Sri P.Bhaskara Rao

1

chIN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE &

ACB CASES, KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bhaskara Rao,

Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

KURNOOL.

Wednesday, the 15 th day of December, 2021.

CALENDAR CASE No.69/2013

Between:

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

Versus

Buddi Chandra Mohan, Spl. Gr. Deputy Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool. …. Accused Officer

This case is coming for final hearing on 16-11-2021 in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri K. Ravindra

Babu and Sri N. Shanmukham, Advocates for accused officer, 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, Kurnool

Range, Kurnool, filed charge sheet against the accused officer, to prosecute him for the offences U/S. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of

Corruption Act,1988.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the accused officer joined in Govt. Service on 05.12.1978 as Probationary Deputy

Tahsildar at Collectorate, Mahaboob Nagar. On 03.09.1991 he was promoted as Mandal Revenue Officer and on 13.08.2001 promoted as

Deputy Collector. Subsequently, on 04.05.2006 he was promoted as

Spl. Grade Deputy Collector and worked as Spl. Grade Deputy

Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool from 01.03.2009 to 28.10.209. By 2 virtue of the posts held by him, he falls under the category of Public

Servant as defined in Section 2(c) of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988.

3.It is further case of the prosecution that, on credible information that, the Accused Officer-Buddi Chandra Mohan, Spl. Grade

Deputy Collector, SSP, Kurnool, indulged in Corrupt practices and by dubious means, acquired movable/immovable properties in his name and in the names of his family members, case in Cr.No.11/RCA-

KUR/2009 U/S 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of ACB, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, was registered against him on 26.10.2009 and investigated into, as per the proceedings issued by the

Joint Director (R), Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, vide proceedings in Rc.No.22/ACB-JD-(R)/2009 dt.26.10.2009. During the course of investigation and in pursuance of search warrants obtained from the

Addl. Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB cases at Hyderabad, searches were conducted in the following places.

1) Flat No.503, D.Block, SB Hemadri Towers, Kukatpally, the main residential house of the Accused Officer and his family was searched by Sri.R.Venganna, DSP, ACB, Kurnool and

Sri.M.Mahaboob Basha, Inspector of Police, ACB, Kurnool.

2) Quarter No.B/E8, B-Camp, Kurnool temporary official residence of Accused Officer was searched by Sri.B.Nagaraju,

Inspector, ACB, Tirupathi Range, Tirupathi.

3) H.No.BMP-87, 4TH MAIN, 13TH Cross, Kavei Lay out, G.M.Palya (New Thappa Sandram), Bangalore City, being resided by

V.Veena Vani, eldest daughter of Accused Officer and her husband, was searched by Sri.A.Bhaskar, Inspector, ACB,

Anantapur and Sri.V.Giridhar, Inspector, ACB, Anantapur.

3

4.During the searches, incriminating documents pertaining to

Assets, income and expenditure, cash and gold ornaments, were also seized. During course of investigation, letters were addressed to various Departments and collected material evidence in respect of assets, income and Expenditure of Accused Officer and his family members. For the purpose of investigation, the check period was taken from 05.12.1978 to 28.10.2009.

5.The investigation revealed that, the Accused Officer while working as Public Servant, in various capacities in Revenue

Department during the check period, indulged in corrupt and illegal practices and acquired huge assets and found in possession of assets worth Rs.1,48,30,619/- as on the terminal date of check period in his name, and in the names of his family members and dependants which are shown in detail in Annexure-I, attached to the Charge Sheet.

6.For the entire check period, the income of the Accused

Officer from all the known sources was arrived at Rs.74,37,106/-, described in Annexure-II attached to the charge sheet.

7.The total expenditure incurred by Accused Officer during the entire check period including household expenditure was calculated at Rs.44,18,370/- described in Annexure-III attached to the

Charge Sheet.

8.The total income of the Accused Officer from all the known sources during the check period is amounting to Rs.74,37,106/- and the total expenditure on himself and on his family members is

Rs.44,18,370/- as such, likely savings comes to Rs.30,18,736/-.

