08-2010 at 4.30 AM and took up investigation.

4.It is further case of the prosecution that, during the course of investigation Dy.Superintendent of Police K.Sudershan Reddy, Anti

Corruption Bureau-PW6, secured mediators PW2 and LW3-Rayarao

Raghupathi, conducted pre trap proceedings under Ex.P8 in his 4 office, got applied phenolphthalein powder to currency notes of

Rs.6,000/- produced by complainant-PW1, and instructed him to pay bribe to accused only on his demand and not otherwise and further instructed him to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief in case, accused demands and accepts the bribe from him and after that, he demonstrated phenolphthalein test and explained significance of phenolphthalein test to complainant-PW1 and mediators.

5.It is further case of prosecution that, after completion of pre trap proceedings, Dy.Superintendent of Police, along with mediators and staff and PW1 proceeded to the house of accused situated at

Ashokangar Colony, Kamareddy, allowed PW1 to go to the house of accused with proposed bribe amount of Rs.6000/- and meet the accused by reiterating the earlier instructions. Accordingly, PW1 went to the house of accused and observed that accused was about to move on his bike, on seeing him, accused stated that, he is going to Yacharam and asked him to wait at Udipi Krishna Bhavan Hotel opposite to RTC Bus stand, Kamareddy and went away, stating that he will come there at 10.00 AM. PW1 informed the same to

Dy.Superintendent of Police and they all proceeded to the said Hotel but accused did not turn up at 10.00 AM, hence, on the instructions of Dy.Superintendent of Police, PW1 telephoned to accused and he stated that he is busy and asked him to ring at 4.00 PM and accordingly when PW1 called accused at 4.00 PM, and accused stated that he will come at 7.00 PM and but came to Hotel at 7.30 5

PM and took PW1 inside the Hotel. Then enquired PW1 whether he brought the demanded bribe and on his affirmative reply, accused asked PW1 to give the same and accordingly he picked up the amount from his shirt pocket and handed over to accused and who received the same with his right hand and kept in his left side shirt pocket and assured that, he will conduct survey on 21.8.2010 and gave survey notice/memo with a direction to serve on his adjacent land owners. PW1 came out by stating that he will take xerox copies of notice and relayed pre arranged signal, to the trap party.

Immediately Dy.Superintendent of Police along with trap party members rushed to the spot and caught accused and conducted phenolphthalein test to both hand fingers of accused, on doing so, right hand fingers wash of accused turned pink but left hand wash remained as it is and contacted portion of shirt pocked in which accused kept the tainted amount was also subjected to phenolphthalein test and it was also yielded positive result. Then seized the tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- from accused. Thereafter,

PW6 arrested accused on the Intervening night of 16/17-8-2010 at 0045 hours and produced him before the Court for remand. Later,

Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW6 handed over further investigation to Inspector Saidulu-PW7 who completed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)

(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 on 30-6-2011 by that time, accused was retired from service on 31-11-2010.

6

6.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 against the Accused on 28-06-2011.

7.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

8.The Learned Predecessor of this Court, examined the accused u/s. 239 Cr.P.C., on 20-7-2012,the accused denied the offences, hence charges u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.In order to prove the guilt prosecution cited (10) witnesses but, examined only (7) witnesses. Kamindla Narender-PW1 is the defacto-complainant who stated about approaching accused for surveying the land at Maddikunta Village and demand by accused to pay Rs.10,000/- as bribe to conduct survey and on his request, accused, reduced the same to Rs.6,000/- but, unwilling to give bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad, lodged complaint

Ex.P1. He also stated about his participation in pre trap proceedings and following with Dy.Superintendent of Police-PW6 in the trap proceedings etc., demand by accused at Udipi Sri Krishna Bhavan,

Opposite to RTC Bus stand, Kamareddy and payment of tainted 7 amount of Rs.6,000/- to accused in the hotel who received the same with his right hand and kept in his left side shirt pocket.

10.PW2-Lekkala Kistaiah, is said to be mediator stated about his participation in trap proceedings along with Dy.Superintendent of

Police and Anti Corruption Bureau officials. He stated about the verification of the complaint with PW1, apprehension of accused and conducting phenolphthalein test, seizure of tainted amount of

Rs.6,000/- from left side shirt pocket of accused in Udipi Sri Krishna

Bhavan, seizure of Ex.P2 survey notice from PW1 during post trap proceedings.

11.PW3-Mohd.Ahmed, Village Revenue Officer, Maddikunta Village stated that PW1 applied for survey of his land by paying challan, later he came to know that Accused was trapped by ACB on allegation of demand and acceptance of Rs.6,000/- from PW1 at

Udipi Sri Krishna Bhavan, Kamareddy.

12.PW4-Shivaram G.Shetty, Owner of the hotel stated that, on 16-9-2010 at 8.00 PM accused came along with one person, sat in their hotel opposite to his counter and accused gave one paper to the person came with him, after making some corrections in it, he returned, the same to him and said person tried to keep the amount in the hands of accused but accused refused and pushed away but, the said person thrusted the amount in the shirt pocket of accused 8 and left the hotel. Meanwhile, ACB officials came and apprehended accused. Therefore, PW4 was declared as hostile by Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau.

13.PW5-S.Ram Chandraiah, Revenue Divisional Officer,

Kamareddy, stated that their office received Ex.P1 application from

PW1 for survey and he endorsed the same to accused, but he has not received any report from accused and subsequently on 16-8-2010, he came to know that, accused was trapped by ACB on the allegation of demand and acceptance of Rs.6,000/- from PW1 for conducting survey.

14.PW6-K.Sudershan Reddy, Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, stated that on 12.8.2010 at 5.00 PM he received complaint Ex.P1 from PW1 and entrusted the same to inspector

K.Saidulu, who made discrete enquiries and submitted report stating that the contents of complaint as true and reputation of accused is suspectable. After obtaining permission from competent Authority he registered FIR, conducted pre trap proceedings his ACB office of

DSP, Nizamabad, laid trap, caught hold the accused red handed, at

Udipi Sri Krishna Bhavan, Kamareddy, Opposite to RTC Bus stand, seizure of tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- from accused and Ex.P2 from PW1 during post trap proceedings 9

15.PW7-K.Saidulu, Inspector of Police stated about conducting discrete enquiries as per the instructions of Dy.Superintendent of

Police-PW6 and accompanying him in the trap proceedings, conducting investigation and filing charge sheet.

16. Prosecution did not examine other mediator LW3-Rayarao

Raghupathi and Judicial Magistrate of First Class who recorded 164

Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

17.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P1 to P20 and MO's.1 to 8 are marked.

18.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him were recorded separately.

19.Accused filed detailed written statement denying the demand and acceptance of bribe from PW1, and stated that there was no proof filed by the prosecution to show purchase of land by PW1 and that PW1 is the owner of the said land for which he sought for survey. Even as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, PW3 and

PW5, entire extent in S.No. 488 and also Ac.16.19 guntas in S.No.

489 of Maddikunta village is a Government land as evidenced by

Ex.D1, but, ACB officials without verifying the said fact, hastily laid trap against the accused. The scribe of complaint by name Raju was 10 not examined, there is no mention of date of demand on 6.7.2010 either in the complaint on in the 164 Cr.P.C statement and there is no evidence to prove the demand by the accused. In fact, he received Ex.P3 application from Revenue Divisional Officer and instructed Mandal Surveyor to put up memo to survey on 17.6.2010 and he handed over the same to PW1 on 14.6.2010 directing him to serve notices on adjoining land owners and at that time, he informed to PW1 that entire land in S.no. 488 and 489 of Maddikunta village is

Government land, hence PW1 picked up a quarrel with him stating that it is a patta land and it was the reason for PW1 to implicate him in this case.

20.It is further stated that one Narsa Reddy @ Ravi, who is Ex-

Naxalite, is friend of PW1 and after his surrender, Government assigned land to him and wife of Narsa Reddy was working as Record

Assistant in Government School, inspite of that, Narsa Reddy sought assignment of land in her favour, for which, he objected and wrote adverse report, as such, Narsa Reddy @ Ravi bore grudge against him and instigated PW1 to implicate him in this case.

21. It is further stated that, as per prosecution case, PW1 met him at his house at 8.00 AM on the trap day with bribe amount and he enquired him whether he brought the amount or not and on his affirmative reply, he did not receive the same and asked him to come to bus stand, is nothing but false, if really, he had demanded 11 bribe he would have received the same when he met him, at the first instance.

22.It is further stated that, as per citizen charter, survey can be conducted within three months but, by the date of trap, only two months 15 days have been lapsed. Therefore, there is no question of pending official favour with the accused. From 16.6.2010, he was deputed for survey of land acquisition relating to Pranahitha and

Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme as Supervising Officer, therefore, he could not conduct survey immediately but, he never demanded and accepted any bribe from PW1, hence, prayed the Court to acquit him from the charges.

23.Accused did not examine any witnesses, on his side but Ex.D1 is marked on his side in cross-examination of PW3.

24.Heard arguments of Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti

Corruption Bureau and Learned counsel for accused. Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau also filed written arguments along with memo of citations.

25.Now, the points for determination are:

i) Whether the accused, had demanded and accepted Rs.6,000/- from complainant-PW1 on 16-8-2010, as gratification other than legal remuneration to conduct survey of land of PW1?

12 ii) Whether, the accused in connection with his official duties i.e., survey, he demanded and accepted Rs.6,000/- from PW1?

iii) Whether the accused by corrupt and illegal means accepted Rs.6,000/- from PW1 by abusing his official position, thereby, committed criminal misconduct?

iv) Whether prosecution proved the guilt against accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

POINT NO. i & ii:

26.There is no dispute that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused was working as Deputy Inspector of Survey, in the Office of

Revenue Divisional Office, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District hence, he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND OF PW1:

27.It is simple and specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 purchased land and after purchase he noticed encroachment of some part of his land by neighbouring land owners and submitted application to Revenue Divisional Officer for survey of his land who endorsed the same to accused, when PW1 approached accused, he demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- and on his request accused reduced the bribe to Rs.6,000/- but, unwilling to give bribe PW1 approached

Anti Corruption Bureau, who registered the case and caught accused red handed. The main contention of accused is that, PW1 is not having any land and the application submitted by PW1 to survey the land, on which, he claimed ownership, is a Government land and 13 when he raised the issue, PW1 quarreled with him and with grouse, he implicated him in this trap case by thrusting the amount in his hands forcibly.

28.Prosecution rightly filed Ex.P5 is photostat copy of the title deed of PW1, which shows that PW1 is owner of Ac.5.03 guntas of land in S.No. 488/18, 489/20, 489/4, 488/38 of Maddikunta village.

Prosecution also filed Ex.P6 photostat copy of No.3 Adangal shows that PW1 is pattedar and enjoyer of Ac.5.03 guntas. These two documents prima facie prove right and possession of PW1 over the said land.

29.The entries in ROR, prima facie proves the possession and right of person over a particular land and aggrieved party who disputes the right and possession of the said person, has to approach competent authority for cancellation of the pattedar pass book and title deed, till then, the entries in ROR is presumed to be genuine under law. Nodoubt, as per elaborate cross examination made by the Learned defence counsel with regard to the title over the said land because of, non filing the registered sale deeds under which PW1 allegedly purchased the said land from Bala Sailu,

Ramulu, Chakali Yellavva and others about 10 years back and in view of Ex.D1 CC of Sethwar, which shows that there was no sub divisions in S.No.488 and 489 and and entire land, in the said survey numbers was originally Government land as per the evidence 14 of PW3-Village Revenue Officer Maddikunta village, thereby, a cloud has been cast upon the title of the said land but the fact remains that PW1 is in possession of the said land. It may be as an encroacher or occupier of the said land.

30.The revenue people PW3-VRO stated in chief examination that as per revenue records PW1 has got ac.5.03 guntas in S.No. 488/20, 488/18, 489/4, 488/38 of Maddikunta village. PW5-Revenue

Divisional Officer, received application from PW1 for survey, but did not return his application. If really, PW1 has no any right over the said land, Revenue Divisional Officer would have returned the application and not considered and would not have permitted for survey if the land belongs to the Government. A private individual is not allowed to survey the Government land, so, except a cloud over the legal title of PW1, there can not be any dispute over the right and possession of PW1 over the said land.

31.Accused to whom Revenue Divisional Officer endorsed the application also did not raise any objection initially and did not return the application of PW1 on the ground that land claimed by PW1 belongs to Government. The accused having issued notice for survey fixed date by sending notices to the neighbouring land owners and concerned Mandal Surveyor of Maddikunta village, he, can not contend now by going back that PW1 is not the owner and has no right over the same. It appears from record that, since 15 prosecution not filed registered sale deeds, under which, PW1 acquired the land, the accused tried to take advantage of the same and raised the said plea.

32.This is not a Civil Court, to decide the title of a party and this is a trap case filed by Anti Corruption Bureau. The only point for consideration is, whether PW1 has got any prima facie right and possession over the disputed land and whether he properly applied for survey or not. The record shows that PW1 submitted Ex.P3 application by enclosing all necessary documents to Revenue

Divisional Officer for survey on 2-6-2010 by enclosing Ex.P4 Challan remitting necessary fee to the Government for survey and also enclosed Ex.P5 photostat copy of his title deed issued under ROR Act and Ex.P6 No.3 Adangal for the current year 2009-10 and on receipt of Ex.P2 application, Revenue Divisional Officer, also endorsed the same to accused and on receipt of Ex.P3 application, accused issued notice to conduct survey by fixing date on 17-6-2010, therefore, the first contention raised by the accused first time during trial disputing the right of PW1 over the said land is falls to the ground.

DEMAND:

33. PW1 clearly stated in his evidence that he submitted application to Revenue Divisional Officer on 2-6-2010 who endorsed the same to the accused and immediately he met accused and on seeing application of PW1, accused stated that, connected records 16 are in Asst.Director Office, Nizamabad and stated that, he will bring the record within 2 or 3 days and asked him to come later. PW1 further deposed that, accordingly after 3 days i.e., on 7-6-2010 (instead it was stated and recorded wrongly as 6-7-2010) he met accused, at that time, accused demanded him to pay bribe of

Rs.10,000/- to conduct survey before 17-6-2010 by fixing date of survey on 17-6-2010 but due to lack of money he waited upto to

August, 2010 and again he met accused on 12-8-2010 and requested to conduct survey but, the accused reiterated his earlier demand and on his request, accused reduced bribe to Rs.6,000/- and asked him to pay bribe to conduct the survey and further stated that unless bribe is paid, accused stated that, he will not fix the date for survey, and unwilling to give bribe, PW1 approached DSP, ACB,

Nizamabad on 12-8-2010 and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 in his evidence reiterated stated the contents of complaint and initial demand by accused, PW1 also stated further demand by accused

before accepting the total amount of Rs.6,000/- at Udipi Sri Krishna

Bhavan Hotel, where the accused fixed the place of meeting.

