IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES
-CUM-III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.
Present: Sri P. Bhaskara Rao,
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-
III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
Wednesday, 18th day of March, 2026.
C.C.No.21/2016
(Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB-GNT/2014)
ComplainantThe State: Anti-Corruption Bureau, represented by its District Inspector, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Guntur.
Represented bySri Srinivasa Patnayak, Learned Special Public Prosecutor.
AccusedSri Davanam Ravi Kiran @ Ravi @ Kiran Kumar, S/o. Venkatappa, aged 36 years, Senior Accountant, District Treasury Office, Guntur, Guntur district.
Represented bySri M.S.Prasad, Advocate for Accused Officer.
This Case came before me on 05.03.2026 for final hearing and upon hearing arguments, perusing the record and having considered the matter till this day, this Court has delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The State: Anti-Corruption Bureau, represented by its District
Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guntur, (in short ACB), filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer/Sri Davanam Ravi Kiran @
Ravi @ Kiran Kumar, S/o. Venkatappa, aged 36 years, Senior
Accountant, District Treasury Office, Guntur, Guntur district in
Cr.No.03/RCT-ACB-GNT/2014 for the offences punishable under - 2 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
Sections 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the P.C.Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on the date of alleged trap, the Accused Officer was working as Senior Accountant,
District Treasury Office Guntur, Guntur district and by virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of Public Servant as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988).
ii. It is further case of the prosecution that, P.W.1/D.Bala Krishna worked as Senior Assistant in Zilla Praja Parishad in Zilla Praja
Parishad Office, Guntur and retired from service on 28.02.2014. P.W.1 has 300 days Earned Leave; a bill was prepared and for
Rs.4,59,590/- by his office to Encashment of those 300 days EL and sent the bill to District Treasury Office, Guntur, on 09.04.2014. On 09.04.2014, P.W.2/V.C.Sunitha received the bill from ZPP, Guntur, handed over the bill to the Accused Officer with instructions to verify, put pass order and submit to his superiors. But, the Accused Officer did not make pass order on the bill of P.W.1 for couple of days. As per
G.O.Rt.No.2275 Fin.(Admn-I) Department, dated 23.04.2008, the
Accused Officer should have made pass order to the bill of P.W.1 within 5 working days and should forward the same to P.W.2, soon after receiving from P.W.2.
- 3 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
iii. It is further case of the prosecution that, on 18.04.2014,
P.W.1 met the Accused Officer and requested him to verify his bill and submit it to his superiors. On that, the Accused Officer demanded
Rs.4,500/- (Rs.1,000/- for each one lakh which amounting to
Rs.4,500/- for Rs.4,59,590/-) as bribe otherwise his work not be done. On 19.04.2014, again P.W.1 met the said Accused Officer at office and requested him to get pass his EEL bill. But, the Accused
Officer re-iterated his previous demand of bribe. On repeated requests of P.W.1, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount to
Rs.3,000/- so saying that, “to pay that amount for this bill and forthcoming retirement benefit bills, otherwise, he does not do
P.W.1’s work.” P.W.1 did not get his pension and gratuity benefits till the trap of the Accused Officer. The Accused Officer should have verified and forward the non-drawal certificate of P.W.1, which is yet to come to the seat of the Accused Officer from the office of P.W.1 i.e., D & DO, O/o. ZPP, Guntur, to make payment of pension and gratuity to P.W.1. Since forthcoming non-drawal certificate of P.W.1 has also to be verified and forwarded to P.W.2 by the Accused Officer; afraid of this work to be done by the Accused Officer, P.W.1 unwillingly agreed to pay the demanded bribe to the Accused Officer though he was not interested to pay the demanded bribe and informed to the Accused Officer that, he will pay the demanded bribe - 4 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
and informed to the Accused Officer that, he will pay the demanded bribe amount after passing his Earned Leave Encashment Bill as he has no amount readily. On that, the Accused Officer promised that, he will get pass P.W.1’s bill within 2 – 3 days and pay the demanded bribe amount after adjusting the bill amount to the account of P.W.1.
P.W.1 agreed for the same and came out.
iv. It is further case of the prosecution that, on 22.04.2014, the
Earned Leave Bill amount was adjusted to the account of P.W.1. on 24.04.2014, the Accused Officer made a call from his cell
No.9700341110 to P.W.1’s Cell No.9441109020 and asked P.W.1 that, whether the bill amount was adjusted or not? And that, P.W.1 replied in affirmative. On that, the Accused Officer demanded P.W.1 to pay the earlier demanded bribe amount. As P.W.1 was not interested to pay the demanded bribe amount, he informed to the Accused Officer that, “he is at out of his village and will give the amount after his arrival.” Thereafter also, the Accused Officer used to make calls to
P.W.1, but P.W.1 did not lift his phone. Again on 08.05.2014, the said
Accused Officer made a call to P.W.1 from the same cell number, demanded bribe amount and further informed P.W.1 that to pay the demanded bribe amount on the next day i.e., on 09.05.2014 otherwise, he would not get pass his forthcoming bills. As there is no other way, P.W.1 had agreed the same unwillingly and as he was not - 5 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
interested to pay the demanded bribe amount to the Accused Officer, he prepared a report against the Accused Officer and presented the same to P.W.10/Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Guntur. On 08.05.2014 at 02:30 p.m., against the Accused Officer for necessary action.
v. On the instructions of P.W.10/DSP, ACB, Guntur P.W.11/District
Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guntur made confidential enquiries about the genuineness of the contents of the report of P.W.1, antecedents of P.W.1 and the Accused Officer and informed the same to P.W.10. On that, a case in Cr.No.03/RCT-ACB-GNT/2014 under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the Accused Officer on 09.05.2014 at 09:40 hours by P.W.10 after obtaining permission from the Director General, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
vi. During the course of investigation, P.W.10/D.S.P., ACB, secured mediators P.W.7/M.G.Kanaka Nagaraju, Deputy Executive
Engineer, and L.W.10/Sri Gajula Srinivasa Rao, Assistant Engineer, conducted pre-trap proceedings in the office of P.W.10/D.S.P., ACB,
Guntur from in which, P.W.1 attended and produced proposed bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rs.500/- x 6 GC notes) and his complaint was verified by the mediators, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said currency notes after noting the numbers and demonstration of - 6 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
phenolphthalein test was made and explained significance of the test to P.W.1 and introduced him to give a signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief if the Accused Officer demands and accepts bribe from him.