9.As against the likely savings of Rs.30,18,736/-, the Accused

Officer is possessing assets worth Rs.1,48,30,619/-, hence, the Accused 4

Officer, is found in possession of Disproportionate Assets in his name and in the names of his wife and children as on 28.10.2009 worth

Rs.1,18,11,883/- (i.e., Assets Rs.1,48,30,619/- (-) likely savings

Rs.30,18,736/-. Thus, the Accused Officer has acquired assets worth

Rs.1,18,11,883/- disproportionate to is known sources or income by corrupt and dubious means, for which, he could not account for satisfactorily though, he was given opportunity to explain the same.

10.As per the information furnished vide 1) CCLA’s ref

No.DD1/1553/2009 dt.23.09.2010 by the Spl. Chief Secretary & CCLA,

AP., Hyderabad and 2) As per CCLA ref. No.D4/01/2010, dt.18.09.2010 of Spl. Chief Secretary & CCLA, A.P., Hyderabad, permission was not obtained by the Accused Officer, for purchase of Assets and not submitted APRs except for 3 years.

11.Therefore, the Accused Officer-Buddi Chandra Mohan,

Spl.Gr.Deputy Collector, SSP, Kurnool, committed the offence of

Criminal Misconduct punishable U/S.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

12.Accused Officer retired from service on 31.12.2010 on attaining the age of Superannuation as such, prosecution sanction order was not required under sec.19 of Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the Accused Officer.

13.The Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

A.P.Hyderabad, issued memorandum vide C.no.269/RCA-KUR/2009, dt.13.08.2012, to file the charge sheet against the Accused Officer-

Buddi Chandra Mohan, Spl. Gr. Deputy Collector, SSP, Kurnool, accordingly charge sheet was filed against him to prosecute him for the offence under Secf.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988).

5

14.This case was taken cognizance for the offences U/S. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused officer on 21-11-2012, by the Learned Predecessor of the Court.

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

16.On 12-11-2013, Learned Predecessor of this Court, examined the accused U/S.239 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the offence hence, charge U/S. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in telugu but, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

17.In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution cited as many

as 77 witnesses, but examined 70 witnesses.

18.PW1-Sub-Registrar, Kukatpalli, furnished information in respect of 3 registered sale deeds, under which, items 1,3 and 2 of assets purchased under Exs.P2, P3 and P5 respectively by Accused

Officer, in his name and in the name of his wife and daughter and stamp duty and registration charges paid thereon by the purchasers.

19.PW2-Joint Sub-Registrar, Kurnool, furnished information with regard to the 2 registered sale deeds, under which, item No.4 was purchased under Ex.P8 in the name of daughter of Accused Officer

Vasantha and item No.5 was purchased in the name of wife of Accused

Officer under Ex.P10 registered sale deed and stamp duty and registration charges paid thereon.

20.PW3-Sub-Registrar, Kadapa, who furnished information with regard to the purchase of Item No.6 in the name of wife of Accused 6

Officer under Ex.P13 registered sale deed and stamp duty and registration charges paid thereon.

21.PW4-Deputy Executive Engineer, R&B, Hyderabad, who evaluated item Nos.1 to 3 and furnished Ex.P14-Report.

22.PW5-Mediator, for search of item No.3, Flat No.503 in

Hemadri Towers, Hyderabad, he stated about search conducted in the said Flat under Ex.P15 search warrant, seizure of made up files I to V under Ex.P16 search list and inventory made under Ex.P17. He also stated about conducting search in the locker in the name of Accused

Officer and his wife in I.D.B.I., Bank, Kukatpalli and drafting of Ex.P18 search proceedings noting 6 gold items found in the said locker.

23.PW6-Vendor for item No.6 stated that, he sold total Ac.3.82 cents to 3 persons and the wife of Accused Officer is one of the purchasers under Ex.P13 sale deed.

25.PW7-Senior Assistant from Regional Transport Office,

Hyderabad, furnished information with regard to item No.7-Tata Indica

Car, registered in the name of Accused Officer on 21.10.2010 and registration charges and life tax thereon by Accused Officer. He furnished extract of B-Register for the said Car under Ex.P19.

26.PW8-Water Works Inspector, Kurnool furnished fuel consumption charges for Tata India Car (item No.7) and TVS Scooty (item No.8) under Ex.P20 report.

27.PW9-Deputy Transport Commissioner, Nalgonda, who furnished Ex.P21 B-Register Extract in respect of TVS Scooty (item

No.8) in the name of Deeparani daughter of Accused Officer, life tax and registration charges paid thereon.