34.In the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW1 that accused never demanded or accepted any bribe and as accused raised dispute regarding his title over the land, he gave false complaint and implicated him in this case was denied. It was also suggested to PW1 that, he managed revenue people and obtained pattedar pass books, but this suggestion was also denied. Accused 17 also suggested another theory that on the adverse report by accused about the assignment of land in favour of wife of Ravi, who is friend of PW1, therefore, the said Ravi instigated PW1 to give a false complaint against him, hence PW1 implicated him in this case, was also denied.

35.The other theory suggested to PW1 that, he forcibly thrusted the tainted amount in the shirt pocket of accused and hurriedly went out of the hotel without heeding his calling and he took the amount with his right hand and followed him to return the amount, meanwhile, ACB officials apprehended him was also denied.

36.The Learned defence counsel argued that, PW1 only implicated him by calling him in his mobile phone, though, there was no demand on his part and ACB officials also chased him to implicate him in this case. The record reveals that, when PW1 initially went to the house of accused situated in Ashok nagar colony, Kamareddy, to meet him to comply the demand, at that time, accused is about to start the bike to go to Yacharam and asked PW1 to wait at Krishna

Bhavan Hotel, opposite to RTC Bus stand, Kamareddy at 10.00 AM and went away on his Motor cycle.

37.At this stage, the Learned defence counsel argued, that if really, accused demanded bribe, he would have accepted the bribe then and there itself and he would not have asked him to come to 18 hotel, but the situation is that, the accused is about to move on his bike, outside the premises on the road and there was no scope for privacy, therefore, accused asked PW1 to come to the hotel. PW1 returned and informed the said fact to Dy.Superintendent of Police and Dy.Superintendent of Police with trap party members went to the hotel, waited for arrival of accused but the accused did not turn up at the time given by him, therefore, it was made the Trap Laying

Officer to contact accused through cell phone of complainant to know about his stay and arrival, that was the reason, PW1 contacted accused in his cell phone at 10.00 AM, 4.00PM and 7.00PM. The call data filed by prosecution marked as Ex.P17 shows the exchange of calls in between PW1 and accused, in my view it is not illegal and it can not be said that trap was failed on the earlier three occasions but the contention of accused that Trap Laying Officer bent upon to implicate the accused, got made several phone calls through PW1 to see the accused somehow or other be trapped, is not tenable. Even

before allowing PW1 to meet accused in the hotel, it was specifically

instructed to PW1 by Trap Laying Officer-PW6 that, only on demand by accused, PW1 was instructed to give the bribe amount.

38.Further, Ex.P2 is the Survey Notice/Memo which was given by accused to PW1 by rounding of earlier date of survey on 17-6-2010 and putting new date on 21-8-2010 soon after receipt of amount from PW1 also indicates the demand on the part of accused. In the pre trap proceedings also PW6-Trap Laying Officer specifically 19 instructed PW1 to relay the signal in case accused demands and accepts the bribe. Accordingly, PW1 gave pre arranged signal by coming out of the hotel which indicates the demand on the part of the accused. So, evidence of PW1 regarding pre arranged signal given by him was sufficiently corroborated by mediator-PW2, Trap

Laying Officer-PW6, therefore, I hold that prosecution is able to establish the demand on the part of the accused in this case.

ACCEPTANCE:

39.PW1 clearly stated in his evidence that as per the instructions of accused he stayed at bus stand, Kamareddy and at 7.30 PM, accused came to bus stand and took him to a hotel opposite to bus stand and both of them sat on the table opposite to the cash counter in the said hotel and accused enquired him whether he brought bribe amount or not, on his affirmative reply, he asked him to give the same, accordingly, he picked up phenolphthalein treated currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed over to accused who received the same with his right hand and kept in his left side shirt pocket and assured that, he will conduct survey on 21.8.2010 and gave xerox copy of of Notice/Memo (Ex.P2) to serve on adjacent land owners, then, he came out stating that, he will take xerox copy of notice/memo (Ex.P2) and gave pre arranged signal to the trap party. In the cross examination, Learned defence counsel suggested to PW1 that, accused never demanded and accepted bribe from him but he thrusted tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- in his left 20 side shirt pocket forcibly and went out from the hotel and relayed signal without heeding his calling but, this suggestion was denied by

PW1.

40.Admittedly, the phenolphthalein test conducted to the right hand fingers of accused and contacted portion of left side shirt pocket of accused both yielded positive result. This is one of the circumstances to believe the acceptance on the part of the accused.

If really, PW1 thrusted the amount in his shirt pocket forcibly, what should be the reaction of normal prudent person? Either he would have thrown it away on the ground or called police, by catch holding

PW1 to take action against him for giving bribe to him but, the accused did not react in any one of the ways, and he kept the amount in his shirt pocket only, till arrival of ACB Officials. His suggestion to PW1 that, accused by taking amount from his shirt pocket with his right hand and followed PW1 by calling him to return the amount, meanwhile, ACB officials came and apprehended him was denied by PW1 and same is also not believable.

41.Prosecution examined hotel owner-PW4, who partly supported prosecution case that accused came with PW1 to his hotel and sat on a table opposite to his cash counter and PW1 gave one paper to accused who made corrections on it and returned to PW1 but he further improved his version, stating that PW1 thrusted the amount into the left side shirt pocket of accused but accused tried to return 21 the same by following PW1, but this improved version was not find place in his earlier 161 Cr.P.C statement or in his version given to the

Trap Laying Officer-PW6 in the post trap proceedings thereby,

Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB, treated this witness as hostile. Since the improved version of PW4 is not believable, therefore, only part of his evidence that accused came with PW1 to his hotel, sat in front of his cash counter discussed some matter and that part only which is believable and can be relied, the rest of the improved version which is found to be false and not believable, can be separated and rejected.

42.Further scene of offence is not office or house of accused to believe preplanned thrusting, it is a hotel situated in a public place, without calling by accused, PW1 had no chance to meet the accused at scene of offence, therefore, it can be safely concluded that, accused willingly and voluntarily accepted bribe of Rs.6,000/- from

PW1 on the trap day.

RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT:

43.PW2-Administrative Officer in Transport Office who is an independent person, fully supported prosecution case stated that soon after receipt of signal from PW1 infront of the hotel opposite to

RTC bus stand, Kamareddy, he along with other trap party members, 22

Dy.Superintendent of Police, rushed into Udipi Sri Krishna Bavan and

Dy.Superintendent of Police apprehended accused after ascertaining his identity and conducted phenolphthalein test to his both hands.

On doing so, right hand wash turned into pink and when

Dy.Superintendent of Police questioned about the tainted amount accused stated that, he kept the amount in his left side shirt pocket and produced the same and as per the instructions of

Dy.Superintendent of Police he verified the currency notes and denomination numbers with the numbers already mentioned in the pre trap proceedings, on doing so, the numbers and denomination of currency notes are tallied. The version of PW2 was further corroborated by Trap Laying Officer-PW6. He also stated that right hand fingers wash and left side shirt pocket when subjected to phenolphthalein test, yielded positive result.

44.He also stated about seizure of Ex.P2 notice/memo, fixing date of survey on 17-6-2010 which was rounded of and altered as 21-8-2010 by accused. Here also, the Learned defence counsel suggested thrusting theory to both PW2 and PW6 but both of them denied. The improved version of PW4-Hotel owner supporting thrusting theory raised by accused is appears to be false and same is not believable. If really, accused had enmity with PW1 or there were any grudges between them as alleged by accused, accused would not have taken PW1 into the hotel and would not have sat in the hotel in front of the cash counter coolly, so, theory of thrusting in 23 these facts and circumstances of the case is not at all believable.

Taking into consideration of evidence of mediator PW2 and Trap

Laying Officer-PW6 coupled with results of phenolphthalein tests and seizure of incriminating document i.e., Ex.P2, I hold that prosecution proved recovery of tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- from possession of accused.

POINT NO.iii:

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

45.As per prosecution case, for conducting survey of land of PW1, accused made demand of bribe. Admittedly, at the time of occurrence, accused was working as Dy.Inspector of surveys,

Kamareddy. As per Ex.P18 Job chart, the primary duty of accused is demarcation of patta lands in Division level. As per Ex.P11 search list when search was conducted in the house of accused, immediately after the trap, the Trap Laying Officer seized official favour documents i.e., Ex.P3 application of complainant submitted for survey, Ex.P4 Challan enclosed to the application and Ex.P5 photocopy of title deed in respect of the land to be surveyed.

Seizure of all these documents in the house of accused was not disputed by accused. The application of PW1 was also entered in the

Demarcation Register Ex.P15 in the office of Dy.Inspector of

Kamareddy at Pg.No.17. It was also initialed by the accused on 2-6-2010 itself.

24

46.Another important document seized by the Trap Laying Officer during trap proceedings is Ex.P2 Notice/Memo prepared by accused fixing date of survey, initially, he fixed date of survey as 17-6-2010 and as no survey was conducted on that day and as that date was expired by the date of trap, the accused fixed fresh date of survey by rounding of earlier date 17.6.2010 and put fresh date with red-ink pen as 21-8-2010 and also initialed the said correction/alteration of date. The said notice was signed by accused as Dy.Inspector of survey, Revenue Divisional Office Kamareddy. As per prosecution case, the accused after collecting bribe from PW1 gave Ex.P2 to PW1 with instructions to take xerox copies to serve notices on the neighbouring land owners. So, all the above documents clinchingly establish that, there is official favour is pending with accused by the date of trap and in connection with discharge of his official duties only, accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.6,000/- from PW1.

47.The Learned counsel for accused argued that as per citizen charter, survey can be completed within three months since PW2 submitted application on 2-6-2010 accused has got time upto 2-9-2017 whereas, trap incident took place on 16-8-2010, even without completion of 90 days, hence argued that, no official favour is pending with accused. I am unable to agree with the contention of

Learned counsel for accused because, the point for consideration is whether the accused made demand in connection with his official duties or not, whether he made the demand within the prescribed 25 period of time to complete the work or after stipulated time given to a public servant to clear file is not relevant. The accused is not expected or allowed to make a demand of bribe, either before or after the stipulated time, while discharging his duties, therefore, the logical argument advanced by Learned defence counsel, has no legs to stand.

48.The other alternative contention of the Learned counsel for accused is that, the land in question is a Government land and not belongs to PW1, hence the question of surveying Government land does not arise, thereby, no official favour is pending with him is also not correct. If really the said contention of accused is true, why he kept applications of PW1 in his house? why he has not returned application of PW1 stating that, he applied for survey of Government land? Why he issued survey notice fixing date of survey? No plausible explanation was come forward from the accused. He can not deny his own signature in Ex.P2 Survey Notice/Memo dt. 14-6- 2010 fixing the date of survey initially on 17-6-2010 later changing the date as 21.8.2010 soon after accepting the bribe from PW1.

49.Further, PW5-Revenue Divisional Officer clearly stated in his evidence that, their office received Ex.P3 application from PW1 for survey, and on the same day, it was forwarded to accused by making an endorsement as please verify the record and put up the file. He further categorically stated that, but they have not received any 26 report from the accused and subsequently, he came to know that accused was trapped on the allegation of taking bribe of Rs.6,000/- from PW1 for conducing survey. This much of evidence was not at all shattered in the cross examination. If really, the contention of accused is true that, the land for which, application was made by

PW1 for survey is a Government land the accused would have represented to the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that, he can not proceed with survey since, it is a Government land but he did not return the said application within reasonable time or till the date of trap. So, there is no truth in the contention raised by the accused.

Taking advantage of infirmities culled out in the evidence of PW1 that, he purchased the land and VRO-PW3 stated without verifying the records that, it is an assigned land and entire land in the said survey numbers 488 and 489 is Government land. If that is so, why pattedar pass book and title deed is given to PW1 by the same village Revenue Officers? Why his name is entered in the Adangals maintained regularly in the Revenue Office, after verifying the lands physically in the village. Therefore, the inadvertent statements given by the witnesses will not out weigh documentary evidence produced by PW1 for conducting survey. Therefore, I hold that there is official favour is pending with accused as on the date of trap and in connection with official duty i.e., survey only, he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.6,000/- from PW1 and ultimately caught red handed in a public place.

27

POINT NO.iv:

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

50.Prosecution proved phenolphthalein test by examining mediator-PW2 who is an independent person not acted as mediator earlier in ACB cases. He clearly stated soon after receipt of pre arranged signal from PW1 Dy.Superintendent of Police rushed to

Udipi Krishna Bavan Hotel and they followed with Dy.Superintendent of Police, found accused sitting in front of table opposite to cash counter and after introduction Dy.Superintendent of Police prepared

Sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and asked accused to dip his hand fingers separately in the said glass tumblers, on doing so, right hand fingers was turned to pink colour but left hand wash remained as it is and after seizure of the amount

Dy.Superintendent of Police also conducted phenolphthalein test to the contacted portion of left side shirt pocket of accused in which tainted amount was kept by the accused and it was also yielded positive result. The accused did not dispute the results of the phenolphthalein tests but contends that, PW1 only thrusted the amount in his shirt pocket though he refused but this much of theory was found to be false and not believable.

51.Accused also raised another contention that while PW1 handing over Ex.P2 Notice/Memo, phenolphthalein particles contacted to his hands and the chemical tests results came positive, but during pre trap proceedings it was clearly mentioned that, after ensuring that 28 there was no any articles in the shirt pocket of PW1 making it empty, then only phenolphthalein treated notes were kept in the left side shirt pocket of PW1 with instructions not to touch the same till it was given to accused on demand. Though PW1 stated that, he handed over Ex.P2 notice to accused, who after changing date returned to him to take xerox copy but PW1 did not admit that, he took up the same from his shirt pocket so as to contact the phenolphthalein particles to the said notice. Further, the tainted amount was recovered from the left side shirt pocket of accused. As per the contention of accused, he refused to accept the bribe thrusted by PW1 with his both hands, and phenolphthalein particles would have contacted to his both hands but only right hand wash turned into pink colour but left hand wash remained as it is shows that, story of the prosecution that accused accepted bribe with his right hand and kept in his left side shirt pocket is only appears to be correct. At any rate, when the accused advanced theory of thrusting there may not be much discussion with regard to the legality of positive results of the phenolphthalein tests. Version of PW2- mediator was fully corroborated by Trap Laying Officer-PW6. He denied the defence theory of thrusting the amount by PW1 and also denied the omission of spontaneous explanation given by accused in the post trap proceedings. Positive phenolphthalein results is one of the circumstances and corroborating piece of evidence favourable to the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.