vii. P.W.7/Sri Mavuri Gangadhar Kanaka Nagaraju and L.W.10/Sri
Gajula Srinivasa Rao drafted pre-trap proceedings in the O/o. P.W.10 on 09.05.2014 from 10:00 a.m., to 11:00 a.m. Having completion of pre-trap proceedings, the trap party reached the vicinity of the
District Treasury Office, Guntur, where the Accused Officer was successfully trapped at 13:30 hours, when he further demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.3,000/- from P.W.1. When the chemical test conducted on both hand fingers of the Accused Officer and that, right hand fingers yielded positive result while left hand fingers yielded negative result. In pursuance of the information furnished by the
Accused Officer, the tainted amount of Rs.3,000/- was recovered from his table’s right side upper drawer. When compared the serial numbers of the recovered currency notes with that of the currency notes noted in pre-trap proceedings, they were found tallied. When the inner surface of the right side upper drawer of the table of the
Accused Officer that came into contact with the tainted bribe amount were subjected to chemical test also proved positive. P.W.10 seized the tainted bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-, resultant solutions, relevant - 7 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
records in the presence of P.W.7 and L.W.10/Sri Gajula Srinivasa Rao duly attested by them.
viii. P.W.11 took up further investigation. During the course of further investigation, P.W.11 examined and recorded Section 161
Cr.P.C statements of P.W.6/Sri Vellanki Srinivasa Rao, L.W.7/Sri
Pokuru Sarath Reddy and L.W.8/Chodavarapu Lakshmi. P.W.11 further re-examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C.
ix. The investigation reveals that, the Accused Officer, being a
Public Servant, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.3,000/- from
P.W.1 by abusing of his official position, as a reward for putting pass order himself on 300 days Earned Leave Encashment bill of P.W.1, got passed the said bill and to verify and forward the non-drawal certificate of P.W.1 that has yet to come to the Accused Officer from the office of P.W.1 for making payment of pension and gratuity to
P.W.1. Thus, the Accused Officer has committed an offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
3. This Court had taken cognizance for the offence under
Sections 7, 13(2), r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Accused Officer and summons were issued to the
Accused Officer.
- 8 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
4. On appearance of the Accused Officer, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C.
5. On hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, Charges under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(a)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the Accused
Officer, read over and explained to him for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the Accused Officer, the prosecution cited 16 witnesses, but, examined only 11 witnesses.
7.P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant, he supported the prosecution case with regard to contents of the F.I.R., and his presence during pre and post trap proceedings, demand and acceptance of bribe of the Accused Officer on the date of trap i.e., on 09.05.2014 at his office seat.
8. P.W.2 is the Sub-Treasury Officer in D.T.O Office Guntur, she stated that, in the year 2014 on 09.04.2014, their office received
Earned Leave Encashment bill of P.W.1. As STO initially, she received the bill through Treasury Bill Register (TBR) from the Drawing Officer.
She issued serial number S.No.114 and noted the same in Token
Register. She sent the bill to the Accused Officer for issuing Token
Number. The Accused Officer issued Token No.882 on 09.04.2014 and - 9 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
submitted the bill to her. She entered the Token Number and other particulars at S.No.114 in the Token Register. Shefurther stated that, on 10.04.2014, she verified the bill and on 11.04.2014, she again sent the bill to the Accused Officer for passing the bill. On 19.04.2014, the Accused Officer submitted the bill to her along with pass order. She counter signed the bill and submitted the bill along with Fly Leaf of Audit Register to the Assistant Treasury Officer for approval.
9.P.W.3 is the Junior Accountant in D.T.O Office, Guntur, he deposed that, as a Junior Accountant, he used to prepare bank lists after verifying the token number and other particulars and submit the same to the Assistant Treasury Officer. After obtaining the signature of the Assistant Treasury Officer, he used to forward the same to the concerned bank. Ex.P5 is the Bank list prepared by him on 21.04.2014. Ex.P5 contains the particulars pertaining to bill of P.W.1 to the tune of Rs.4,59,590/-.
10.P.W.4 is the Typist in ‘A’ Section, D.T.O Office, Guntur, he stated that, he knows the Accused Officer, who used to work as
Senior Accountant in ‘G’ Section, D.T.O, Guntur. On 09.05.2014 in between 12:30 noon to 01:00 p.m., he went out of the office to purchase Form 52 Bills. After his return, he was informed that, the - 10 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
Accused Officer was trapped by ACB. Ex.P6 is the Attendance Register of D.T.O, Guntur, for the year 2014.
11.P.W.5 is the Deputy Director, D.T.O Office, Guntur, he stated about the procedure for passing of bills. The duty of the Senior
Accountant is initial scrutiny of bills and putting pass order on the bills and forwarding the same to S.T.O. Generally pass order on a bill has to be made within 5 working days. The Accused Officer used to look after the Earned leave encashment bills pertaining to Zilla
Parishad in the year 2014. On 09.05.2014 at afternoon hours, while he was present in his chamber in 1st floor, the ACB, DSP, called him to a hall in the ground floor adjacent to Establishment Section. He was informed that, the Accused Officer was trapped.
12.P.W.6 is the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Treasury
Branch, Guntur, he stated that, on 21.04.2014, their branch received 13 bills from DTO, Guntur. All the bills were credited to corporate internet banking (CINB) of the Deputy Director, District Treasury,
Guntur and an amount of Rs.4,59,590/- was credited to the account of P.W.1 on 22.04.2014.
13.P.W.7 is said to be mediator present during pre-trap and post-trap proceedings stated about the trap of the Accused Officer and seizure of tainted amount, connected record and arrest of the
Accused Officer etc., facts.