7

28.PW10-Gold shop owner stated that he weighed Gold and

Silver articles found in the house of Accused Officer and at bank locker.

29.PW11-Official, from Axis Bank, Kurnool, furnished statement of account under Ex.P22 for the account of Accused Officer,

Ex.P23 for the account of Smt.Usha Rani, wife of Accused Officer and balance in the respective accounts as on 28.10.2009.

30.PW12-Vendor for item No.2 stated that, he sold the plot to the wife of Accused Officer under Ex.P5 sale deed for Rs.11,47,000-00.

31.PW13-Vendor for item No.3, stated that he sold item No.3 to Vasantha daughter of Accused Officer under Ex.P3 sale deed for

Rs.11,00,000/-, before that, he entered into an agreement with her under Ex.P25 on 19.03.2008 and he paid stamp duty and registration charges and furnished information to ACB Officials under Ex.P26 letter dt.15.07.2010 and he received sale consideration under Ex.P27 (17 receipts).

32.PW14-Vendor, for item No.5 stated that, he sold item No.5 to the wife of Accused Officer under Ex.P10-Registered sale deed, for

Rs.1,19,000/-.

33.PW15-Sales Manager, from Concord Motors, Hyderabad stated that, as per Ex.P28 invoice particulars, they sold one Tata Indica

Car to Accused Officer for Rs.3,74,774/- and they collected life tax, insurance and accessories, premium for extended warranty handling charges remuneration, registration charges, totaling Rs.4,43,101/- as per Ex.P29 abstract and furnished information to ACB Officials under

Ex.P30 letter.

34.PW16-Manager from Karur Vysya Bank stated that,

Accused Officer obtained 5 FDRs mentioned in item Nos.17 to 21 of 8 assets and he furnished information to ACB Officials under Ex.P31 letter.

35.PW17-Vendor for item No.1 stated that, he and other partner sold item No.1 to Accused Officer and his wife under Ex.P2-

Registered sale deed and received sale consideration under Ex.P32 (14 receipts), totaling Rs.34,73,323/- and original cost of the building was

Rs.33,58,000/- and they adjusted remaining amount towards registration fee and stamp duty and they furnished under Ex.P33-Flat

Booking Form, Ex.P34 photocopy of agreement and Ex.P35-Ledger

Extract to the ACB Officials.

36.PW18-Branch Manager from I.D.B.I. Bank, Kukatpalli furnished Ex.P36-Statement of account in the name of Accused Officer and balance lying thereon as on 28.10.2013. He also stated there are 4 FDRs in the name of Accused Officer value of Rs.1,00,000/- each, he furnished information to the ACB Officials regarding FDRs under Ex.P37 letter.

37.PW19-Officer from City Union Bank, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, who furnished information with regard to the S.B. Account of Accused officer lying in their branch and balance in account as on 20.08.2009 and another F.D. Account in the name of Accused Officer for

Rs.88,737/- and furnished information to the ACB Officials under Ex.P39 letter.

38.PW20-Chief Manager from Andhra Bank, Kukatpalli,

Hyderabad, furnished information about S.B.Account in the name of

B.Vandana, daughter of Accused Officer vide Ex.P40-Statement of account along with cover letter and bank balance in the account as on 28.10.2009.

9

39.PW21-Senior Manager from Bank of Baroda, Kadapa, stated about S.B.Account in the name of Accused Officer in their branch and furnishing of Ex.P41-Certified copy of Statement of Account along with covering letter and bank balance as on 28.10.2009.

40.PW22-Assistant Manager from Vijaya Bank, Kukatpalli,

Hyderabad, furnished bank account details of B.Usha Rani wife of

Accused Officer and B.Vasantha daughter of Accused officer in their branch under Exs.P42 and P43 statement of accounts and balance lying in their accounts as on 20.10.2009.

41.PW23-Offical from Sundaram Mutual Fund Agency, stated that, Accused officer invested Rs.1,20,000/- in their company and they furnished information to ACB Officials under Ex.P44 letter.

42.PW24-Manager from UTI Mutual Funds, Hyderabad, he stated about investments made by Accused Officer in their company and furnished information to ACB Officials under Ex.P45.