29

PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 (1) OF PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND U/S.114(a) OF INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT:

52.In this case, prosecution has proved that, the accused has accepted and obtained gratification of Rs.6,000/- from complainant-

PW1 by examining complainant-PW1, who supported the prosecution case stated about the demand and acceptance by accused, Mediator-

PW2 stated that the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of accused. PW5-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy stated that their office received Ex.P1 application from PW1 for survey and he put initial by endorsing the same to accused, but he has not received any report from accused and also proved the fact that in connection with official work only the accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.6,000/- from complainant-PW1 as a motive or reward. The version given by complainant-PW1, Mediator-PW2 was further corroborated by PW6-Trap Laying Officer and PW7-

Investigation Officer, therefore, it is incumbent upon the court, shall draw the presumption against the accused that he demanded gratification other than legal remuneration. Defence theory that, complainant-PW1 to implicate him in this case, he thrusted the amount was not probabalized by accused, hence, both legal presumption u/s.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as factual presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that 30 possession of tainted amount with him may raises presumption of acceptance, is drawn against accused, in this case.

MINOR DEFECTS IN THE INVESTIGATION AND VARIATIONS

IN THE PROSECUTION CASE:

53. Accused pointed out several defects in the course of investigation, ofcourse, they are not grave defects and in my view they are all minor and insignificant defects. First one is that, Ex.P1 complaint was appears to have been drafted by one Raju. However,

Investigation officer did not examine the scribe Budanakanti Raju.

Investigation officer in his evidence stated he did not enquire in that aspect whether complaint was in the hand writing of PW1 or it was scribed by somebody. According to evidence of PW6-Trap Laying

Officer, PW7-Inspector, who conducted discrete enquiries they stated

PW1 only scribed Ex.P1. At any rate, PW1 did not deviate from the contents of complaint except some dates, due to illiteracy, therefore non examination of scribe of complaint, is not material and not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Trap Laying Officer-PW6 during post trap proceedings also clarified the mistake of date of survey mentioned by PW1 in the complaint as 7.7.2010 instead of 17.6.2010.

54.Next defect pointed out by the accused is with regard to non seizure of registered sale deeds, under which, PW1 purchased the land in question applied for survey and non seizure of pattedar pass 31 books of vendor of PW1 is not material in this criminal case since, it is not a civil case. This Court is also not expected to find out the title of PW1, prima facie right and possession is sufficient to proceed with survey. The question before the Court is whether accused demanded and accepted bribe from PW1 but not whether PW1 is lawful owner or not in respect of land for which he sought survey, is not relevant.

55.The other defect pointed out by the accused with regard to non recording telephone conversation between PW1 and accused but, in my view, at the spot, it is not practicable to record telephone conversation by contacting service providers from a small Town

Kamareddy which is not in a City or big Town, to secure Service

Providers of network of both PW1 and accused. But, pW6 rightly seized call data Ex.P17 showing the exchange of calls between PW1 and accused and accused asking PW1 to come to hotel where he fixed place to collect the bribe.

56.Next defect pointed out by accused is non filing of written instructions given to the mediators to attend trap proceedings, may be a minor defect on the part of Investigation officer, who filed charge sheet however, same is not material, since mediator is not found to be a stock mediator. If really, PW2 is found to be a stock mediator or acted as a mediator earlier in ACB cases, then, question of necessity of filing written instructions given to the mediators will 32 become crucial but, in this case, same is not material and it will not affect the case of the prosecution at all.

57.The Learned defence counsel at last, argued that, it is PW6-

Trap Laying Officer who chased the accused by calling him on his mobile phone through PW1 and trapped him though, the accused did not evince any interest to make a demand and accept bribe but the material on record and evidence of PW1 is clear that, when PW1 initially went to the house of accused to meet him with phenolphthalein treated notes, accused already came out of the house, accused was on his motor cycle to proceed and when PW1 approached him, accused stated that, he is going to Yacharam village on official work and asked complainant to wait at Udipi Sri

Krishna Bavan opposite to RTC Bus stand, and further stated that, he would come there at 10.00 AM. Accordingly, Dy.Superintendent of Police taken complainant to the said hotel and waited there upto 10.00 AM, but accused did not turn up, then, it was made

Dy.Superintendent of Police to contact accused through the mobile phone of PW1 to know about his arrival and when PW1 contacted accused, he stated that he will come to the hotel at 4.00 PM, but the accused did not turn up till 4.00 PM, though Trap party waited upto 4.00 PM, accused did not turn up, again at 4.00 PM, PW1 contacted accused through mobile phone and accused stated that he will come there at 7.30 PM, but did not turnup, and again at 7.45 PM

PW1 contacted accused, in his cell phone and accused stated that he 33 will come there at 8.00 PM and accordingly came on his motor cycle at 8.00 PM, so, only to know the arrival time of accused, it made

Trap Laying Officer, to contact him on mobile phone of PW1 but not his intention to implicate him in this case. Therefore, it can not be said on earlier three occasions, trap was failed. If there is no demand by the accused on earlier occasions, then it can be held as trap was failed but, when the accused told to PW1 that, he was held up at some other place and asked PW1 to wait at the hotel till his arrival can not be held as trap was failed on earlier occasions.

58.Record further reveals that, only on complaint by PW1,

Dy.Superintendent of Police laid the trap and he did not suo-moto without complaint from PW1 laid trap, therefore, implication of accused by Trap Laying Officer of at the instance of PW1, who is an an agriculturist had no much influence to implicate a public servant in the rank of Dy.Inspector of Survey. In view of non enclosing certificate as required u/s. 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P17 call list, even if, eschewed from record, still the oral evidence of PW1 corroborated by Investigation Officer-PW6 is available on record.

59.Though Ex.P16 proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer deputing surveyors to attend Pranahitha Chevella Srujala Sravanthi

Lift Irrigation Scheme work but, in his proceedings it is clearly mentioned by Revenue Divisional Officer that the Dy.Surveyors will also attend the Revenue works whenever necessary under the 34 intimation of Department, so, the accused can not escape from his primary responsibility that, he is busy with some other work, therefore, he could not attend work of PW1, if that is reason, why he has issued notice earlier fixing the date of survey on 17.6.2010?

Why he has changed the date fixing new date of survey soon after collecting bribe from PW1 on 21.8.2010? so, there is no force in the contention of Learned Counsel for accused.

60. Learned defence counsel also elicited some of the omissions while cross examining PW1 who is not so educated and is only an agriculturist stated that, he met the accused on 6.7.2010 instead of 7.6.2010 for conducting survey, for which, accused demanded

Rs.10,000/- as bribe. Further, it is also elicited that PW1 wrongly mentioned date of survey as 7.7.2010 in the complaint instead of, 17.6.2010 but, this omission was clarified by Trap Laying Officer during post trap proceedings Ex.P9 itself. Though, in the trap proceedings it does not contain the demand of bribe by the accused when PW1 initially met him at his house when he is about to proceed on his motor cycle but, PW1 out of curiosity, also stated that, accused enquired him whether he brought the demanded bribe and he affirmed the same, but accused did not obtain and went away on his motor cycle.

61.The last omission is that, though PW1 did not state to

Investigation officer that, when he contacted accused on phone, at 35 10.00 AM, accused informed him that he was busy in work and asked PW1 to ring him at 4.00 PM, further, he clarified that, accused told to PW1 that he will come at 4.00 PM and asked PW1 to wait. In my view, all these omissions are not so serious or material and they are common and bound to occur due to time gap and fading of memory of witness since, trap took place on 16.8.2010 whereas, PW1 gave evidence in the Court on 9.8.2016 i.e., after six years, but, for these minor and insignificant omissions, entire case of the prosecution can not be brushed aside. When Pw1 did not deviate from the main stream of the case, hence I hold that all these minor omissions or variations will affect the main core of the case, as per the decision cited by the Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor of Anti Corruption Bureau in relied on decision reported in

Sukhdev Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8

supreme Court Cases 86.

“a) Criminal Trial – appreciation of evidence

Contradictions / inconsistencies/exaggerations / embellishments – minor variations in prosecution evidence –

Probative value of such evidence and acceptability thereof –

Held, once the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same – If the evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in evidence – Despite minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to appellants under S.302 Appeal against conviction – conviction under Sec.302 upheld despite minor variations in prosecution 36 evidence – Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3 and 155 – Criminal

Procedure Code 1973., S.162.

b) Criminal Trial – Infirmities /Lapses / Omissions – lapses – non- production of seizure list – Lapses, when do not affect the prosecution case – held, non-production of seizure list is undoubtedly, a lapse on the part of the prosecution – however, if there exists credible evidence on record, such a lapse would not affect the prosecution case – lapses, if do not have the effect of causing any prejudice to the accused, cannot be used to impeach the testimony of eyewitnesses –

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.102(3) – Non -production of seizure list, held, would not affect the prosecution case.

CONCLUSION:

62. From the forgoing discussion, on point No.1 to 5 and taking into consideration evidence of Pws 1 to 7 coupled with Ex.P1 to P20 and Mos 1 to 8, I hold that, prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of gratification of Rs.6,000/- by the accused from complainant by examining complainant-PW1, who supported prosecution on material points, recovery was proved by examining

Mediator-PW2 who fully supported prosecution case. Prosecution also proved pendency of official favour with accused by examining official witnesses PW3 and PW5 and by seizing original documents

Ex.P3 to P5 documents from the possession of accused, phenolphthalein test conducted to right hand fingers of accused and contacted portion of shirt pocket of accused from where tainted amount was seized, also yielded positive result, therefore, mandatory presumption u/s. 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 37 1988, and factual presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 was drawn against the accused in this case but, accused failed to rebut the said presumption by letting probable defence, since he did not examine any witnesses on his side, to displace the presumption thereby, it is proved beyond doubt that, amount of

Rs.6,000/- recovered from the possession of accused was obtained by accused from Complainant-PW1, as gratification other than legal remuneration, by illegal and corrupt means by abusing his official position, therefore, the accused is found guilty for both the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, and liable for conviction u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

63.Accused was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim). Accused stated that, he is aged 66 years and retired from service. He got wife and five children out of which he performed marriages of three children and he has to perform marriages of remaining two children. He further stated that he is suffering from Blood Pressure and Diabetes. He has to look after the welfare of entire family, thereby he requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against

Accused are socio-economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient 38 view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of

Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, are also can not extended in these type of cases. When once, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused, after full pledged trial are proved, accused shall be dealt deterrently.

The general and common grounds put forth by Accused can't form basis to escape from compulsory imprisonment and fine hence, lenient view is not taken in this case.

64.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and convicted u/s. 248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two years and shall pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and

Accused is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence u/s.

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against accused shall run concurrently.

Remand period undergone by Accused, shall be set off u/s.

428 Cr.P.C.

39

Total fine amount payable by Accused is Rs.5,000/- +

Rs.5,000/- = Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only).

MO1 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- is ordered to be returned to Complainant-PW1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the

Government Treasury and rest of the material objects Mos2 to 8 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16th day of February, 2018.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1Kamindla Narender

PW2 Lekkala Kistaiah, Administrative Officer in Office of DTC & SRTC, Nizamabad.

PW3 Mohd.Ahmed, Village Revenue Officer

PW4 Shivaram G.shetty

PW5 S.Ram Chandraiah, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy

PW6Sri K.Sudarshan Reddy, Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range

PW7Sri K.Saidulu, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, 40

Nizamabad Range

FOR THE DEFENCE - NIL -

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P112-08-2010Complaint given by PW1

Ex.P214-6-2010Memo

Ex.P3 02-06-2010Application of PW1

Ex.P4 02-06-2010Challan

Ex.P5---Photostat copy of title deed of PW1

Ex.P6---Adangal for the year 2009-2010

Ex.P7 12-08-2010Copy of Complaint

Ex.P816-08-2010Mediator Report – I

Ex.P916-08-2010Mediator Report – II

Ex.P1016-08-2010Rough sketch of scene

Ex.P1116/17-08-2010 Search List

Ex.P12 18-08-2010161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4

Ex.P13 16-10-2010First Information Report

Ex.P1415-08-2010Endorsement by Inspector of Police, Nizamabad on complaint

Ex.P15 ---Photostat copy of Demarcation Petitions 41

Register

Ex.P1616-06-2010Copy of Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy

Ex.P17----Call details for Mobile No. 9849809741 belongs to accused

Ex.P1819-08-2010Job chart of Dy.Inspector of Surveyor

Ex.P1919-08-2010Letter of Asst.Director, Survey & Land Records, Nizamabad

Ex.P20---Movement Register in the office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D1---Information along with plan (Naksha) and Permanent Regiser Extract (Sethuwar).

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

a

MO1Tainted amount of Rs.6,000/-.

MO2Sealed cover containing the sample powder of phenolphthalein used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO3Sealed cover containing the sample powder of sodium carbonate used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO4Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used during post trap proceedings.

42

MO5 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of right hand wash of accused.

MO6Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of left hand wash of accused.

MO7 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of shirt pocket of accused.

MO8White colour shirt with full hands seized from accused.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES : AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : SRI P. BHASKARA RAO, Spl.Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

K A R I M N A G A R.

Dated this the 7 th day of February, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No. 144 of 2015

Between:

The State through Anti-Corruption Bureau, through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad. … Complainant AND

1. Sri Kommu Murali S/o Late Kistaiah, 62 Years, Occ: Part time Assistant/Village Revenue Officer, MirazapurVillage,R/oH.No.4-32, Munnurukapugally, Mirzapur Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad District.

...Accused Officer No. 1

2. Sri Gunti Srinivas S/o Gangaiah, 40 Years, Occ: Agriculture & Private Assistant to AO1 R/o Mirzapur Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad District. … Accused No.2

This case is coming for final hearing on 29-1-2018in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Jangaiah, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till today, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad

Range, Nizamabad, filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 2 prosecute him for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against accused no. 2 for the offence u/s. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused Officer No. 1 was working as Part

Time Assistant/Village Revenue Officer, Mirjapur Village, Nizamabad

District, and by virtue of post held by him, he was a public servant within the meaning of Sec.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused No.2 was working as Private Assistant with AO1.