- 11 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
14. P.W.8 is the Section Officer, he stated about issuance of
Ex.P11-Sanction order by the then Secretary to the Government viz.,
Sri M.Ravi Chandra.
15.P.W.9 is the Engineer from B.S.N.L., Vijayawada, who stated about Ex.P12-CDR particulars of cell phone 9700341110 and Ex.P13-
Customer Application of the Accused Officer.
16.P.W.10 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Guntur
Range, who registered the F.I.R., took up investigation, laid the trap, arrested the Accused Officer, seized tainted amount from the Accused
Officer and connected records from the possession of the Accused
Officer.
17.P.W.11 is theInspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guntur
Range, who conducted the discrete inquiries, assist the Deputy
Superintendent of Police in pre and post trap proceedings and conducted further investigation in this case and filed Charge Sheet.
18. On the side of prosecution, Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and M.O.1 to
M.O.7 are marked.
19. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused Officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., referring to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence led by the prosecution, for which, he denied the same.
- 12 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
20. On the defense side, Sri P. Krishna, Tea Stall owner was examined as D.W.1, he stated that, he knows the Accused Officer, who used to come to his push cart for having snacks and tea from 2011. On 09.05.2014, the Accused Officer came to his push cart at about 01:15 p.m., and ordered for samosa and tea. Within 5 minutes, two persons came and caught hold of the hands of the Accused
Officer to his back. Then, he asked them why they are doing so then they told him that, they are ACB staff and he is not concerned with it.
They asked his name and address and told him that, if necessary, he will call later, they took the Accused Officer into the District Treasury
Office.
21. D.W.2/S.Anjaneyulu, who worked as Senior Accountant along with the accused in D.T.O., office, Guntur, he stated that, on 09.05.2014 at about 01:20 p.m., two persons held the hands of the
Accused Officer to his back and bringing him from outside the office into the District Treasury Office and took him to the main hall of the office. When, he ascertained, they informed that, they are ACB
Officials. There are about 8 to 9 ACB Officials. They asked his identity name and address and informed him to go to his seat and that, if necessary, they will call him again. He remained in his seat till 05:30 p.m., and after completion of his work, he went away. On the defence side, Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 are marked.
- 13 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
22. The Accused Officer filed written statement stating that, the
Earned Leave bill of P.W.1/Sri D. Bala Krishna under Ex.P3 (Made-up file) was received in District Treasury Office, Guntur on 09.04.2014.
The STO/P.W.2/Smt.V.C.Suneetha received the bill on 09.04.2014 and she forwarded the bill to him on the same day for issuing the Token number. On the same day i.e., on 09.04.2014, he has given Token
Number 882 for that bill and sent the bill to P.W.2 for making entry in the Ex.P2-Token Register. Thereafter, he received the bill from P.W.2 on 11.04.2014 for make pass order on the bill. He received the bill from P.W.2 on 11.04.2014 as there are four Public Holidays in between 11.04.2014 to 19.04.2014, he made pass order on the EL bill of P.W.1 on 19.04.2014 at 12:27 p.m., and sent the same to P.W.2 and P.W.2 in turn signed on the bill and sent the bill along with
Ex.P4/Fly Leaf of Audit Register to ATO/L.W.8 for its approval,
ATO/L.W.8 approved the bill on 19.04.2014 itself.
23. He further stated that, thereafter, A.T.O/L.W.8 sent the bill to
P.W.3/Junior Accountant/Sri R.Visweswara Rao for preparation of
Ex.P5-Bank list, P.W.3/Junior Assistant prepared Ex.P5-Bank List on 21.04.2014 and obtained signature of A.T.O/L.W.8 on Ex.P5-Bank list and then P.W.3 forwarded Ex.P5-Bank list along with bill of P.W.1 to the State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Guntur, on 21.04.2014 itself. Thereafter, the bill amount was credited to the account of the - 14 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
District Treasury on 21.04.2014 by State Bank of India, Treasury
Branch and on 22.04.2014, the bill amount was credited to the account of P.W.1. In the light of the above, all there was absolutely no delay on his part regarding Ex.P3-EL Bill of P.W.1. Even according to the evidence of P.W.2/S.T.O/Smt. V.C.Suneetha after he sent the bill to P.W.2 on 09.04.2014 with token No.882. P.W.2 entered the token number and other particulars at S.No.114 in the Ex.P2-Token Register and P.W.2 verified the bill on 10.04.2014 and on 11.04.2014, she sent the bill to him and he made pass order on the bill on 19.04.2014 and on the same day, he forwarded the bill to P.W.2 and then P.W.2 signed on the bill and submitted the bill along with Ex.P4/Fly Leaf of Audit
Register to ATO/L.W.8 for approval and ATO/L.W.8 approved it on 19.04.2014 itself and sent the same to P.W.3/Junior Accountant, who prepared Ex.P5-Bank List etc.,
24. He further stated that, in view of the above evidence of P.W.2, he received the bill from her on 11.04.2014 after she made entry in
Ex.P2 and then he made pass order on the bill on 19.04.2014 and forwarded it to P.W.2. Even as per the evidence of P.W.2 and as per
Ex.P6-Attendance Register, there are only five working days are there in between 11.04.2014 to 19.04.2014 as 12.04.2014, 13.04.2014, 14.04.2014 and 18.04.2014 are Public holidays. P.W.2 clearly admitted that, excluding the above Public holidays, he made pass - 15 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
order on the bill within five working days. Thus, it is clear that, he made pass order on the Earned Leave bill of P.W.1 within five working days as per Citizen Charter and there was absolutely no delay on his part regarding the EL bill of P.W.1. The Earned Leave Bill of P.W.1 to a tune of Rs.4,59,590/- was credited to the bank account of P.W.1 on 22.04.2014 i.e., 17 days prior to the alleged trap on 09.05.2014. All this is clearly admitted by P.W.1, P.W.7/Mediator and P.W.10/D.S.P.,
ACB.