43.PW25-Manager from ICICI Bank, Secunderabad furnished the information about the S.B.Account of B.Vandana daughter of

Accused Officer in their branch vide Ex.P46-Statement of Account with balance details in the account as on 28.01.2010.

44.PW26-Senior Assistant, from the office of Special Deputy

Collector, Land Acquisition, TTD, Tirupati, who furnished pay drawn particulars of Accused officer under Exs.P47 and P48.

45.PW27-Special Deputy Tahsildar, Kambum, Prakasham

District, who, furnished pay drawn particulars of Accused Officer under

Ex.P49 and GPF Part Final withdrawal particulars under Ex.P50.

10

46. PW28-Junior Assistant from Collector Office, Ranga Reddy

District, who furnished pay drawn particulars of Accused officer under

Exs.P51 and 52.

47.PW29-Assistant Manager (Accounts) from Civil Supply

Office, Mahabubnagar, who furnished pay drawn particulars of Accused

Officer under Ex.P53.

48.PW30-Superintendent from the office of Special Collector,

Land Acquisition, Veligonda Project, Ongole who, furnished pay drawn particulars of Accused Officer under Ex.P54.

49.PW31-Superintendent from the office of Chief

Commissioner of land Administrative, A.P., Hyderabad, who furnished pay drawn particulars of Accused Officer under Ex.P55.

50.PW32-Manager, from LIC Housing Finance Limited,

Hyderabad stated that, wife of Accused Officer-B.Usha Rani availed house loan of Rs.9,50,000/- and repaid the loan and Ex.P56 statement of account, is marked in his evidence.

51.PW33-Tahsildar from Chennur, who furnished adangal copies under Ex.P57 in respect of land in item No.6 owned by wife of

Accused Officer and others.

52.PW34-Mandal Agricultural Officer, Chennur, who furnished agricultural income on item No.6 under Ex.P58- Statement showing the extent of land yield particulars, expenditure and net amount pertaining to three years 2006-07 to 2009-10.

53.PW35-Employer of B.Deeparani daughter of Accused

Officer, who, furnished total salary drawn by her under Ex.P59.

11

54.PW36-Employer of B.Vandana daughter of Accused Officer, furnished her pay drawn particulars under Ex.P60.

55.PW37-Assistnat Manager from Sriram Engineering

Company, furnished sale particulars of TVS Scooty to Deepa Rani daughter of Accused Officer under Ex.P61-Invoice.

56.PW38-Employer of B.Vasantha daughter of Accused Officer furnished pay drawn particulars under Ex.P62.

57.PW39-Public Relation Inspector from Head Post Office,

Khairathabad, Hyderabad, who furnished PPF Account maintained by

Accused Officer in the Post Office vide Ex.P63-Statement of Account.

58.PW40-Assistnat Manager from Andhra Bank, Wanaparthy who furnished house loan details availed by Accused Officer and repayment details vide Ex.P64-Statement of Account.

59.PW41-Branch Officer from Peerless General Finance and

Investment Company Limited, Hyderabad, furnished policy details obtained by Accused Officer and installments paid by him vide letter under Ex.P65.

60.PW42-Junior Assistant, from Christu Jyoti Vidyalayam,

Mahabub Nagar furnished School Fee Payment particulars for the studies of 4 daughters of Accused Officer B.Veenavani,B.Deepa Rani,

B.Vandana and B.Vasanta for the classes studies by them in their

School under Ex.P66 letter.

61.PW43-Manager from Vijaya Bank who, furnished vehicle loan details availed by Accused Officer and repayment details by

Accused Officer vide Ex.P67-Statement of Loan Account with covering letter.

12

62.PW44-In the employer of B.Vasanta, daughter of Accused

Officer who, furnished pay drawn particulars vide Ex.P68.

63.PW45-Principal, Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Mahabub

Nagar, who furnished college fee payment particulars of Vandana and

Vasanta daughters of Accused Officer vide Ex.P69.

64.PW46-Principal from Adarsha Degree College, Mahabub

Nagar, who furnished college fee payment particulars of daughters of

Accused viz., Veenavani, Deepa Rani, Vandana and Vasanta vide

Ex.P70.

65.PW47-Principal from Adarsha Junior College, Mahabub

Nagar, furnished college fee payment particulars of daughters of

Accused Officer namely Veenavani and Deepa Rani vide Ex.P71.