3.The further case of the prosecution is that, father of complainant Sri Vennam Rama Krishna(PW1), during his life time, acquired Ac.5.20 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.No. 587 in the limits of Mirzapur Village, Birkur Mandal and after his death, it was divided in between PW1 and his brothers and in the partition PW1 got Ac.1.20 guntas of land and eversince PW1 has been cultivating in the said land got towards his share by paying taxes to the

Government. While so, on 28-1-2009 PW1 approached AO1 with an application to mutate the said land in his name and issue pattedar pass book and title deed and AO1 asked him to come after one week. Accordingly, PW1 approached AO1 and at that time AO1 demanded him to pay Rs.2,500/- as bribe to do his work, when PW1 expressed his inability to pay such amount, AO1 reduced the bribe to

Rs.2,100/-. Thereafter, PW1 met AO1 for his work several times 3 but, AO1 did not carry out his work. Finally, on 21-2-2009 PW1 met

AO1 and requested him to do his work, on that, AO1 asked PW1 to come along with demanded bribe of Rs.2100/- to his house on 26-2- 2009 and collect his pattedar pass book and title deed and PW1 reluctantly agreed but unwilling to give the bribe, he approached

Dy.Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Nizamabad, lodged complaint on 24-2-2009. Dy.Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Nizamabad, after due verification of the complaint and on conducting discrete enquiries through his Inspector-PW7 registered the complaint as a case in Cr.No.7/ACB-NZB/2009 u/s.7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, on 26-02-2009 at 6.00 AM and took up investigation.

4.It is further case of the prosecution that, during the course of investigation Dy.Superintendent of Police N.S.Karunanidhi, Anti

Corruption Bureau, secured mediators PW2 and LW3-Radha Krishna, conducted pre trap proceedings under Ex.P3 in his office, got applied phenolphthalein powder to currency notes of Rs.2,100/- produced by complainant-PW1, and instructed him to pay bribe to accused only on his demand and not otherwise and further instructed him to give signal by wiping his face with towel in case, accused demands and accepts the bribe from him and after that he demonstrated phenolphthalein test and explained significance of phenolphthalein test to complainant-PW1 and mediators and after completion of pre trap proceedings, Dy.Superintendent of Police, 4 along with mediators and staff and PW1 proceeded to the house of

AO1 situated at Mirjapur village, allowed PW1 to go to the house of

AO1 with proposed bribe amount of Rs.2100/- and meet the accused by reiterating the earlier instructions. Accordingly, PW1 entered into the house of AO1 and on demand by AO1 he gave phenolphthalein treated notes to AO1 and AO1 received the same with his right hand and handed over the same to A2 to count the same and keep with him for safe custody. Accordingly, A2 took the same and counted and kept in his shirt pocket, then PW1 came out and relayed pre arranged signal and on observing signal,

Dy.Superintendent of Police with trap party members rushed into house of AO1, caught AO1 red handed and conducted phenolphthalein test to both hand fingers of AO1, on doing so, both hand fingers of AO1 turned pink. When questioned about tainted amount AO1 revealed that, he gave the amount to A2 for safe custody,thenDy.SuperintendentofPoliceconducted phenolphthalein test to the hand fingers of A2, on doing so they turned pink colour, later he seized tainted amount from the shirt pocket of A2 and contacted portion of shirt pocket of A2 was also subjected to chemical test, it was also yielded positive result, then,

Dy.Superintendent of Police seized official favour documents i.e., mutation proceedings, pattedar pass book and title deed books from the house of AO1.

5

5.Thereafter Dy.Superintendent of Police effected arrested of

AO1 and A2 and produced them before the Court for remand.

Later, he handed over further investigation to PW7-Inspector to complete investigation and as AO1 retired from service and as A2 was Private Assistant of AO1 no sanction was obtained, and on completion of investigation PW7 filed charge sheet against the AO1 for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and against A2 for the offence u/s. 12 of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

6.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 against the Accused Officer No.1 and u/s. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A2 on 26-04-2010.

7.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

8.The Learned Predecessor of this Court, examined the accused

No.1 & 2 u/s. 239 Cr.P.C., on 18-06-2012,the accused denied the offences, hence charges u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against accused Officer No.1 and u/s. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Accused

No. 2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6

9.In order to prove the guilt prosecution cited (12) witnesses but, examined only (7) witnesses. Vennam Rama Krishna-PW1 is the defacto-complainant who stated about approaching accused for mutation and pattedar pass books in his name and demand by accused to pay Rs.2,500/- as bribe to do his work and on his request. AO1, reduced the same to Rs.2,100/- but, unwilling to give bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar, lodged complaint Ex.P1. He also stated about his participation in pre trap proceedings and following with Dy.Superintendent of Police in the trap proceedings etc.

10.PW2-G.Sharath Babu, is said to be mediator stated about his participation in trap proceedings along with Dy.Superintendent of

Police and Anti Corruption Bureau officials. He stated about the verification of the complaint with PW1, apprehension of accused and conducting phenolphthalein test, seizure of tainted amount of

Rs.2,100/- and connected documents Ex.P4 to P6 during post trap proceedings.

11.PW3-Vennam Raghavendra Rao, brother of PW1 stated that his father acquired Ac.5.20 guntas during his life time and after his death himself, PW1 and other brother Appa Rao(LW6) partitioned the same in which, he got Ac.2.20 guntas and his brother LW6-Appa Rao got Ac.2.20 guntas and remaining extent of Ac.1.20 guntas fell to 7 the share of PW1. Later, his name and brother Appa Rao's name was mutated in revenue records, then PW1 also applied for mutation, at that time AO1 demanded bribe from PW1 to effect mutation on that galata took place between PW1 and AO1, as such,

PW1 approached ACB and ACB trapped AO1 and A2.

12.PW4-K.Venkataiah, Dy.Tahasildar, Birkur Mandal stated that

AO1 worked as part time worker / Village Revenue Officer at

Mirzapur village. During his tenure and on 24-10-2008 AO1 came to the office and submitted application of PW1 along with connected documents for issuance of pattedar pass books and he verified the said application and issued proceedings after conducting necessary enquiries and also delivered Ex.P4 to P6 Mutation Proceedings, pattedar pass books, and title deed in favour of PW1 with instructions to deliver the same to PW1 and AO1 has to deliver the same to PW1 and obtain his acknowledgment in Form No. 17. Then he has to enter the same in pahanies but, AO1 has not produced any acknowledgment to that effect and subsequently he came to know that AO1 was trapped by ACB.

13.PW5-K.Swarna Latha, Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, she stated about the procedure for issuance of mutation orders by

Tahasildar. She stated that in this case Ex.P4 to P6 proceedings and pattedar pass books and title deeds were handed over to concerned 8

Village Revenue Officer to serve on the party and subsequently she came to know that AO1 was trapped by Anti Corruption Bureau.

14.PW6-K.Seetharamulu, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, stated in his evidence that Dy.Superintendent of Police

N.S.Karunanidhi received complaint Ex.P1, registered FIR, laid trap, caught hold the accused red handed in the trap proceedings but after filing of charge sheet N.S.Karunanidhi-LW9 died. He accompanied N.S.Karunanidhi-LW9 during pre and post trap proceedings and witnessed trap proceedings conducted by

N.S.Karunanidhi, Dy.Superintendent of Police and stated about the trap proceedings conducted by Dy.Superintendent of Police

Karunanidhi on that day.

15.PW7-K.Saidulu, Inspector of Police stated about conducting discrete enquiries as per the instructions of Dy.Superintendent of

Police N.S.Karunanidhi-LW8 and accompanying him in the trap proceedings, conducting investigation and filing charge sheet.

16. Prosecution did not examine another mediator LW3-Radha

Krishna and LW6-Appa Rao, brother of PW1, LW8-Spl.Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, who recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

Dy.Superintendent of Police N.S.Karunanidhi and Inspector-

Mallikarjun who participated in the trap died soon after filing of charge sheet, hence they could not be examined.

9

17.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P1 to P12 and MO's.1 to 10 are marked.

18.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him were recorded separately.

19.Accused Officer No.1 filed written statement denying the demand and acceptance of bribe to issue pattedar pass book and title deed and on the date of trap those mutation proceedings, pattedar pass books and title deeds were not with him. In this case,

PW1 already collected pattedar pass books and title deeds along with his brothers, hence the question of demand and acceptance does not arise. The resultant solution in Mos 5 to 9 are not in pink colour.

Dy.Superintendent of Police is the Trap Laying Officer, he was not examined, same is fatal, hence trap events are not proved. He never received tainted amount from PW1, never handed over the same to A2 for safe custody, and all the allegations leveled against him are not proved, hence sought for acquittal.

20.Accused No. 2 filed written statement stating that, he had no acquaintance with A1 and did not receive any amount from AO1 but

Anti Corruption Bureau officials has shown false recovery from him on that day, he went to the office cum residence of AO1 along with 10

Ganta Nageshwar Rao and Dayyala Ramulu but did not receive any amount from AO1, chemical test conducted to his hand fingers did not change any colour. He is totally innocent, hence prayed the

Court to acquit him from the charge.

21.Heard arguments of Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti

Corruption Bureau and Learned counsel for accused. Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau also filed memo of citations.

22.Now, the points for determination are:

i) Whether the Accused No.1, had demanded and accepted Rs.2,100/- from complainant-PW1-Vennam Rama Krishna as gratification other than legal remuneration to issue pattedar pass book and title deed?

ii)Whether Accused No. 2 abetted AO1 in demanding and accepting the gratification of Rs.2,100/- from PW1?

iii) Whether, PW1 already taken pattedar pass books and title deed directly from Tahasildar office and no oficial favour is pending with AO1 as on date of trap?

iv) Whether the accused by corrupt and illegal means accepted Rs.2,100/- from PW1 by abusing his official position, thereby, committed criminal misconduct?

v) Whether prosecution proved the guilt against accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

11

POINT NO. i & ii:

23.There is no dispute that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused no.1 was working as Village Revenue Officer at Mirzapur

Village, Birkur Mandal of Nizamabad District, therefore, hence he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that A2 is Private Assistant of AO1, who collected the bribe from AO1 and kept with him but, he disputed the said fact, stated that he never worked as Private Assistant to AO1. However, during post trap proceedings-Ex.P7, AO2 admitted that he is working as Private

Assistant before AO1 on monthly amount of Rs.800/-. Though version given by AO2, in post trap proceedings is not a substantive evidence but apprehension of A2 at the scene of offence, positive results of phenolphthalein tests to his hand fingers and also to shirt pocket from which, tainted amount was seized shows his complicity in the offence and allegation of the prosecution that he is private

Assistant of AO1 is only appears to be correct.

DEMAND & ACCEPTANCE:

24.It is simple and specific case of the prosecution that, father of

PW1 originally acquired Ac.5.20 guntas of land during his life time and after his death, it was partitioned by PW1 and his brothers. In the partition, PW1 got Ac.1.20 guntas, the other brothers PW3 and another brother-Appa Rao(LW6) got Ac.2.20 guntas each and they got mutated their names in the revenue records and also obtained 12 pattedar pass book and title deed separately. But PW1 did not apply along with them and he applied to the Tahasildar in the month of

October, 2008, to mutate his share of land got in the partition in his name and to issue pattedar pass book and title deed and approached

AO1, who was Village Revenue Officer of Mirzapur village but, AO1 demanded him to pay Rs.2,500/- and when PW1 expressed inability,

AO1 reduced bribe to Rs.2,100/- and asked him to pay the same on 26-2-2009. However, unwilling go give bribe PW1 approached ACB on 24-2-2009 and lodged Ex.P1 complaint and ACB registered the case and caught AO1 red handed and seized tainted amount from

A2.

25.AO1 took several inconsistent pleas, as in the post trap proceedings, he admitted demand and acceptance of Rs.2,100/- from PW1. In the written statement he took plea that he was not in possession of mutation proceedings or pattedar pass books of PW1, since PW1 already collected the same from the Tahasildar directly, hence the question of demand does not arise. This statement appears to be false, because Ex.P4 to P6 i.e., the mutation proceedings, pattedar pass book and title deed of PW1 was seized from the house of AO1 during post trap proceedings. If really, PW1 already received his pass books what is the necessity for him to approach Anti Corruption Bureau? Answer is No. While, cross examining PW1 accused took another plea stating that though, he did not demand bribe from PW1 but, PW1 kept the amount in his 13 hands stating that earlier he obtained money from his brothers while mutating their names in the pattedar pass books, but this suggestion was denied. Unless, there is demand, nobody will pay the amount voluntarily now- a-days.

26.The other suggestion given to PW1 that, though AO1 refused to receive it and returned but, PW1 forcibly thrusted the amount in the shirt pocket of A2, this suggestion was also denied and this theory is also not believable. PW1 who is an old man aged 66 years and an agriculturist hails from remote village Mylaramclearly stated the demand of bribe by the accused to issue his pattedar pass books and to extract money, AO1 also paid mischief stating that the original application given by PW1 was misplaced and took another application to drag the matter for some more time and even after waiting for couple of months by PW1 AO1 did not deliver the pattedar pass books of PW1 and insisted him to pay the bribe by fixing date on 26-2-2009. PW1 clearly stated the said aspect in his chief examination and also stated on his request, AO1 reduced the bribe from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.2,100/- and asked him to come with the money on 26-2-2009, but, PW1 who is an old man had some strong notions against corruption, unwilling to give the bribe, approached

Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 also stated his participation in pre trap proceedings and following

Dy.Superintendent of Police to the house of accused situated at

Mirzapur and also stated further demand, by accused when he 14 entered into his house and only on his demand he gave phenolphthalein treated notes of Rs.2,100/- to Accused No.1 and relayed pre arranged signal by wiping his face with towel.

27. It is suggested to PW1 in the cross-examination that, AO1 never demanded bribe of Rs.2,500/- and he never reduced bribe to

Rs.2,100/- to issue pattedar pass book but this suggestion was denied. In the entire cross-examination, except one discrepancy that PW1 denied his signature in 164 Cr.P.C statement confronted to him no other improbabilities or infirmities elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. It appears that, in the complaint and in the chief examination PW1 signed in English whereas in 164 Cr.P.C statement PW1 signed in Telugu and the

Learned Senior Counsel for accused noticing those different style of signatures of PW1 and cleverly confronted the 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 which was signed in Telugu, PW1 out of anxiety in the witness box, denied his own signature in the 164 Cr.P.C statement.

However, the Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor clarified in the re- examination that, he gave statement before the Magistrate,

Nizamabad soon after the trap. So, probably out of curiosity and anxiety this old man denied his own signature in 164 Cr.P.C statement put in different style and in different language may be out of confusion, but on this simple infirmity, entire case of the prosecution can not be rejected or disbelieved.