25. It is further stated that, as on the date of the trap i.e., on 09.05.2014, no bill of P.W.1 including issuance of Non Drawal
Certificate relating to him was pending with him and there is no official favour to be rendered by him to P.W.1 by the date of the trap.
This is clearly admitted that, as on the date of the trap, no bill including issuance of non drawal certificate pertaining to P.W.1 was pending with him and that, the issuance of non drawal certificate relating to P.W.1 need not come to him and it may be placed before two other Senior Accountants i.e., Sri K. Nageswara Rao and Smt
K.V.Ramana.
26. It is further stated that, P.W.1 worked in the office of the
District Treasury Office, Guntur as Senior Accountant on deputation from 19.10.2011 to 19.11.2012 for passing the bills pertaining to
Zilla Praja Parishad Schools. In the year 2012, one person by name - 16 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
Sri E.Pratap Reddy, Secondary Grade Teacher of Pedakakani Zilla
Praja Parishad High School forwarded Ex.D5-Complaint, dated 31.08.2012 against P.W.1 making allegations against his corrupt activities and harassment of lady teachers of Zilla Praja Parishad
Schools to Sri M. Hanumantha Rao, District Secretary of AP United
Teachers Federation and the said Sri M.Hanumantha Rao in turn forwarded the complaint to P.W.5/Deputy Director, DTO, Guntur/Sri
K.Surendra Babu. All this is clearly admitted by P.W.1. Actually, while
P.W.1 was working on deputation in the office of the District Treasury
Office, Guntur, he used to sit two seats away from the seat of the
Accused Officer. This is also clearly admitted by P.W.1. Therefore, the
Accused Officer is having personal knowledge what all P.W.1 was doing by sitting in his seat. Thereafter, basing on Ex.D5, P.W.5 conducted enquiry against P.W.1 and during that enquiry, the Accused
Officer was also examined by P.W.5 and P.W.5 recorded the statement of the Accused Officer and in that enquiry, the Accused Officer spoke against P.W.1 regarding the allegations against P.W.1. All this clearly admitted by P.W.5. Because of the above allegations against P.W.1 and the enquiry by P.W.5, the deputation of P.W.1 was cancelled and
P.W.1 was surrendered to his parent department i.e., Zilla Praja
Parishad Office, Guntur. This is clearly admitted by P.W.1. As the
Accused Officer spoke against P.W.1 in the enquiry conducted by - 17 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
P.W.5, P.W.1 bore severe grudge against the Accused Officer and
P.W.1 was waiting for an opportunity to take revenge upon the
Accused Officer. This is the root cause for P.W.1 to give a false complaint against the Accused Officer to ACB and implicated the
Accused Officer in this stage managed and foisted ACB trap case on 09.05.2014.
27. As far as demand is concerned, P.W.1 deposed in cross- examination that, he met the Accused Officer at his residence on 18.04.2014 at 10:00 a.m., But, as per the 164 Cr.P.C statement of
P.W.1, he stated that, he met him in his house on 18.04.2014 in the evening hours. This is also clearly admitted by P.W.1. There is lot of contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to that of his earlier statements regarding his alleged meeting with him on 18.04.2014.
Fact remains P.W.1 did not meet him at all on 18.04.2014 and he never demanded any bribe amount on that day.
28. P.W.1 admitted that, he met the Accused Officer in the afternoon hours i.e., after lunch on 19.04.2014. Fact remains the EL bill of P.W.1 was passed by him at 12:27 p.m., on 19.04.2014. This is clearly admitted by P.W.5. Thus, it is needless to say that, the alleged meeting of P.W.1 with him on 19.04.2014 afternoon i.e., after lunch and he demanded Rs.4,500/- as bribe from him and on his request, he reduced it to Rs.3,000/- and informed him that, he would process - 18 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
his bill within one day or two days is absolutely false and baseless on the face of it. Fact remains P.W.1 never met him on 19.04.2014.
29. The Accused Officer also denied making phone calls to P.W.1 and there was no call recordings and Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 are not appended with 65 B Cr.P.C Certificate, hence, they cannot be looked into.
30. It is also contended that, P.W.7/Stock mediator, DSP with pre determined mind started investigation even before the registration of the case at the instance of P.W.1 to implicate him in a false trap.
Tainted amount was not recovered from his hands, but, from his table drawer planted by P.W.1 when he was in the training course. Though it is alleged that, he counted the tainted amount with his both hands but, only right hand fingers turned pink but, left hand fingers wash did not turned into pink, shows the entire trap proceedings are stage managed and no authenticity can be given to the chemical test. His actual version during post trap proceedings was not recorded. As per evidence of D.W.1, while he was at the Tea Stall, ACB Officials caught hold of his hands and brought him into office and has shown a false recovery. The Accused Officer in this case able to rebut the presumption by letting probable defence by examining D.W.1 and
D.W.2 and by marking Ex.D1 to Ex.D5, hence prayed to acquit him from the Charges.
- 19 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
31. Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for A.C.B., and learned counsel for the Accused Officer. The learned
Special Public Prosecutor filed written arguments by enclosing a decision. Whereas, the counsel for the Accused Officer filed citations with Memo.
32.Now, the Points for determination are:
i. Whether the Accused Officer demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.3,000/- from P.W.1 to pass Earned Leave Encashmet bill of P.W.1?
ii. Whether official favour is pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of trap?
iii. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt against the Accused Officer for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(a)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt?
Point No.(i) : Demand And Acceptance of Bribe by A.O:
33. There is no dispute that, the Accused Officer is a Public
Servant on the date of alleged trap by working as Senior Accountant,
District Treasury Office Guntur, Guntur district and the prosecution also proved that, there is a valid sanction to prosecute the Accused
Officer by examining P.W.8/Section Officer from A.P., Secretariat,
Velagapudi by marking Ex.P11-Sanction order issued by the competent authority vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.03.2016.
34.Now, coming to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the
Accused Officer is concerned, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other - 20 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
evidence regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the Accused Officer. No doubt, corroboration is not required in all cases when the evidence of P.W.1 is reliable and trustworthy and not suffered with any infirmities.
35. Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 stated in his chief examination that, the Accused Officer demanded bribe from him on 18.04.2014 when he met the Accused Officer at his house but, he did not mention the said fact in Ex.P1-Complaint specifically. The reading of Ex.P1-Complaint shows that, he met the Accused Officer at his office. P.W.1 unable to say the door number of house of the
Accused Officer. In cross-examination, he stated that, he met the
Accused Officer at his residence around 10:00 a.m., but, in 164
Cr.P.C., statement, P.W.1 in contra stated that, he met the Accused
Officer at his residence in the evening hours so, this contradiction creates doubt about the alleged first demand.
36. As far as the second demand on 19.04.2014 is concerned, the case of the prosecution that, when P.W.1 approached the Accused
Officer on 19.04.2014 to pass his Earned leave bill, the Accused
Officer stated that, unless demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- is paid or otherwise, he will not pass his bill.
37. As per evidence of P.W.5/Deputy Director, DTO, Guntur, who is Superior Officer of the Accused Officer clearly stated in his evidence - 21 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
that, the bill of P.W.1 was passed on 19.04.2014 at 12:27 hours, so no official favour is pending with the Accused Officer so as to make demand bribe from P.W.1 thereby, demand on 19.04.2014 also creates doubt in view of passing of bill by the Accused Officer on the same day on 12:27 hours.
38. As far as demand as on the date of trap is concerned i.e., on 09.05.2014, all the official witnesses examined by the prosecution especially P.W.4 and P.W.5 clearly admitted in cross-examination that, the Accused Officer was under S.T.O., training from 24.04.2014 to 09.05.2014. As per the case of the prosecution, the Accused Officer demanded and accepted bribe at his seat but, on that day, the
Accused Officer was in training which is in the main hall of ‘A’ Section, which is at a distance of 20 to 25 feet from his seat. As per the evidence of P.W.6, the Bank Official, Earned Leave bill amount of
Rs.4,59,590/- was already credited in the account of P.W.1 on 22.04.2014 much before the alleged complaint on 08.05.2014 and there are no pending bills to be passed by the Accused Officer by the date of the complaint by P.W.1 or as on the date of the trap.
39. P.W.5/Deputy Director, D.T.O office, Guntur, clearly stated in his evidence that, as on the date of trap, no bill including issuance of non-drawal certificate pertaining to P.W.1 was pending with the
Accused Officer. The issuance of non-drawal certificate relating to - 22 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
P.W.1 need not come to the Accused Officer and it may be placed to any other Senior Accountant K.Nageswara Rao and K.V.Ramana, so, no official favour is pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of trap to make a demand by the Accused Officer.
40. The further case of the prosecution that, in future bills, the
Accused Officer demanded bribe and made phone calls to P.W.1 demanding bribe and to prove the same, the prosecution filed
Ex.P12-CDR of cell phone of the Accused Officer bearing
No.9700341110 and Ex.P13-Customer Application Form (CAF) and to prove the same the prosecution examined P.W.9/Service Provider but,
Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 not appended with 65(B) Certificate. This aspect was clearly admitted by P.W.9 so, without 65(B) Certificate, these electronic evidences will not incriminate the Accused Officer since 65(B) Certificate is mandatory to admit these electronic records
Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. Since the prosecution did not produce 65(B)
Evidence Act Certificate, the CDR could not be treated as incriminating, same was held in the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Pooranmal vs State of Rajasthan & another SLP (Crl) No.1977 of 2026, apart from that, there are other decisions are also and there was no quarrel on this aspect therefore, if Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 kept aside for want of 65(B) - 23 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
Certificate, there is no evidence to prove the subsequent demand made by the Accused Officer.
41. Now, coming to acceptance of bribe is concerned, the admitted tainted amount of Rs.3,000/- was not recovered from the hands of the Accused Officer or from his shirt pocket or pant pocket and it was shown to be recovered from his table drawer, which is seriously disputed by the Accused Officer that, on the date of trap, he is not at all at the seat and he was in training and in view of grudge developed by P.W.1 against him for deposing against him in a departmental inquiry, P.W.1 planted the amount in his table drawer in his absence and falsely implicated him while he was out side the office at the Tea Stall and he was brought into the office and ACB
Officials caught his hands while he was at Tea Stall and brought him into the office and made him to lift the amount from his table drawer and shown false recovery to implicate him in this case. To believe this aspect, the learned counsel draw the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.7/Mediator, who participated in the trap, according to his evidence, P.W.1 entered into the D.T.O., office, Guntur at 11:50 a.m., and came out at 01:20 p.m., that means for about 1 hour 30 minutes, P.W.1 stayed at the seat of the Accused Officer in the absence of the Accused Officer at his seat because, he was in the training and there is every chance of P.W.1 planting the tainted - 24 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
amount in the table drawer of the Accused Officer without his knowledge. No logical reason was given by P.W.1 for waiting for such a long time in the office of the Accused Officer. If really, the Accused
Officer not present at his seat, P.W.1 should have informed the same to the DSP, whether he should wait there or to come out but, no such course was adopted in this case.
42. To probablize this defence theory, the prosecution own witness viz., P.W.2/Sub-Treasury Officer in ‘G’ Section, D.T.O office,
Guntur, where the Accused Officer also working in the same Section, clearly admitted in the cross-examination that, the Accused Officer was not present at G-I seat and he was in training from 24.04.2014 onwards, which was conducted in ‘A’ Section hall. She observed that,
P.W.1 sat opposite to G-I seat but, she did not observe what P.W.1 has done during 10 minutes. Ex.D3-Training proceedings confronted to P.W.2 was also admitted, attendance register also proves the same and one Ch.Rama Rao, Senior Accountant was placed in charge of the
Accused Officer seat as per Ex.D4-Charge list. P.W.2 further clearly admitted that, the defence theory that, on 01:20 p.m., she noticed 2 persons bringing the Accused Officer into the ‘G’ Section from out side by holding his hands to his back, that means, the Accused Officer was not caught hold at his seat, yet, P.W.2 was not declared as hostile and not cross examined by the prosecution.