66.PW48-Junior Assistant from Kasturi Ba Gandhi Degree and

PG College for Women, Secunderabad, who furnished college fee payment particulars of Deepa Rabni daughter of Accused Officer for the MBA Course studied by her vide Ex.P72.

67.PW49-Administrative Officer from LIC., Kurnool Branch, who furnished information with regard to the LIC polices obtained by

Accused Officer, premiums paid by him and loans obtained by him on the polices vide Ex.P73, 74 and 75.

68.PW50-Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Kukatpalli, furnsiehd information with regard to the electricity consumption charges in respect of item No.1 and item No.3 vide Ex.P76.

69.PW51-General Manager from Hotel Bliss, Tirupati, furnished the details of marriage dinner charges paid by Accused Officer on the occasion of marriage of his daughter Deeparani vide Ex.P77.

13

70.PW52-Manager, State Bank of India Life Insurance, Kurnool, furnished policy obtained by Vandana daughter of Accused Officer vide

Ex.P78-Policy details.

71.PW53-Administrative Officer from LIC, Hyderabad furnished policy details obtained by Vandana daughter of Accused Officer under

Ex.P79 letter.

72.PW54-Area Manager from Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company,

Kurnool, furnished information regarding vehicle insurance policy and premium paid by Accused Officer for Tata India Car vide Ex.P80.

73.PW55-Assistant Manager from New India Insurance

Company, Mahabubnagar, furnished information with regard to the policy obtained for scooty in the name of B.Deeparani daughter of

Accused Officer vide Ex.P81.

74.PW56-Administrative Officer from Collectorate Office,

Vijayanagaram, furnished pay drawn particulars of Accused Officer vide

Ex.P78.

75.PW57-Vendor for item No.4 stated that, he sold plot in item

No.4 to B.Vasanta daughter of Accused Officer under Ex.P8 registered document for Rs.3,00,000/-.

76.PW58-Accused Officer from Collectorate, Mahabubnagar, furnished information with regard to the pay drawn particulars of

Accused Officer vide Ex.P80.

77.PW59-Deputy Tahsildar furnished pay drawn particulars of

Accused Officer under Ex.P81 and GPF advance particulars under

Ex.P82.

14

78.PW60-Special Deputy Collector, Guntur, furnished information regarding pay drawn particulars of Accused Officer under

Ex.P84 and submitted information under Ex.P85 to the District

Collector, Guntur, who in turn informed to the Inspector, ACB, Kurnool under Ex.P86.

79.PW61-Accounts Officer from BSNL, furnished information with regard to the land line connection No.227021 obtained by Accused

Officer and telephone charges paid by him vide Ex.P87 letter with statement.

80.PW62-Tenant in item No.2 of assets stated that, he paid rent of Rs.12,000/- per month to Accused Officer from June, 2008 to

September, 2009 and paid total rent of Rs.1,92,000/- to Accused

Officer.

81.PW63-Employee from Tata Plus Gold, Kurnool, furnished information with regard to sale of one gold coin to Accused Officer for

Rs.12,994/- on 6.8.2009 vide Ex.P88 letter.

82.PW64-Onwer of K.S.R. Kalyana Mandapam, Kadapa, furnished information with regard to letting of Kalyana Mandapam to

Accused Officer on the occasion of marriage of his daughter Veenavani on 3.12.2003 on payment of Rs.17,500/- and he furnished information under Ex.P89 letter.

83.PW65-Revenue Inspector in the office of Chief

Commissioner of Land Acquisition, Hyderabad, stated that he is looking after annual property returns and permissions in respect of employees in the Department and produced file pertaining to this case and as per the record, the then Secretary to the Spl. Chief Secretary and CCLA furnished information with regard to 5 items of immovable properties 15 purchased by Accused officer i.e., item No.1, 2, 4 and 5 in the name of

Accused Officer and his family members but prior permission are not applied and not recorded to item Nos.1,2,4 and 5. He further stated that, Accused Officer submitted APRs for the year 2003-2004, 2005- 2006, only and subsequent to this case, he filed revised APRs in the year 2009 for the years 2007-2008 and 2009, hence they were not considered under Ex.P91 letter containing the information, above information was furnished under Ex.P92 is the letter furnishing information in respect of APRs for the year 2003 to 2006 and as per the

Ex.P93 proceedings Accused Officer was accorded permission to purchase one Tata Sumo vehicle.