15

28.The evidence of complainant-PW1 is not at all shaken in so far as demand of bribe by AO1 is concerned. Seizure of official favour documents i.e., Ex.P4 to P6 from the house of accused, positive results of phenolphthalein tests and seizure of tainted amount from his Private Assistant-A2 during trap are the other circumstances to believe demand on the part of accused AO1.

29.Further, PW1 also avouched the demand by AO1 before the mediators during the pre trap proceedings. Mediators PW2 also asserted the said fact in his evidence. The Investigation officer PW6, who accompanied Dy.Superintendent of Police Karunanidhi, during entire trap proceedings also asserted the said fact in his evidence.

So, all these aspects cumulatively prove the demand on the part of accused to deliver his pattedar pass book and title deed.

ACCEPTANCE:

30.PW1 clearly stated in his evidence that on demand by AO1, he handed over phenolphthalein treated notes of Rs.2,100/- to him by taking the same from his shirt pocket and AO1 received the same with his right hand and handed over the same to A2 with a direction to count the same and keep with him. Mediator-PW2 clearly stated that tainted amount of Rs.2,100/- was seized from the shirt pocket of A2. Phenolphthalein test is conducted to the hand fingers of AO1, 16 on doing so, both right and left hand fingers wash turned into pink colour. Phenolphthalein test conducted to the hand fingers of A2, on doing so, both right and left hand fingers wash also turned into pink colour. Dy.Superintendent of Police also subjected the contacted portion of shirt pocket of A2 to phenolphthalein test, on doing so, it was also yielded positive result. All these aspects clearly show the voluntary acceptance by AO1 and gave it to A2 to keep the same with him after counting, for safe custody and A2 also took the same, counted the amount with both hands and kept in his shirt pocket, thereby be aids AO1 in committing the offence.

31.Contention of accused that without demand, PW1 kept tainted amount in his hand is not believable. If he would not have accepted it, he would have thrown it away but handing over the same to his

Private Assistant-A2, and keeping with him till arrival of Anti

Corruption Bureau officials indicates the acceptance on the part of the AO1, hence I hold that prosecution proved the acceptance of bribe by AO1 with the help of his Assistant-A2.

RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT:

32.PW1-Complainant clearly stated that, on demand by AO1, he handed over Rs.2,100/- to him and AO1 received the same with his right hand and handed over the same to A2, who was present by his side to count the same and keep with him and accordingly A2 took the amount from AO1 and counted the same with his both hands and 17 kept in his shirt pocket. Then he went outside and relayed pre arranged signal and on observing signal, Dy.Superintendent of Police and trap party members rushed into the house of AO1 and on questioning AO1 about the tainted amount after conducting phenolphthalein tests, AO1 revealed that he handed over the amount to A2, then Dy.Superintendent of Police rightly conducted phenolphthalein test to hand fingers of A2, there upon he questioned

A2, about the tainted amount and then A2 took out the currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and placed on the table, then

Dy.Superintendent of Police asked one of the mediators to verify the currency note numbers and denomination and on verification of the numbers with the currency note numbers which were already noted in pre trap proceedings, show both of them are tallied. Then

Dy.Superintendent of Police seized tainted amount of Rs.2,100/- from the accused in the presence of mediators. PW1 clearly stated the recovery of tainted amount from the possession of A2.

33.To believe the thrusting theory and accused did not examine any witnesses. Though admittedly, some persons were also present in the house of AO1 and their names were also referred by A2 in his written statement as Ganta Nageshwar Rao and Dayyala Ramulu but, they were not examined by the accused to believe their thrusting theory, therefore thrusting theory advanced by accused is not proved. Even in the post trap proceedings no plausible explanation was given by AO1 and A2. Both AO1 and A2 also authenticated the 18 recitals of Ex.P7-Post Trap Proceedings by signing the same. No specific theory was advanced by accused during post trap proceedings atleast to believe their thrusting theory at the trial.

34.Evidence of mediator was fully corroborated by investigation officer-PW6-Inspector, who accompanied Dy.Superintendent of Police and witnessed the trap proceedings by assisting Dy.Superintendent of Police clearly stated about the recovery of tainted amount from the possession of A2, who was sitting by the side of AO1 and on enquiry in the post trap proceedings A2 clearly revealed that, he was working as private assistant to AO1 on the salary of Rs.800/-. AO2 simply denied the case of the prosecution case, but for what purpose he was present in the house of AO1 at that time. Whether his work if any is pending with AO1 on that day or not, is not at all stated to believe his version, therefore, taking into consideration of evidence of PW1 coupled with mediator-PW2 and Investigation

Officer-PW6, I hold that, prosecution proved recovery of tainted amount from the possession of Accused beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT NO.iii:

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

35. Accused took plea in the written statement that, PW1 already taken away mutation proceedings, pattedar pass books directly from

Tahasildar office and no official favour is pending with him was 19 falsified by recovery of Ex.P4 to P6 from his house during post trap proceedings. If pass books of PW1 was already recovered what is the necessity to him to go around AO1, what is the necessity to thrust the bribe in the hands of accused, so, contention of accused that, no official favour of PW1 is pending with him, is not correct.

36.The Learned defence counsel tried to take advantage of mischief committed by AO1 in this case by saying that, asper complaint, PW1 submitted application to AO1 on 28-1-2009 whereas

Ex.P4 Mutation proceedings were already issued by the then

Tahasildar on 24-11-2008 and the Tahasildar was examined as PW4 but PW1 explained in his evidence that though in the month of

October 2008 he gave application to AO1 but when he approached

AO1, he stated that his original application was mis placed and asked him to give another application and accordingly PW1 gave another application but the record reveals that AO1 knowing fully well that

Tahasildar, already issued proceedings on first application given by

PW1, he suppressed the same and to extract bribe from PW1, he stated that, his first application was misplaced and to get sometime to accomplish his plan he asked PW1 to give another application.

However, the factum of misplacement of earlier application was not mentioned by PW1 in his complaint, which is not material since, complaint is not an encyclopedia, it need not contain all the details but the misplacements, of his earlier application was stated by PW1 to ACB officials in 161 Cr.P.C statement, and also in 164 Cr.P.C 20 statement given before Magistrate and also in his evidence and on this discrepancy which was created by accused during the course of trial, lot of cross examination was made and PW1 expressed his ignorance about the Ex.P4-proceedings issued by PW4 on 24-11-2008. Tahasildar-PW4 clearly stated that after receipt of report from Village Revenue Officer-AO1, he signed Ex.P4- proceedings on 24-11-2008. The said fact was also mentioned in Ex.P4 proceedings. In the reference, application of PW1 was also mentioned though, signature of AO1 is not there in Ex.P4 in token of receipt of Ex.P4 proceedings but, Ex.P5 pattedar pass book and P6 title deed contain signature of AO1. So definitely these books are with AO1 only. It appears from record that AO1 after receiving the same without delivering the same to PW1 kept with him to extract bribe from PW1.

37.There was also another minor discrepancy elicited by Learned defence counsel that, in the pattedar pass book at the place of thumb mark of applicant a paper slip was affixed, in the title deed, thumb impression was affixed, at the place of thumb impression/signature of applicant. However, PW1 denied the said thumb mark, without delivering those books, there is no possibility to affix thumb mark by PW1. However, these discrepancies which were created by revenue people are not material and will not affect the main case of the prosecution. For internal circulation of proceedings, files or pattedar pass books, generally, no registers are 21 being maintained in any Revenue Office. Only on trust and confidence the internal circulation of files are being processed. It is not at all practicable to obtain signatures of subordinate staff by

Mandal Revenue Officer for each and every paper delivered to them for disbursement of the same to the concerned applicants or vice- versa. If really, the pattedar pass books are delivered to PW1 his signature will be there in form No. 17, but either parties did not produce the same since the accused took specific plea that, PW1 already took title deed pattedar pass books from Tahasildar office, it is his duty to prove by summoning the said register or form no. 17 but, no such steps have been taken by AO1 to believe his strange plea. The Tahasildar-PW4 clearly stated that, he handed over

Ex.P4 to P6 to AO1 and it is for AO1 to obtain signature of PW1 in form No. 17 and later AO1 has to enter the same in the pahanies but, in this case AO1 did not produce any acknowledgement to that effect till the date of trap which clearly shows that by keeping the pattedar pass books of PW1 with him, AO1 made the demand and ultimately caught red handed by ACB on demand and acceptance of bribe from PW1, hence, taking into consideration of evidence of

Pw4-Tahasildar coupled with evidence of PW1, PW2 and Investigation

Officer-PW6, I hold that, prosecution proved that official favour is pending with the AO1 as on the date of trap.

POINT NO.iv:

22

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

38.Mediator-PW2, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau-PW6, who accompanied DSP during trap proceedings clearly stated that, soon after receipt of pre arranged signal from PW1, they rushed into the house of AO1 and DSP conducted phenolphthalein test to the both hand fingers of AO1 and on doing so, both right and left hand fingers wash of AO1 turned into pink colour. Likewise, Dy Superintendent of Police also conducted phenolphthalein test to the both hand fingers of A2, who collected bribe from AO1 for safe custody and on doing so, both right and left hand fingers of A2 also turned pink and after seizure of tainted amount from the shirt pocket of A2 DSP also subjected the contacted portion of shirt pocket of A2 to phenolphthalein test on doing so it was also yielded positive result.

So, positive results of phenolphthalein test is one of the circumstances and corroborative piece of evidence in believing the prosecution case. The discrepancy pointed out by the Learned defence counsel that at present, solutions in the glass bottles in which resultant solutions was preserved is not in pink colour, it appears that it may be due to long time gap of nine years in between date of seizure and date of recording evidence of mediator-

PW2, since phenolphthalein powder is not concentrated chemical, therefore, we can not except same colour for years together. On the other hand, accused also authenticated results of the tests incorporated in Ex.P7 Post trap proceedings by signing those proceedings. Now they can not dispute the colour of the solutions if 23 really they have any objection that there were no phenolphthalein particles at all in the said solution they can sent the same to the chemical analysis to prove their contention, but no such steps have been taken by them.

39.Further, not only hand washes of AO1 and A2 and contacted portion of shirt pocket of A2 also not in pink, but in Sukumaran's case, resultant solution of contacted portion remained pink colour, hence the ratio in Sukumaran's case is not applicable to this case.

PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 (1) OF PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND U/S.114(a) OF INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT:

40.In this case on hand, prosecution has proved demand by examining complainant who fully supported prosecution case on all material aspects and proved recovery by examining mediator, who is an independent person who also fully supported the prosecution case. Prosecution also proved the recovery by examining

Tahasildar-PW4, who also supported prosecution case, therefore, prosecution proved initial burden and entitle to claim mandatory presumption u/s.20(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also factual presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since amount was recovered from the possession of accused, it is for them to prove under what circumstances, the amount was came into their possession but accused failed to give any plausible explanation. The 24 inconsistent pleas taken by him i.e., thrusting theory is not proved and ultimately accused failed to rebut the said presumption created against them under law.

DEFENCE THEORY:

41.Admittedly, during post trap proceedings, accused did not take any specific defence theory and during the course of trial while cross examining PW1 also accused did not attribute any motive for PW1 to give false complaint against him except thrusting theory it was also not probabalized by the accused. First of all, to thrust an amount into the hands of a public servant, there must be some motive for complainant but, no such motive was attributed by PW1 while cross examining him, so, absolutely there is no truth in the thrusting theory advanced by accused.

42. While cross examining PW3, who is brother of PW1, Learned defence counsel elicited that a quarrel took place between PW1 and

Accused No.1 during period when an application for mutation was given to the Tahasildar by PW1 and argued that with that grudge,

PW1 implicated accused in this case is not sustainable in law since, admission only binds a party. PW1 did not make such an admission.

Hence, admission by the third party i.e., PW3 subsequently developed during the course of trial can not be given any effect.

Even otherwise, these petty quarrels are natural and common when complainants approach public servants for their works and on refusal 25 or on illegal demand by public servants only, these complainant are forced to approach Anti Corruption Bureau, hence these natural happenings can not be branded as a serious motive and on these petty grounds entire trap can not be suspected as illegal. Though, accused may not make demand from PW3 to do his work for some reason or other and it can not be assumed that he did not demand

PW1 also to do his work, so the admissions culled out from the evidence of PW3, will not give any help to the accused in this case.

43.I already stated above, when the accused has taken a thrusting theory during trial it is incumbent upon them to probabalize the said theory either eliciting clear admissions from

PW1 or by letting probable evidence. But, accused did not examine any witnesses to prove dangerous thrusting theory which was denied by PW1. The other alternative plea taken while cross examining

PW1, that, PW1 already taken away pattedar pass books and title deeds from the Tahasildar office directly but, to implicate them he gave false case to ACB found to be false and not tenable. So from the foregoing discussion, I find no substance in any one of the pleas taken by the accused in the above case and all of them are inconsistent and self contradictory and there is no consistency in it and ultimately it suggests that there is no truth in any one of the theories advanced by accused. It appears that to escape from the charges somehow or other, the accused in this case raised all those pleas and ultimately failed to displace the burden shifted on them.

26

MINOR DEFECTS IN THE INVESTIGATION:

44.Admittedly, DSP Karunanidhi who registered First Information

Report and laid trap died after filing charge sheet, therefore, there is no scope or possibility to prosecution to examine him. The Learned spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau rightly examined

Inspector PW6, who accompanied Dy. Superintendent of Police and observed all the trap proceedings and he deposed all the trap incidents in a sequence manner one by one is sufficient to prove the trap laid by DSP as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ajit Kumar Vasantlal Zaveri Vs. State of Gujarat 1992 AIR (SC)-)-2064, 1993-SCC Suppl-482, in this decision it was held, though main Investigation Officer has not been examined the evidence given by other officers who accompanied the main

Investigation Officer, can be relied by the prosecution to prove the trap incident.

45.Investigation Officer further clarified that, though he have no personal knowledge about the conversation between accused and

Dy.Superintendent of Police but he observed the trap proceedings conducted by Dy.Superintendent of Police. PW6-Final Investigation

Officer, who filed charge sheet and conducted discrete enquiries stated clearly in his evidence that, he conducted discrete enquiries 27 as per the instructions of Dy.Superintendent of Police and submitted the same to Dy.Superintendent of Police on 26-2-2009. The endorsement made by him on the back of the complaint to conduct discrete enquiry was also marked as Ex.P11. So, all these formalities before laying of trap was observed in this case and there were no any procedural lapses or irregularities committed by

Dy.Superintendent of Police in this case to disbelieve entire trap proceedings.