- 25 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
43. P.W.4/Senior Accountant stated that, on the date of trap, the
Accused Officer was in training ad he came to know that, the Accused
Officer was caught out side of the office and then brought into the office but, this witness was treated as hostile and in the cross- examination, the learned Special Public Prosecutor elicited that, there was a lunch session in D.T.O., office for 45 minutes in between 01:00 to 03:00 p.m., but, it is not the case of the prosecution that, the
Accused Officer was trapped during lunch session.
44. The accused Officer also examined the Tea Stall owner as
D.W.1, he stated that, on 09.05.2014, the Accused Officer came to his tea stall at 01:15 p.m., to have tea and snack, at that time, he was caught hold by 2 persons, taken into D.T.O office. Except asking license and permission certificate from Municipality, his evidence was not discredited in my view, this type of push carts people will not obtain necessary permissions from Municipality but, doing their petty business on road side for which, his evidence cannot be rejected.
Even if, the evidence of D.W.1 is kept aside, the Accused Officer also examined other staff from his office as D.W.2, who worked as Senior
Accountant at that time in D.T.O office, Guntur, along with Accused
Officer now working as Sub-Treasury Officer, Sattenapalli. He also clearly stated that, the Accused Officer was brought into the office by catch holding his hands. He also further clarified that, on the date of - 26 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
trap, the Accused Officer was in training in ‘A’ Section hall but not at his seat therefore, I do not find any reason to discard his evidence in the absence of any infirmities in his evidence therefore, demand as on the date of trap was also not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
45. As far as recovery of amount is concerned, the evidence of
P.W.1 is that, after receiving amount by the Accused Officer with his right hand, he counted the amount with his both hands and kept the amount in his right side table drawer but, the evidence of
P.W.7/Mediator and P.W.10/D.S.P show that, both the hand fingers of the Accused Officer were rinsed in sodium carbonate solution separately but, only right had wash turned into pink but, left hand wash did not change colour and remain colourless. If really, the
Accused Officer counted the amount with his both hands certainly, left hand fingers also would have yielded positive result therefore, much reliance can not be placed on the chemical test conducted to the hand fingers of the Accused Officer in this case since there was no accuracy.
46. As per the defence of the Accused Officer, he was made to lift the currency notes by taking him from outside by catch holding his hands, and there is every chance of yielding positive results even to the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer.
- 27 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
47. The learned counsel for the Accused Officer also elicited a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 that, P.W.1 in his chief- examination, stated that, he gave signal from the seat of the Accused
Officer but, in the statement given to the DSP marked as Ex.D1 and as per Ex.D2-Contradiction marked in 164 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1,
P.W.1 came out of D.T.O office and gave signal and these contradictions in Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 also throw some doubt on the trap events therefore, I hold that, the prosecution in this case failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.3,000/- by the
Accused Officer from P.W.1 on the date of trap hence, this Point is answered against the prosecution in favour of the Accused Officer.
Point No.(ii) : Pendency of Official Favour :
48. The main contention of the Accused Officer in this case is that, no official favour is pending with the Accused Officer by the date of complaint on 08.05.2014 or by date of trap on 09.05.2014. The allegation of the prosecution that, to pass Earned Leave Encashmet bill of P.W.1, the Accused Officer demanded bribe of Rs.4,500/- and it was reduced to Rs.3,000/- on the request of P.W.1 to process his bill but, the said bill was presented on 09.04.2014 and it was passed by the Accused Officer on 19.04.2014 within 5 days since there were 4 public holidays on 12.04.2014, 13.04.2014, 14.04.2014 and 18.04.2014 ad the amount was also credited into the account of - 28 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
P.W.1 on 22.04.2014, whereas, the Accused Officer received the bill to his table on 19.04.2014 and he passed the said bill on the same day. This aspect was clearly admitted by P.W.1 in his cross- examination at Para No.11.
49. He further clearly admitted that, 17 days prior to the trap, his
Earned Leave Encashment was credited into his account. P.W.1 also admitted that, earlier the Accused Officer also passed the following 7 retirement bills:
1. D.A.Bill for Rs.9,308/- on 24.07.2012.
2. D.A Arrears Bill for Rs.5,824/- on 14.12.2012.
3. Surrender Leave Encashment Bill for Rs.21,058/- on 18.06.2013.
4. D.A.Arrears Bill for Rs.9,223/- on 28.06.2013.
5. Surrender Leve Encashment Bill for Rs.19,056/- on 30.06.2013.
6. Medical Reimbursement Bill for Rs.6,500/- on 07.08.2013.
7. D.A Arrear Bill for Rs.8,540/- on 02.03.2014.
But no point of time, there was allegation of demand of bribe by the Accused Officer.
50. All the officials witnesses viz., P.W.2/Sub-Treasury Officer admitted that, there are 4 public holidays and the Accused Officer passed Ex.P3-Bill of P.W.1 within 5 working days. P.W.3/Junior
Accountant stated that, as per Ex.P5-Bank account list, amount of - 29 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
P.W.1 was credited into this account on 22.04.2014. P.W.5/Deputy
Director, clearly admitted that, no other bill is pending with the
Accused Officer as on the date of trap. P.W.6/Bank Manager stated about the crediting of Earned Leave bill of P.W.1 into the account of
P.W.1 on 22.04.2014. P.W.7/Mediator also admitted that, 17 days prior to his trap, Earned Leave bill of P.W.1 was credited into the account of P.W.1 and as on the date of the trap i.e., 09.05.2014, no pending bills pertaining to P.W.1 were seized from his table.
51. P.W.10/D.S.P., ACB also admitted these facts in his cross- examination, therefore, there is no hesitation to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Accused Officer, as on the date of trap, no official favour is pending with the Accused Officer hence, question of demand of bribe by the Accused Officer from
P.W.1, who is his colleague, who earlier worked in the same office of the Accused Officer on deputation and used to sit 2 seats away from his seat, is some how not believable hence, this Point is is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the Accused Officer.
Point No.(iii) : Presumption and Defence Theory:
52. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB argued that, in this case, P.W.1 stated about the demand and acceptance, account was recovered from the table drawer of the Accused Officer.