84.PW66-Administrative Officer in Collectorate, Mahabubnagar

District, furnished information with regard to pay drawn particulars of

Accused Officer under Ex.P94 letter for the period from 05.12.1978 to 31.12.1995. Ex.P95 is another letter containing statement of pay drawn particulars of Accused Officer for the period from November, 2000 to April, 2001. Ex.P97 letter furnished information to ACB with regard to purchase of TVS Scooty by Accused Officer in the name of his daughter and according sanction by the defacto-complainant.

85.PW67- Correspondent from St.James Residential High

School, Mahaboob Nagar stated that daughters of Accused Officer

Vandana and Vasantha studied UKG to 3rd Class and issued Ex.P98 letter for the school fee paid by Accused Officer for studying of his daughter.

86.PW68-M.Mahaboob Basha, Inspector, ACB, Kurnool, who furnished source report to D.G., ACB., Hyderabad, registered FIR after receipt of proceedings from Joint Director, ACB, Rayalaseema Division conducting investigation and house search by him with his staff and 16 mediators in item No.1 at Kukatpally, Hyderabad on 28.10.2008 and entrustment of 3 search warrants to Inspectors to conduct searches in the house of Accused Officer and his relatives at Kadapa, Tirupati,

Kurnool and Bangalore and made inventory of gold, silver and other valuable items in the house seizure of cash of Rs.18,30,000/- and bank locker key under Ex.P17 inventory proceedings. He further stated that, during searches, he found one Tata Indica Car, TVS Scooty in the parking area of the house, noted ODO meter readings of the vehicles, 5 cell phones in the house, seized documents in 18 made up files, IDBI

FDRs under Ex.P16 search list.

87.He further stated that, on same day at 4.20 PM he conducted search in the locker of Accused Officer in IDBI Bank,

Kukatpalli Branch, Hyderabad, found 6 gold items seized under Ex.P18 search proceedings. He also conducted search in the house of

Deeparani daughter of Accused Officer by serving Ex.P101 search proceedings, but no incriminating material was found in the Flat, in

Harsha Apartment, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad on 28.10.2009. Later, he brought the accused to Kurnool on 29.10.2009 and received search warrants from the other Inspectors and arrested accused produced him

before the Court for remand along with material seized. During course

of examination, he also addressed letters to various departments to secure information with regard to the assets, income and expenditure of Accused Officer and his family members and he examined K.G.

Reddy-LW.9, PW14, LW5-Varma, PW13, LW7-Sudharsan, PW6, PW62 and

LW49-Madan Roy and on his transfer, he handed over investigation to

DSP, ACB, Venganna.

88.PW69-DSP, ACB, Kurnool stated that, he accompanied

PW68-Inspector as a Supervising Officer conducted search in the house of Accused Officer in item No.5 situated at Hemadri Towers, Hyderabad 17 under Ex.P15 search warrant prepared Ex.P17 inventory proceedings and made up files under Ex.P16-Search list, opened the bank locker seized gold ornaments under Ex.P18. Later, on receipt of C.D. file from

PW68, he also addressed letters to various departments to secure information with regard to the assets, income and expenditure of the

Accused Officer and during course of investigation, he examined one

Kaleswara Rao, later he issued notice to Accused Officer calling his explanation on 11.07.2010 and Accused Officer furnished his explanation on 03.09.2010 and on his explanation he also addressed letters to the concerned seeking clarifications. On 30.09.2010 he served second notice to Accused Officer calling his explanation and

Accused Officer submitted his explanation on these explanations, he further investigated and issued another notice to Accused Officer on 17.12.2010. Meanwhile, Accused Officer retired from service on 31.12.2010, later he handed over further investigation to Inspector of

Police-Nagaraj Yadav, ACB, Kurnool.