46.The other defect pointed out by Learned defence counsel for non seizure of application submitted by PW1 for mutation since mutation proceedings itself was seized by Dy.Superintendent of

Police, as such he might have not seized the application, but in these type serious cases, application of PW1 also would have been seized by Dy.Superintendent of Police but he omitted to seize the said application probably by oversight or thinking as it is not necessary, in view of Ex.P4 mutation proceedings issued by Tahasildar in which application of PW1 was mentioned in the reference. So, the defects pointed out by the Learned defence counsel mentioned above are not so serious, they are only minor defects, which will not affect the main core of the prosecution as per decision cited by Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau, reported in 2006(1)

ALD (Crl.) SC 212. He also relied on another decision reported in

Sukhdev Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8

supreme Court Cases 86.

28 “a) Criminal Trial – appreciation of evidence

Contradictions / inconsistencies/exaggerations / embellishments – minor variations in prosecution evidence –

Probative value of such evidence and acceptability thereof –

Held, once the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same – If the evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in evidence – Despite minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to appellants under S.302 Appeal against conviction – conviction under Sec.302 upheld despite minor variations in prosecution evidence – Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.3 and 155 – Criminal

Procedure Code 1973., S.162.

b) Criminal Trial – Infirmities /Lapses / Omissions – lapses – non- production of seizure list – Lapses, when do not affect the prosecution case – held, non-production of seizure list is undoubtedly, a lapse on the part of the prosecution – however, if there exists credible evidence on record, such a lapse would not affect the prosecution case – lapses, if do not have the effect of causing any prejudice to the accused, cannot be used to impeach the testimony of eyewitnesses –

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.102(3) – Non -production of seizure list, held, would not affect the prosecution case.

CASE LAW:

47.Accused relied only on one decision reported in C.Sukumaran

Vs. State of Kerala (2015 CrlLJ 1715) for not retaining the same colour of resultant solution, in which, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken one of the grounds for acquitting the accused in the said case but not solely on that ground accused was given benefit of doubt.

29

Complainant turned hostile, discrepancy regarding tainted amount, another person, working in the Police Station with the similar name of accused and though hand washes of accused did not retain pink, but resultant solution of contacted portion of shirt pocket retains pink colour, but in this case, solutions in all bottles did not retain pink, hence the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

48.Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau referred several decisions in the memo filed along with written arguments, though all the decisions may not be applicable but, the ratio laid down in D.Velayutham Vs. State Represented by

Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Chennai in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 105 wherein it is held

Trap witnesses – not to be treated on par with accomplice and there evidence is on a higher pedestal –

Corroboration is not mandatory in each and every case.

In Hazari lal Vs Delhi administration reported in AIR 1980 SC 873 wherein it was held “ Recovery of notes from accused, raises presumption u/s 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act and u/s.20(1) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

In State Vs. Jhan chand reported in 1984 Crl.J.NOC (104)

Delhi wherein it was held 30

That the question as to the capacity of accused to do favour or disfavour at the time of demand of bribe, and the fact that he was not in a position to show any favour, is of no consequence.

In Sham Swarup Bhatnagar Vs. The state reported in 1983 (1) Crimes - 77

Even One truthful witness is sufficient to convict a person under Prevention of Corruption Act if tainted money is recovered.

In M.S.Varaprasad Vs. Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad 2014(1) ALD (Crl) 429 AP wherein it was held

Theory advanced by accused, during the course of trial was not stated spontaneously in the post trap proceedings is an afterthought and can not be believed.

InBilla Nagal Sharief Vs State of A.P. reported in 2011 (1) ALT Crl. 144 SC

Plea of thrusting the money into accused pocket not to be believed if it did not fit into the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

And In Syed Abdul Moiz Vs State of A.P. reported in 2013 (1) ALD (Crl) 158 wherein it was held

Failure of accused to discharge his burden, hence his defence theory can be rejected, are only applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

31

CONCLUSION:

49. From the forgoing discussion, on point No.1 to 5 and taking into consideration evidence of Pws 1 to 7 coupled with Ex.P1 to P12 and Mos 1 to 10, I hold that, prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of gratification of Rs.2,100/- by the accused from complainant by examining complainant-PW1, who supported prosecution on material points, recovery was proved by examining

Mediator-PW2 who fully supported prosecution case. Prosecution also proved pendency of official favour with accused by examining

Dy.Tahasildar-PW4 and by seizing original documents Ex.P4 to P6 documents from the possession of accused, phenolphthalein test conducted to both right and left hand fingers of accused and contacted portion of shirt pocket of A2 from where tainted amount was seized, also yielded positive result, therefore, mandatory presumption u/s. 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and factual presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 was drawn against the accused in this case but, accused failed to rebut the said presumption by letting probable defence, since he did not examine any witnesses and did not mark any documents on his side to displace the presumption thereby, it is proved beyond doubt that, amount of Rs.2,100/- recovered from the possession of accused was obtained by accused from Complainant-PW1, as gratification other than legal remuneration, by illegal and corrupt means by abusing his official position, therefore, the AO1 is found guilty for both the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of 32

Corruption Act, 1988, and liable for conviction u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and A2 is found guilty for the offence u/s.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is liable for conviction accordingly.

50.AO1 was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim). AO1 stated that, he is aged 71 years and retired from service. He got wife and two sons and sons are doing private jobs. He further stated that he is suffering with Blood Pressure, Diabetes and problem in his eye sight.

His wife is psychiatric patient and taking continuous treatment. He has to look after his sickly wife and children and thereby he requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him.

A2 was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim). A2 stated that, he is aged 51 years. He got wife, two daughters and son and they are prosecuting their studies. He further stated he sustained fracture to his right hand and right leg in the accident and entire family is depending upon him and thereby he requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him but the offences proved against Accused are socio-economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the

Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type 33 of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, are also can not extended in these type of cases. When once, offences under

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused, after full pledged trial are proved, accused shall be dealt deterrently. The general and common grounds put forth by Accused can't form basis to escape from compulsory imprisonment and fine hence, lenient view is not taken in this case.

51.In the result, AO1 is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted u/s. 248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to suffer

Rigorous Imprisonment for One year and shall pay a fine of

Rs.2,500/- for the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and

AO1 is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for

One year and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, for the offence u/s.

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Accused no.2 is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted u/s.

248(2)Cr.P.C., and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 34

Six Months and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable u/s. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against AO1 shall run concurrently.

Remand period undergone by AO1 & A2, shall be set off u/s.

428 Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by A1 is Rs.2,500/- + Rs.2,500/- =

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and by A2 is Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only). Gross total is

Rs.7,500/-.

MO1 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.2,100/- is ordered to be returned to Complainant-PW1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the

Government Treasury and rest of the material objects Mos2 to 10 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of February, 2018.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

35

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1Vennam Rama Krishna

PW2 G.Sharath Babu, Junior Asst.O/o DM & HO, Nizamabad.

PW3 Vennam Raghavendra Rao

PW4 K.VenkaTAIAH, Dy.Tahasildar

PW5 K.Swarnalatha, Revenue Divisional Officer.

PW6K.Seetharamulu, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad

PW7K.Saidulu, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range

FOR THE DEFENCE - NIL -

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P124-02-2009 Complaint given by PW1

Ex.P224-02-2009 Copy of complaint

Ex.P3 26-02-2009Pre Trap Proceedings.

Ex.P4 24-11-2008Proceedings of Tahasildar

Ex.P5---Attested Copy of Pattedar pass book

Ex.P6---Attested copy of title deed 36

Ex.P7 26-02-2009Post Trap Proceedings

Ex.P826-02-2009Rough sketch of scene

Ex.P926-02-2009Search List

Ex.P1026-02-2009First Information Report

Ex.P1124-02-2009Endorsement of Inspector of Police, ACB, Nizamabad on Ex.P1.

Ex.P1231-7-2007Functions of Village Revenue Officer in G.O.Ms.No.1059

FOR THE DEFENCE - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1Tainted amount of Rs.2,100/-.

MO2Sealed cover containing the sample powder of phenolphthalein used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO3Sealed cover containing the sample powder of sodium carbonate used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO4Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used during 37 post trap proceedings.

MO5 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of right hand wash of accused No.2.

MO6Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of left hand wash of accused No.2.

MO7 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of right hand wash of accused No.1.

MO8Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of left hand wash of accused No.1.

MO9 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of wearing shirt pocket of A2

MO10Light Yellow and blue colour shirt of A2.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB

CASES : AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : SRI P. BHASKARA RAO, Spl.Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

K A R I M N A G A R.

Dated this the 15 th day of February, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No. 133 of 2015

Between:

The State through Anti-Corruption Bureau, through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad. … Complainant AND

Sri Bujjannagari Venugopal S/o Rangaiah, 56 Years, Occ: Asst.Sub Inspector of Police, Bibipet Police Station, Nizamabad District, R/o H.no. 10-1031, Indranagar Colony, Nizamabad.

...Accused Officer

This case is coming for final hearing on 5-2-2018in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Jangaiah, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till today, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad

Range, Nizamabad, filed charge sheet against the Accused to prosecute him for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused was working as Asst.Sub Inspector of Police, Bibipet Police Station, Nizamabad District, and by virtue of post held by him, he was a public servant within the meaning of

Sec.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.It is further case of the prosecution that, on 21-4-2009, when

PW1 was standing on the road in front of house of one Eshwaraiah, one person by name Kummari Srinivas dashed him with his Motor cycle, due to which, he got fracture on his left knee. On the next day, he went to Bibipet Police Station and lodged report against

Motor Cyclist. On 27-4-2009 Bibipet Police arrested the Motor cyclist

Srinivas and he was remanded to judicial custody. As PW1 got

Abhaya Jeevan Insurance coverage in Andhra Bank and to get

Insurance claim, he approached Bibipet Police station and met accused on 30-4-2008 and requested to issue photostat copies of

First Information Report, wound certificate, on that, accused demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.3,000/- to issue copies of documents. PW1 expressed his inability and returned. Since he got more pain to his leg, to get better treatment, he went to Hyderabad and took treatment and after 10 days he returned to village, and again approached accused on 15-5-2009 and requested him to issue copies of First Information Report, etc., but, accused reiterated earlier demand. However, on request of PW1, accused reduced the 3 bribe to Rs.2,000/- and instructed complainant to bring the same on 18-5-2009 either to Police Station or at the place fixed by him, but, unwilling to give the bribe, he approached Dy.Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Nizamabad, lodged complaint on 15-5-2009 at 2.30 PM. Dy.Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Nizamabad-LW11, after due verification of the complaint and after obtaining permission from the competent authority, registered the complaint as a case in Cr.No.12/ACB-NZB/2009 u/s.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 18-5-2009 at 7.00 AM and took up investigation.

4.It is further case of the prosecution that, during the course of investigation Dy.Superintendent of Police N.S.Karunanidhi, Anti

Corruption Bureau, secured mediators PW2 and LW3-P.Ashok Kumar, conducted pre trap proceedings under Ex.P5 in his office, got applied phenolphthalein powder to currency notes of Rs.2,000/- produced by complainant-PW1, and instructed him to pay bribe to accused only on his demand and not otherwise and further instructed him to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief in case, accused demands and accepts the bribe from him and after that, he demonstrated phenolphthalein test and explained significance of phenolphthalein test to complainant-PW1 and mediators and after completion of pre trap proceedings, Dy.Superintendent of Police, along with mediators and staff and PW1 proceeded to Bibipet Police

Station, met accused and on his demand he gave the demanded 4 amount of Rs.2,000/-, accused received the same with his right hand and kept in his left side pant pocket and he came out and gave pre arranged signal to the trap party and on observing signal,

Dy.Superintendent of Police with trap party members rushed into

Police Station, apprehended the accused, conducted phenolphthalein test to his both hands, on doing so both right and left hand fingers turned into pink colour. Then Dy.Superintendent of Police seized the tainted amount from accused from his left side pant pocket. The contacted portion of left side pant pocket also subjected to phenolphthalein test and it was also yielded positive result. Later

Dy.Superintendent of Police arrested accused and produced him

before the Court for remand and seized the connected Case Diary file

in Cr.No. 23/22009 u/s. 338 IPC along with other documents from

Bibipet Police station. PW9-inspector assisted Dy.Superintendent of

Police in pre trap proceedings. PW10 who completed trap proceedings and after obtaining permission from the competent authority under Ex.P11, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988.

5.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 on 11-02-2011.

5

6.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

7.The Learned Predecessor of this Court, examined the accused u/s. 239 Cr.P.C., on 13-06-2012,the accused denied the offences, hence charges u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove the guilt prosecution cited (14) witnesses but, examined only (10) witnesses. Thimmaiahgari Madhusudhan

Reddy-PW1 is the defacto-complainant stated that he met with accident, went to Bibipet Police Station, lodged report against motor cyclist and after few days he went to Police Station to get photostat copies of First Information Report (First Information Report) etc., to get Insurance claim. At that time, Sub Inspector of Police was on leave and accused who was working as Asst.Sub Inspector of Police was Incharge, asked him to give Rs.2,000/- to issue certified copies of First Information Report etc., but, unwilling to give bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, lodged complaint Ex.P1 on 15-5- 2009, later he attended Anti Corruption Bureau Office, participated in pre trap proceedings and and after completion of pre trap proceedings he followed Dy.Superintendent of Police to Bibipet Police

Station and as per the instructions of Dy.Superintendent of Police he 6 entered into Police Station, met one Home guard Raju at the Police

Station gate and handed over the phenolphthalein treated notes to said Raju with a request to handover the same to accused and bring certified copy of First Information Report etc., since he can not move freely due to fracture to his leg. The said Home guard after receiving amount promised that he will handover the documents on next day morning. From there, he directly went to his house without relaying any signal to ACB raid party and on the next day,

Anti Corruption Bureau officials recorded his statement thereby, PW1 was declared as hostile by Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti

Corruption Bureau.

9.PW2-P.Neal Victor, is said to be mediator stated about his participation in trap proceedings along with Dy.Superintendent of

Police and Anti Corruption Bureau officials. He stated about the verification of the complaint with PW1, and participating in post trap proceedings, apprehension of accused and conducting phenolphthalein test, seizure of tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- and connected documents during post trap proceedings.

10.PW3-S.Raja Narsaiah, Police Constable in Bibipet Police station tated that on 18.5.2009 while he was working at VHF set, PW1 came to Police Station and met accused by entering into his room and came out from the room after 10 minutes stood before room of Sub 7

Inspector, thereafter Anti Corruption Bureau officials apprehended accused and seized Rs.2,000/- from him.