- 30 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
53. P.W.7/Mediator stated about recovery of tainted amount from the table drawer of the Accused Officer, chemical test conducted to the right hand fingers of the Accused Officer yielded positive result, hence, the prosecution entitled to draw the presumption under
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
54. To support his contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor relied the following decisions:
i) Mudunuri Bapiraju vs. The State of A.P., ii) Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra, iii) Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi).
55. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer refuting the contention of learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that, P.W.1 worked as a Senior Assistant in the District Treasury
Office, Guntur on deputation from 19.10.2011 to 19.11.2012. During this period, a complaint (Ex.D5) was filed by a teacher viz., Sri E.
Pratap Reddy, alleging corruption by P.W.1 and harassment of lady teachers to Sri M. Hanumantha Rao, District Secretary of AP United
Teachers Federation and in turn, the said Hanumantha Rao forwarded the said complaint to P.W.5 (Deputy Director). P.W.1 was working on deputation in the office of the District Treasury Office, Guntur, he used to sit two seats away from the seat of the Accused Officer. This is also clearly admitted by P.W.1. Therefore, the Accused Officer is - 31 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
having personal knowledge what all P.W.1 was doing by sitting in his seat. In that enquiry, the Accused Officer was examined and gave a statement against P.W.1. Following the enquiry, P.W.1’s deputation was cancelled and P.W.1 was sent back to his parent department. Due to this and particularly because the Accused Officer spoke against him, P.W.1 developed a grudge. This is the root cause for P.W.1 to file a false complaint and implicate the Accused Officer in a fabricated
ACB trap case on 09.05.2014.
56. This theory was suggested to P.W.1 though he denied but, admitted one Hanumantha Rao made the complaint against him to
D.T.O, Guntur while he was working in the DTO office on deputation.
He also admitted that, his deputation was cancelled due to the above said allegations but, denied to grudge against the Accused Officer.
But, P.W.5/Superior Officer of the Accused Officer and P.W.1, admitted in cross-examination that, in the year 2012, he received a complaint against P.W.1 from one Pratap Reddy, Secondary Grade Teacher through APUTF District Secretary M. Hanumantha Rao. P.W.5 conducted enquiry pertaining to complaint against P.W.1. P.W.5 recorded the statement of the Accused Officer in the said enquiry and the Accused Officer spoke against P.W.1. Ex.D5 (2 sheets) is the attested copy of forwarding letter, dated 01.09.2012 along with the complaint, dated 31.08.2012. Since P.W.5 is an Enquiry Officer, his - 32 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
evidence cannot be discarded so, certainly P.W.1, would have some grudge against the Accused Officer, who deposed against him in
Departmental enquiry. At this stage, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor argued that, without filing enquiry report, the defence theory cannot be believed but, when P.W.1 admitted initiating enquiry and P.W.5/Enquiry Officer stated about enquiry proceedings and marking of Ex.D5-Copy of letter, dated 01.09.2012 along with complaint, dated 31.08.2012 is sufficient to believe the defence theory since the Accused Officer is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and he can simply probablize his defence theory on the test of preponderance of probabilities, to support his contention, he relied on decisionMan Singh vs. Delhi
Administration (AIR 1979 SC 1455).
57. The absence of corroboration from independent sources like accompanying witness or shadow witness and non examination of colleague staff members, the learned counsel for the Accused relied on a decision in P. Chandra Sekharam vs. State. The Investigation
Officer taking stock mediator/P.W.7, who earlier acted as a mediator in two ACB cases, the learned counsel relied on a decision in K.Giri vs. State of AP 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 821 AP,for non conducting discrete enquiries properly.
- 33 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
58. The learned counsel relied on a decision in P.Sirajuddien vs.
State of Madras, G.Govind Rao vs. State ACB. For mere recovery of currency notes without proving of demand and acceptance, conviction cannot be passed on the sole testimony of the complainant, who is interested witness, same was held in Rajesh
Gupta Vs State through CBI, Crl.A.No.1769 of 2014 (SC), dated
29.03.2022. Changing versions from chief to cross, version of P.W.1 regarding demand not reliable, to support his contention, learned counsel relied on K.Shanthamma vs. State of Telangana. In this case, there are 2 contradictions. Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 marked on the side of the Accused Officer with regard to the demand hence, evidence of
P.W.1 cannot be relied in this case.
59. When there is grudge or enmity between the complainant and the Accused Officer, falsity of demand raised by the Accused Officer cannot be totally ignored, same was held in a decision in Inspector of Police, ACB vs. D. Anjaiah. The complainant to be regarded as accomplice to be corroborated in material particulars before relying his evidence, in the absence of independent corroboration benefit goes to the Accused Officer, same was held in Panalal Damodar
Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra. Simply because, no spontaneous explanation was given by the Accused Officer at the time of questioning during trap incident, his subsequent theory cannot be - 34 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
said as subsequent development, same was held in Sudershan
Parek vs. State of A.P.
60. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that, without vital parts of the prosecution case which form genesis for the trap incident is not proved beyond doubt, conviction cannot be sustained, same was held inHaridev Sarma vs State of Delhi .
The ratio held in the above decisions definitely helps the
Accused Officer in this case.
61. In this case, the alleged demand was made by the Accused
Officer on 18.04.2014 whereas, he lodged complaint against the
Accused Officer on 08.05.2014. This delay indicates motive on the part of P.W.1. Besides, his evidence is suffered with several discrepancies and he had some grudge against the Accused Officer, for deposing against him in departmental enquiry hence, the defence story set up by the Accused Officer cannot said as wholely improbable hence, Section 20 have no application against the Accused Officer in this case. In the State ofState of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere vs. C.B. Nagaraj (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175), wherein, it was held that, law requires proof of demand and acceptance collectively.