11.PW4-N.Bhoopathi, Home guard, Bibipet Police Station stated that on 18-5-2009 at 11.50 AM he left Police Station to fetch his tiffin box and when he returned to Police Station found a mob at the

Police Station and on enquiry, he came to know that accused was trapped by ACB officials, thereby he was declared as hostile by

Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau.

12.PW5-P.Shankar, Sub Inspector of Police, Bibipet Police Station, stated about the report given by PW1 with regard to the accident and he registered he same as First Information Report in Cr.No. 23 of 2009 u/s. 338 IPC, conducted investigation, while so he wen to

Andhra Pradesh Police Academy for training from 1.5.2009 to 14.5.2009 by handing over charge to accused on 30.4.2009 at 8.00

PM and returned to Bibipet Police Station, took charge on 16-5-2009 and verified the General Diary but accused did not update General

Diary, hence he directed accused to update the General Diary and went to Biknoor to meet the Inspector but, Inspector was not available due to election Bandobasth. On 18.5.2009 at 9.00 AM he went to Nizamabad Head quarters to deposit his empty cartridges and to collect live rounds and while he was returning to Police

Station, he received information from Inspector that, accused was trapped by ACB officials.

8

13.PW6-M.A.Rehman, Inspector of Police stated that in the absence of Sub Inspector of Police, Asst.Sub Inspector of Police, will be Incharge of Station House officer and in this case accused was station house Officer during 1.5.2009 to 14.5.2009 and after returning from training Sub Inspector of Police-PW6 did not take charge from accused and he asked PW6 to take charge immediately and subsequently he came to know that accused was trapped by

Anti Corruption Bureau on 18.5.2009.

14.PW7-G.Sudheer, Sub Manager, Andhra Bank, Bibipet, stated that PW1 has got got Abhaya Jeevan Policy coverage for his

Account 074310027000127.

15.PW8-B.Shiva Shankar, Section Officer, from Home Department,

T.S.Secretariat, Hyderabad stated, the then Prl.Secretary to

Government Sri P.Gautam Kumar, issued sanction proceedings to prosecute the accused vide G.O.Ms.No.169 dt. 25.6.2010 and he identified the signature of Goutham Kumar.

16.PW9-A.Laxminarayana, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, who accompanied Dy.Superintendent of Police, participated in the pre and post trap proceedings and assisted Dy.Superintendent of Police and observed trap proceedings, conducted by

Dy.Superintendent of Police N.S.Karunanidhi.

9

17.PW10-K.Saidulu, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad who conducted part of investigation, submitted draft final report and after receipt of sanction proceedings under Ex.P11, he filed charge sheet.

18. Prosecution did not examine another mediator LW3-P.Ashok

Kumar, LW7-Kondepudi Kishore Babu, Dy.Superintendent of Police

N.S.Karunanidhi and Inspector-Mallikarjun who participated in the trap died soon after filing of charge sheet, hence they could not be examined.

19.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P1 to P14 and MO's.1 to 8 are marked.

20.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him were recorded separately.

21.Accused filed written statement denying the demand and acceptance of bribe from PW1 and he stated that PW1 never met him at any time for copies of First Information Report etc., and he saw him only on the trap day. He did not observe any documents, such as, First Information Report, panchanamas pertaining to the accident case of PW1 and he is not concerned with those documents.

10

He did not handle any currency notes, therefore, resultant solutions in the glass bottles are not in pink colour. According to him one Raju,

Home guard present in the Police Station on the date of trap. He had seen PW1 who came to Police Station only on that day. The said Raju informed to PW1 that Sub Inspector of Police was not present in Police Station. Then PW1 after discussing the matter called Home guard Raju, and went away. Later, ACB officials came, apprehended him for no fault of him without conducting any discrete enquiries. The said fact was also spoken by PW1 in his evidence.

Dy.Superintendent of Police Karunanidhi is proper person to speak all those aspects but, unfortunately, he was not examined by the prosecution. PW9 Inspector Laxminarayana had no personal knowledge as to what was transpired in between Home guard Raju and PW1 and after PW1 entering into his room, therefore, there is no legally acceptable evidence available on record to prove the demand and acceptance on his part and as resultant solutions is not in pink colour, therefore, he prayed the Court to acquit him from the charges.

22.Heard arguments of Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti

Corruption Bureau and Learned counsel for accused. Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau also filed memo of citations.

23.Now, the points for determination are:

11

i) Whether the Accused had demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- from complainant-PW1-Thimmaiahgari Madusudhan Reddy as gratification other than legal remuneration to issue Certified copy of First information Report etc. ?

ii)Whether Accused who was working as Asst.Sub Inspector of Police is competent to issue copies of FIR etc., in the absence of Sub Inspector of Police of Bibipet Police Station and official favour is pending with Accused?

iii) Whether the accused by corrupt and illegal means accepted Rs.2,000/- from PW1 by abusing his official position, thereby, committed criminal misconduct?

iv) Whether prosecution proved the guilt against accused for the offences u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

POINT NO. i & ii:

24.There is no dispute that, at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused was working as Asst.Sub Inspector of Police, Bibipet Police

Station, Nizamabad District, therefore, hence he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

25.There is no dispute that PW1 met with road accident on 21.4.2009 at 8.30 PM and went to Bibipet Police Station on 22.4.2009 and lodged report against motor cyclist K.Srinivas and

Bibipet Police registered a case in Cr.No. 23 of 2009 u/s. 338 IPC on 27.4.2009 and arrested accused by name K.Srinivas on 5.5.2009 12 and produced before the Magistrate for remand. Prosecution also proved the same by examining PW5-Sub Inspector of Police, Bibipet

Police station and by marking Ex.P6 Case Diary in Cr.No. 23 of 2009.

There is also no dispute that PW1 is having account in Andhra Bank with Insurance coverage Abaya Gold Jeevan. Prosecution also proved the same by examining Bank Manager PW7 and by marking

Ex.P2.

26.It is a simple and specific case of prosecution that, PW1 to get

Insurance claim approached accused, who was working as Asst.Sub

Inspector of Police in Bibipet Police Station, on 30.4.2009, to obtain copies of First Information Report. At that time, accused allegedly made demand of Rs.3,000/- as bribe to issue copy of First

Information Report etc. Prosecution also proved that, during that time accused was Incharge of Station House Officer of Bibipet Police

Station as, Sub Inspector of Police-PW5 went to AP Police Academy,

Hyderabad for training from 1.5.2009 to 14.5.2009 by handing over charge to accused on 30.4.2009 at 8.00 PM. Prosecution also filed General Diary Ex.P7 which shows that, accused was Station

House Officer and signed General Diary on that day. PW5-Sub

Inspector of Police also verified the said facts in his evidence.

27.It is further case of the prosecution that, on 30.4.2009 when accused made the demand PW1 expressed his inability, as such, accused refused to issue copies of First Information Report etc.

13

PW1 returned and went to Hyderabad to get better treatment as pain in leg was aggravated and after taking treatment at Hyderabad,

PW1 returned to Village and again approached accused after 10 days i.e., on 15.5.2009 on that day, accused was the Station House

Officer of Bibipet Police Station as per evidence of PW5 and

Inspector-PW6 and at that time also accused raised earlier demand and when PW1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount and on request of PW1 accused reduced the bribe to Rs.2,000/- and fixed a day i.e., on 18.5.2009 to pay bribe either in the Police Station or at the place fixed by him and asked PW1 to pay the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- but, unwilling to give bribe, PW1 approached ACB, lodged Ex.P1 complaint on 15.5.2009. It was registered as FIR on 18.5.2009 by Dy.Superintendent of Police Karunanidhi and laid trap on the same day against the accused in the Police Station where accused was caught red handed, and phenolphthalein test conducted to his both hand fingers turned pink and Dy.Superintendent of Police seized tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from left side pant pocket of accused and phenolphthalein test conducted to his left side pant pocket also yielded positive result.

28.Contention of accused is one of total denial but, he did not state what is his plea or what is his theory about the demand and acceptance and recovery of tainted amount from his possession and yielding positive phenolphthalein tests to his hand fingers and also to his wearing pant pocket. Accused did not give any explanation in 14 the 313 Cr.P.C examination about his say with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He simply skipped away at that point of time, stating that, he will file separate written statement. Though, he filed separate written statement, but did not state his specific plea except demonstrating some of the defects in the investigation and infirmities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, ignoring that there was a mandatory presumption u/s. 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act is hanging on his neck and he has to explain under what circumstances, he came into possession of tainted amount or marked currency notes.

DEMAND & ACCEPTANCE:

29.Admittedly, there was no direct evidence in this case to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe since PW1 turned “Volte face” during trial and he was declared as hostile by the prosecution, yet accused is not entitled acquittal automatically when complainant turns hostile. Law on this aspect is very well settled in M.Narsinga

Rao Vs. State of A.P. 2000(1) Crimes 79(SC) wherein, it was held that the direct proof of demand may not be necessary and inference can be drawn, prosecution can prove its case by circumstantial evidence. In Raghubeer Singh Vs. State of

Haryana 1974(4) SCC 560, this is also 3 Judge bench decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that the accused being in

possession of marked currency notes against allegation that, he received that amount is “res pisa loquitor” and it was further held that it 15 is not necessary that passing of money should be proved by direct evidence, it may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Events which followed in quick succession lead to the only inference that money was obtained by accused from complainant. U/s. 114 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

One of the illustrations to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act is that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of stolen goods, soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless, he can account for his possession.

30.But in this case on hand, accused did not account for his possession and did not give any explanation during post trap proceedings and also at the trial. Post trap proceedings-Ex.P8 shows that, he admitted the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.2,000/- from PW1 with his right hand counted with his both hands and kept the same in his left side wearing pant pocket to give official favour documents of copies of FIRs, panchanamas and wound certificates.

31.During trial it appears that, PW1 was prevailed over by the accused, as such, he changed his earlier version given in his complaint and version given during pre and post trap proceedings, 16 and stated that, Sub Inspector of Police demanded bribe from him by shifting the blame on Sub Inspector of Police though, he gave complaint with his own hand writing accusing the accused “B.Venugopal, ASI” who was working as Asst.Sub Inspector of Police demanded bribe whereas, name of Sub Inspector is P.Shankar(PW5) for which there may not be any reason for confusion to PW1 for changing his earlier version. If Sub Inspector of Police demanded bribe from him, he would have given complaint against Sub

Inspector but would not have given complaint against accused

B.Venugopal.

32.As seen from Ex.P1 complaint, PW1 specifically mentioned the name of accused also in the complaint as “ASI Venugopal” demanded bribe from him but not Sub Inspector of Police Shankar. In the chief examination itself, PW1 clearly stated that Ex.P1 is the complaint given by him and drafted with his own hand writing. He also admitted his participation in pre trap proceedings, his avouching contents of the complaint as true before the mediators. Application of chemical powder to the currency notes by Inspector keeping the phenolphthalein treated notes in his left side shirt pocket. He also stated about giving instructions to him to give bribe to accused only on his demand and asking him to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief in case, accused demands and accepts bribe from him. He also stated demonstration of chemical test and explaining the significance of the test to him and also spoken about his following 17

ACB officials from office of Dy.Superintendent of Police, ACB Office,

Karimnagar to Bibipet Police Station and waiting at a distance of 100 yards from Bibipet Police Station. From there, he went to Police

Station in his own car and admitted entering into Bibipet P.S but thereafter, he changed the version and stated that he met one “Home guard Raju” in the Police Station and he handed over the tainted amount to Raju with a request to handover the same to accused to bring copies of FIR etc., and the said Home guard Raju after receiving the amount promised that he will handover the documents on the next day morning and from there, PW1 stated that, he directly went to his house without relaying any signal to the trap party and at the end he stated that accused never demanded and accepted any bribe from him. At that point of time he was declared as hostile at the request of Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau. Though the Learned Spl.Public

Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau, made some efforts by cross examining PW1, but he could not elicit anything because, PW1 determined strongly to change his earlier version.

33.The Mediator-PW2, who was examined by the prosecution clearly stated that, they have gone through the complaint and enquired PW1 about the contents of complaint and PW1 avouched contents of complaint as true and they attested copy of complaint

Ex.P4. He further corroborated version of PW1 with regard to pre trap proceedings and post trap proceedings and specifically stated 18 about the signal given by PW1 and on receiving signal PW1 only, they rushed into Police Station and followed with Dy.Superintendent of Police and observed accused in his seat and on introduction and explaining purpose of visit by Dy.Superintendent of Police, accused became shocked. This impulsive reaction of accused also can be noted. Thereafter, mediator stated that Dy.Superintendent of Police conducted phenolphthalein test to both hand fingers of accused, on doing so, both right and left hand washes turned pink. Then he stated that when Dy.Superintendent of Police questioned accused about the tainted amount, accused stated that the amount is in his left side pant pocket and produced the same before

Dy.Superintendent of Police and as per the instructions of

Dy.Superintendent of Police, he verified the denomination and currency note numbers of Rs.2,000/- with the numbers already mentioned in Ex.P5 pre trap proceedings. On doing so, both of them are tallied. This is one of the circumstances indicating demand and acceptance on the part of accused.

34.Dy.Superintendent of Police also seized wearing pant from accused by providing lungi and subjected contacted portion of left side wearing pant pocket to phenolphthalein test. On doing so, it was also yielded positive result. Positive results of phenolphthalein tests is also considered to be one of the circumstances indicating demand and acceptance on the part of the accused.

19

35.Except bald suggestion to PW2 that he is an accommodative witness to ACB and drafted mediator reports to the dictation of

Dy.Superintendent of Police and deposing falsely but, this suggestion was denied by PW2. A discrepancy was pointed out in his evidence that Mos 5 to 7 resultant solutions are all in white colour, it may be due to long time gap of 8 years i.e., from the date of tests conducted on 18.5.2009 and date of evidence of PW2 in Court on 9.1.2017.

36.PW3-Police Constable at Bibipet Police Station stated that on 18-5-2009 while he sat before VHF set, PW1 came into Police Station and enquired about accused and he informed that accused is inside , then PW1 went inside and came out after 10 minutes and stood

before room of Sub Inspector and at that time, ACB officials rushed

into the Police Station, went inside and approached accused and conducted personal search and seized the amount of Rs.2,000/- from accused. Though, he did not state that he did not observe demand and acceptance of bribe from accused from PW1 but, his evidence that PW1 entered inside room of accused and met him and came out after 10 minutes and immediately ACB officials rushed into the room of accused and seized tainted amount from him, led to the only inference that, the money was obtained by accused from PW1. In the cross examination the Learned defence counsel asked the constable about the names of Home guards. He stated that there are only three Home guards namely Anjaneyulu, Satyanarayana @

Sathaiah and Bhoopathi, but he did not state that name of Home 20 guard Raju, so Home guard Raju is a fictitious person and invented only for the purpose of the false defence.