Mere recovery of amount even if tainted cannot substitute proof of demand. If initial demand itself remained unproven, legal chain required conviction remains incomplete, subsequently, statutory - 35 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, could not be applied therefore, in the present factual matrix, I hold that, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events i.e., from demand for gratification, recovery. Though there was telephone calls from the Accused Officer to P.W.1 but, no telephonic conversation was filed. Even CDRs not appended with 65(B) of the
Evidence Act certificate. Cell phones of both P.W.1 and the Accused
Officer not seized and produced for verification of the Court, so the cumulative effective of these lapses raised substitution and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version. The prosecution in this case failed to prove the demand and acceptance through the credible, reliable and legally admissible evidence. While the prosecution attempted to built a chain of circumstances, each link in that chain was independently weakened by irregularities and incompleteness therefore, the chain could not be sustain the finding of guilt, thereby, the Accused Officer is entitled for the benefit of doubt, hence, I hold that, the prosecution in this case failed to prove the guilt against the Accused Officer for the offence punishable under
Sections 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(a)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond the reasonable doubt hence, the Accused Officer in this, entitled the benefit of doubt.
- 36 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
62.In the result, the Accused Officer is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(a) and (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the Accused Officer shall be in force for period of 6 months as provided under Section 437-A of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
M.O.3 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.3,000/- is ordered to be returned to the Complainant/P.W.1/Dasari Bala Krishna, if not reimbursed earlier by the Department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.4 to M.O.7 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this 18th day of March, 2026.
Sd/-P.Bhaskara Rao,
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases
-cum- III ADJ, Vijayawada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION:
P.W.1Dasari Bala Krishna,
P.W.2V.C.Sunitha,
P.W.3Ramaraju Visweswara Rao,
P.W.4Sk.Fayaz Ahammad,
P.W.5K.Surendra Babu, - 37 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
P.W.6V.Srinivasa Rao,
P.W.7M.G.Kanaka Nagaraju,
P.W.8A.Surya Prakash Reddy,
P.W.9M.R.V.Ramani,
P.W.10M.Rajarao,
P.W.11T.Narasimha Reddy.
DEFENCE:
D.W.1P.Krishna,
D.W.2S.Anjaneyulu,
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P108.05.2014Report, dated 08.05.2014
Ex.P2---Attested copy Extract of Page No.5 and 6 of Token Register (one sheet)
Ex.P3---Original bill pertaining to encashment of Earned Leave of P.W.1 along with enclosures (total 10 sheets)
Ex.P4---Attested copy of Extract of Fly Leaf of Audit Register (4 sheets)
Ex.P5---Bank list prepared by P.W.3 on 21.04.2014.
Ex.P6---Attendance Register of DTO, Guntur for the year 2014.
Ex.P7---Copy of F.I.R along with copy of complaint.
Ex.P8---Pre-trap proceedings/mediator Report-I.
Ex.P9---Rough sketch is the rough sketch of the scene.
Ex.P10---Post-trap proceedings.
Ex.P1124.03.2016Sanction order against the Accused Officer vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.03.2016.
Ex.P12---Call details in respect of cell phone number 9700341110 along with covering letter, dated 22.09.2014 (8 sheets)
Ex.P13---Customer application form in respect of cell phone number 9700341110 along with - 38 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
covering letter, dated 03.02.2015 (4 sheets)
Ex.P14---Original F.I.R in Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB-GNT/2014.
Ex.P15---Endorsement contains the signature of P.W.11.
Ex.P16---Job charter, service particulars and citizen charter along with covering letter, dated 16.05.2014
FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1---Page No.4 statement under 161 Cr.P.C of witness marked in red.
Ex.D2---Page No.4 statement under 161 Cr.P.C of witness marked in red.
Ex.D3---Proceedings issued by Deputy Director, District Treasury Office, Guntur.
Ex.D4---Charge list.
Ex.D5---(2 Sheets) Attested copy of forwarding letter,
dated 01.09.2012 along with complaint, dated
31.08.2012.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O.1Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder seized during pre-trap proceedings.
M.O.2Sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder seized during pre-trap proceedings.
M.O.3Tainted currency notes of Rs.3,000/- (500 x 6 GC notes).
M.O.4Resultant solution of right hand finger wash of the Accused Officer.
M.O.5Resultant solution of left hand finger wash of the Accused Officer.
M.O.6Resultant solution of cotton swab pertaining to upper right desk.
M.O.7Left over sodium carbonate powder used in the post-trap proceedings.
Sd/- P.Bhaskara Rao
Spl.Judge.
//T.C.B.O.// - 39 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
CALENDER & JUDGMENT
CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB
CASES-CUM-III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA
C.C.No.21/2016
(Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB-GNT/2014)
Date of Offence: Prior to 09.05.2014
Date of FIR: 09.05.2014
Date of Charge sheet: 13.04.2016
Date of framing of charges: 20.12.2019
Date of Commencement of : 08.07.2024 evidence
Date of Judgment: 18.03.2026
Accused Details : Sole Rank of accused : Sri Davanam Ravi Kiran @ Ravi @ Name of accused Kiran Kumar, S/o. Venkatappa, aged 36 years, Senior Accountant, District Treasury Office, Guntur, Guntur district.
: --- Date of arrest : --- Date of release on bail : Sections 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(a)(d) of Offences charged with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : Acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Whether acquitted or convicted : --- Sentence imposed
Period of detention : --- undergone during trial for purpose of Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
- 40 -C.C.No.21/2016
ACB COURT, VJA
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY AND REMARKS:- This case was taken on file on 16.04.2016. The Accused Officer appeared and received copies of documents on 11.05.2016. Charges are framed against the Accused Officer on 20.12.2019. On 08.07.2024 evidence commenced and P.W.1 to P.W.11 are examined and D.W.1 and D.W.2 are examined. Later Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 17.11.2025. Later, this case is posted for Arguments. At last detailed oral and written arguments were heard on both sides on 05.03.2026, Judgment is pronounced on 18.03.2026. Hence the reasons for delay.
Sd/-P.Bhaskara Rao,
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases
-cum- III ADJ, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to
The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
Copies to :
1. The Special Public Prosecutor, Guntur Range Cases, ACB Court, Vijayawada.
2. The District Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guntur.
//T.C.B.O.//