37.The Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments also filed list of Home guards worked in Bibipet Police

Station during relevant time with memo but no Home guard by name

Raju was working in Bibipet Police Station at that time and PW3 rightly denied the suggestion by defence counsel Raju is working as

Home guard in Bibipet Police Station. Therefore invention of Home guard Raju into the case and PW1 handing over the amount of Home guard Raju to handover the same to accused is only a false story developed by accused to demolish the prosecution case but there was no truth in it.

38.PW4-Home guard, working in Bibipet Police Station not supported prosecution and simply skipped away in chief examination stating that, at the relevant point of time of trap, he went outside from Police Station to fetch tiffin box and when he returned to Police

Station he observed ACB officials and came to know about the trap thereby, he was declared as hostile. The Learned Spl.Public

Prosecutor in cross examination got admitted entire case of the prosecution, but, in the cross examination by defence counsel again

PW4 who had no respect to the truth, stated that one person by name Raju was working as Home guard and he was present on that day is nothing but a false statement and in my view, he is liable for 21 perjury. In view of the list of Home guards filed by Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor and as PW3-Police Constable ruled out working as Raju Home guard in Police Station and PW5 Sub Inspector of

Police and PW6 Inspector of Police were not questioned about working of Home guard Raju in Police Station hence, part of evidence given by PW4 in the cross examination of Learned

Spl.Public Prosecutor which is reliable only can be accepted and rest of the evidence that Home guard Raju working in Bibipet Police

Station and PW1 met him on that day can be rejected.

39.PW9-Inspector who accompanied Dy.Superintendent of Police, stated all the trap incidents in sequence because of

Dy.Superintendent of Police Karunanidhi died after filing of charge sheet also did not admit Home guard Raju was present during trap proceedings. Accused also did not examine the said fictitious person

Raju to prove his theory.

40.If really accused did not demand and accept tainted amount of

Rs.2,000/- from PW1, how the amount came into his pant pokcet and why his hand fingers turned into pink. Admittedly accused did not attribute any animosity to PW1 or to ACB officials or to any third party or to his colleague staff for implicating him in this case. In the absence of any plausible explanation for possession of tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- in his pant pocket, in view of the above circumstances stated supra, it can be inferred and believed that, 22 there was demand and acceptance of gratification of Rs.2,000/- from

PW1 on the part of accused, to issue copies of First Information

Report, panchanama etc., to PW1.

RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT:

41.Tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- was directly recovered from the wearing left side pant pocket of accused not from table drawer or underneath the files on the table, to exculpate the accused from the involvement. Phenolphthalein test conducted to his hand fingers and also his left side pant pocket also yielded positive and when

Dy.Superintendent of Police questioned him about the tainted amount, accused himself voluntarily stated that amount is in his left side pant pocket and on the instructions, he produced the same and the marked currency notes, on verification with the numbers mentioned in pre trap proceedings by mediators found tallied. The mediator fully stated all the events in his evidence. His evidence was further corroborated by Investigation Officer-PW9. No suggestion was given either to PW2 or PW9 that a false recovery was shown by Dy.Superintendent of Police, therefore, I hold that prosecution in this case prosecution proved recovery of tainted amount from the possession of accused beyond doubt.

POINT NO.iii:

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

23

42. Accused did not take specific plea that he was not Incharge of

Bibipet Police Station and he was not present in the Police Station on the relevant date of demand i.e., on 30-4-2005 and 15-5-2009. So, he is only competent person to issue copies of First Information

Report or any other official documents being Station House Officer of

Bibipet Police Station This aspect was proved by prosecution by examining PW5-Sub Inspector of Police who clearly stated that from 1-5-2009 to 14-5-2009 he went to A.P. Police academy for training and returned to Police Station only on 16-5-2009 and on the trap day i.e., on 18-5-2009 he went to Nizamabad to deposit empty cartridges and collect live rounds and while returning to Bibipet he received Phone call from inspector that accused was trapped by ACB officials. Curiously, no cross examination was made and the cross examination was reported as NIL.

43.Likewise, Inspector PW6 also stated about the training gone by

PW5-Sub Inspector to A.P.Police Academy, Hyderabad from 1-5-2009 to 14.5.2009. He clearly sated that, in the absence of Sub Inspector of Police, Asst.Sub Inspector, will be the Incharge of Bibipet Police

Station. Prosecution rightly filed Ex.P7 G.D at Bibipet Police Station, shows that accused made GD entries on the relevant dates by signing the GD closing the entries on the particular days. Ex.P6 is

CD file in Cr.No. 23 of 2009. It is the connected record for doing official favour for which accused raised demand, so in view of the above factual scenario and taking into consideration of evidence of 24

PW3-P.C, PW5-Sub Inspector and PW6- Circle Inspector coupled with

Ex.P7 General Diary of Bibipet Police Station, accused is only the

Station House Officer on 30-4-2009 and on 15-5-2009 and in discharge of his official duties i.e., to issue copies of First Information

Report etc., to PW1 he made demand for gratification other than legal remuneration and ultimately caught red handed.

POINT NO.iv:

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

44.Mediator-PW2, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau-PW6 who accompanied Dy.Superintendent of Police during trap proceedings clearly stated that, soon after receipt of pre arranged signal from

PW1 they rushed into the Police Station, apprehended the accused, conducted phenolphthalein test to his both hands, on doing so, both right and left hand fingers turned into pink colour. Then,

Dy.Superintendent of Police seized the tainted amount from accused from his left side pant pocket. The contacted portion of left side pant pocket was also subjected to phenolphthalein test and it was also yielded positive result. So, positive results of phenolphthalein test is one of the circumstances and corroborative piece of evidence in believing the prosecution case. The discrepancy pointed out by the

Learned defence counsel that at present, solution in the glass bottle in which resultant solutions are preserved are not in pink colour, in my view, it is because of long time gap of eight years in between date of seizure and date of recording evidence of mediator-PW2 25 since, phenolphthalein powder is not concentrated chemical therefore, we can not expect same colour for years together. Further not only in one bottle, solution in all bottles Mos 5 to 7 are in white colour. On the other hand, accused also authenticated results of the tests incorporated in Ex.P8 Post trap proceedings by signing those proceedings. Now, they can not dispute the colour of the solutions if really they have any objection that there were no phenolphthalein particles at all in the said solution they can as well sent the same to the chemical analysis to prove their contention, but no such steps have been taken by them, therefore this discrepancy is not alone sufficient to disbelieve entire trap proceedings.

PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 (1) OF PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND U/S.114(a) OF INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT:

45.In this case on hand, prosecution has proved demand by circumstantial evidence, and proved recovery of tainted amount by examining mediator, who is an independent person, who also fully supported the prosecution case. Prosecution also proved that official favour is pending with accused as on date of trap therefore, prosecution discharged the initial burden, entitling to claim mandatory presumption u/s.20(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also entitled to claim factual presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, since amount was recovered from the 26 possession of accused, it is for him to prove under what circumstances, the amount was came into his possession but accused failed to give any plausible explanation. The false theory that Sub Inspector demanded bribe and Home guard Raju received bribe from him is found to be false and ultimately accused failed to rebut the said presumption created against them under law.

CASE LAW:

46.Learned counsel for accused argued that, in this case, Trap

Laying Officer Sri N.S.Karunanidhi was not examined, and argued that prosecution could not prove the trap incident but, prosecution rightly examined PW9 Inspector A.Laxminarayana, who accompanied, participated and assisted Dy.Superintendent of Police

N.S.Karunanidhi, in entire trap proceedings, who admittedly died after filing of the charge sheet before commencement of the trial.

PW9 clearly stated that, he observed all the trap proceedings by participating in the trap headed by Dy.Superintendent of Police and denied suggestion given to him that he had no personal knowledge about the trap since Dy.Superintendent of Police Karunanidhi died after filing of charge sheet before commencement of trial, therefore, prosecution could not examine him and it is their beyond control. At this stage, Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB draw the attention of the Court to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ajit

Kumar Vasantlal Zaveri Vs. State of Gujarat 1992 AIR (SC)-)-

2064, 1993-SCC Suppl-482, in this decision it was held, though 27 main Investigation Officer, has not been examined, the evidence given by other officers who accompanied the main Investigation

Officer, can be relied by the prosecution to prove the trap incident, therefore in view of the above factural scenario and legal position non examination of Dy.Superintendent of Police N.S.Karunanidhi who died after filing of charge sheet and before commencement of trial may not become fatal to the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for accused by relying on a decision reported in

C.Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala (2015 CrlLJ 1715) argued that all the resultant solutions MOs5 to 7 now are not in pink colour, therefore, case of the prosecution that phenolphthalein tests conducted to the hand fingers of accused and contacted portion of left side pant pocket turned pink and yielded positive result is not proved, is not tenable, as not solely on that ground, accused was given benefit of doubt but, the complainant turned hostile, discrepancy regarding quantum of tainted amount, another person, working in the Police Station with the similar name of accused and though hand washes of accused did not retain pink colour, but resultant solution of contacted portion of shirt pocket retains pink colour in the said case, but in this case, solutions in all bottles MOs5 to 7 did not retain pink and all are in white colour, hence, the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

CONCLUSION:

28

47. From the forgoing discussion, on point No.1 to 4 and taking into consideration of reliable part of evidence of Pw1-complainant,

PW4-Home guard and the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW5 to PW10 coupled with Ex.P1 to P20 and Mos 1 to 8, I hold that, prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of gratification of Rs.2,000/- by the accused from complainant-PW1 through circumstantial evidence, and by examining complainant-PW1, who partly supported prosecution case on material points, recovery was proved by examining Mediator-PW2 who fully supported prosecution case.

Prosecution also proved pendency of official favour with accused by examining Sub Inspector of Police-PW5, and by seizing Ex.P6, phenolphthalein test conducted to both right and left hand fingers of accused and contacted portion of left side pant pocket from where tainted amount was seized, also yielded positive result, therefore, mandatory presumption u/s. 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and factual presumption u/s. 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 was drawn against the accused in this case but, accused failed to rebut the said presumption by letting probable defence, since he did not examine any witnesses and did not mark any documents on his side to displace the presumption thereby, it is proved beyond doubt that, amount of Rs.2,000/- recovered from the possession of accused was obtained by accused from Complainant-PW1, as gratification other than legal remuneration, by illegal and corrupt means by abusing his official position, hence, the accused is found guilty for both the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 29 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore, the accused in this case, is liable for conviction accordingly.

48.Accused was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim). Accused stated that, he is aged 65 years and retired from service as Asst.Sub Inspector of

Police in the year 2011. He got wife, two sons and one daughter and aged mother. His elder son is doing private job and younger son is working as Teacher. He further stated that he is suffering from

Blood Pressure and Diabetes. He has to look after his aged mother and welfare of entire family, thereby he requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against Accused are socio-economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the

Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, are also can not extended in these type of cases. When once, offences under

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused, after full pledged trial are proved, accused shall be dealt deterrently. The general and common grounds put forth by Accused can't form basis to escape from compulsory imprisonment and fine hence, lenient view is not taken in this case.

30

49.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and convicted u/s. 248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One year and shall pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and

Accused is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One year and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence u/s.

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against accused shall run concurrently.

Remand period undergone by Accused, shall be set off u/s.

428 Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by Accused is Rs.5,000/- +

Rs.5,000/- = Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only).

MO1 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- is ordered to be returned to Complainant-PW1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the 31

Government Treasury and rest of the material objects Mos2 to 8 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

The material on record reveals that PW1-Thimmaiahgari

Madhusudhan Reddy and PW4-Nagapuri Bhupathi intentionally and deliberately gave false evidence in this case contra to their earlier statements given to Anti Corruption Bureau officials and resiled from his earlier statements, hence I am of the opinion that, it is expedient in the interest of Justice to prosecute PW1-Thimmaiahgari

Madhusudhan Reddy and PW4-Nagapuri Bhupathi, for the offence of perjury that appears to have been committed by PW1 & PW4 in the above proceedings hence, issue Show Cause notice to PW1-

Thimmaiahgari Madhusudhan Reddy and PW4-Nagapuri Bhupathi, to appear before this Court for preliminary enquiry as contemplated under section 340 Cr.P.C., to take further action by 15-03-2018.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15th day of February, 2018.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1Thimmaiahgari Madhusudhan Reddy

PW2 Neel Victor, Administrative Officer, O/o DTC, Nizamabad.

32

PW3 Samudrala Raja Narsaiah

PW4 Nagapuri Bhupathi

PW5 Pandigotti Shankar, Sub Inspector of Police, Bibipet Police Station

PW6M.A.Rahaman, Circle inspector of Police, Bhiknoor Circle Nizamabad District.

PW7Yelleshwarapu Venkateshwar Rao, Asst.manager, Andhra Bank, Bibipet Branch,nizamabad District.

PW8Sri P.Gautam Kumar, Prl.Secretary to Government, Home Department, AP, Hyderabad.

PW9A.Laxminarayana, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad

PW10K.Saidulu, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range

FOR THE DEFENCE - NIL -

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P115-05-2009 Complaint given by PW1

Ex.P2---Photostat copy of bank account of PW1

Ex.P3 18-5-2009161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P4 15-5-2009Copy of complaint

Ex.P518-5-2009Pre trap proceedings

Ex.P6---Case Diary file in Cr.No. 23 of 2009 of Bibipet 33

Police Station

Ex.P7 ---General Diary of Bibipet Police Station

Ex.P818-5-2009Post Trap Proceedings

Ex.P918-5-2009Rough sketch of scene

Ex.P1018-5-2009 Search List

Ex.P1125-6-2010Sanction Orders vide G.O.Ms.No.169

Ex.P1215-5-2009Endorsement by Inspector Mallikarjun on complaint

Ex.P1318-5-2009First Information Report

Ex.P14 ---Job chart

FOR THE DEFENCE - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1Tainted amount of Rs.2,000/-.

MO2Sealed cover containing the sample powder of phenolphthalein used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO3Sealed cover containing the sample powder of sodium carbonate used for the demonstration purpose during pre trap proceedings.

MO4Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used during post trap proceedings.

34

MO5 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of right hand wash of accused.

MO6Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of left hand wash of accused.

MO7 Sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contacted portion of pant pocket of accused

MO8One dark brown colour pant seized from accused

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

35