89.PW70-Inspector, ACB, Kurnool stated that, he received case file from PW69 and have gone through the explanations submitted by

Accused Officer and for clarifications, he also addressed letters to various departments sought information with regard to values of assets, income and expenditure of Accused Officer and his family members. Later, he enquired with regard to the family background of

Accused Officer and his life style, his investigation revealed that his wife did not receive any Sridana property and Accused Officer has got four daughters and enquired about their studies, marriage of

Deeparani and her employment in GE India, Expose Pvt. Ltd.,

Begumpet, Hyderabad and her marriage with Balasubramanyam,

Software Engineer at Bangalore another daughter Vandana did MCA 18 and worked in Satyam Computers, Hyderabad, Vasanta worked in Data

Syn Solutions, Hyderabad and other software companies.

90.He further stated that, for the purpose of investigation, check period was taken from 05.12.1978 (date of entry into service) to 28.10.2009 (date of conducting house search). He also stated that,

Accused Officer filed APRs for the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 only and not filed for the rest of the period during the check period. Accused Officer obtained permission to purchase item No.5 only, Accused Officer filed income tax returns for the years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and his wife filed income tax returns for the years 2007- 2008 and 2009-2010 but not filed ITRs for the other period and he also received information from I.T. Dept., under Ex.P102. Exs.P103 and

P104 of income tax returns, Exs.P105, P106 and P107 letters received from income tax department. Ex.P108 is income tax returns of Vandana daughter of Accused Officer, Ex.P109 is income tax returns of

Deeparani daughter of Accused Officer and Ex.P110 is income tax returns of Vasanta daughter of Accused Officer are marked in his evidence.

91.He further stated that, the investigation revealed that,

Accused Officer had possessed 36 assets described in Annexure-I, valued at Rs.1,48,30,619/-, whereas, his income from all sources during check period is only Rs.74,37,106/- described in items 1 to 42 of

Annexure-II and his expenditure during check period was estimated at

Rs.44,18,370/- described in items 1 to 23 of Annexure-III. After calculation of assets, income and expenditure of Accused Officer during check period i.e., after deducting expenditure of Rs.44,18,370/- from the total income of Rs.74,34,106/- there is only Rs.30,18,736/- likely savings to Accused Officer, whereas, value of the assets acquired and possessed by Accused Officer during check period comes to 19

Rs.1,48,30,619/- and after deducting the likely savings from the total assets, Accused Officer was found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.1,18,11,883/-.

92.He further stated that, he prepared calculation report for the household expenditure under Ex.P123 and received information with regard to the APRs from various authorities under Exs.P124 to

Ex.P130. He also investigated with regard to the claim of sale of gold by Accused Officer at Chennai but same is found to be false vide letter

Ex.P131. His investigation was also revealed that Accused Officer was placed under suspension for 5 times during check period and after completion of entire investigation, he submitted Draft-Final report to

Director of General, ACB., Hyderabad. Meanwhile, Accused Officer was retired from his service on 31.12.2010, hence no sanction was necessitated. Hence, charge sheet was filed after receipt of approval from D.G., ACB., vide proceedings dated 13.08.2012 to prosecute the

Accused Officer Under Sec.13(1)(2) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

93.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P-1 to P-132 were marked.

94.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.

95.Accused officer filed written statement stating that, no preliminary investigation was conducted before registration of the case and same is fatal to the case of prosecution. In this case entire investigation was conducted by Inspector, ACB who is not competent to conduct the investigation and as per Sec.17 of Prevention of 20

Corruption Act, 1988 investigation has to be conducted by officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, hence entire investigation in this case is vitiated. Charge Sheet was filed against him without obtaining the sanction order from the Government basing on the proceedings issued by Director of General, ACB, Hyderabad, who is not competent, to authorize Inspector to file charge sheet against him. In this case, ACB conducted raids on 28.09.2010 and he retired on 31.12.2010 and draft final report was sent to D.G., A.C.B., in the month of July, 2012 but, as per G.O.Ms.No.635 dt.15.10.2008 investigation in Disproportionate Assets cases has to be completed within 6 months, but same is not followed in this case, Investigation

Officer waited till his retirement and filed charge sheet after his retirement to avoid sanction from the Government.

96.First notice was issued to him on 11.07.2010, he gave explanation on 3.9.2010. Again second notice was issued on 30.09.2010 and he gave explanation on 11.10.2010, so Investigation

Officer should have obtained sanction from the government instead of, waited till his retirement and filed charge sheet after his retirement to surpas benevolent provision under Sec.19 of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, hence same is not just and proper. Ex.P132 issued by Joint

Director, ACB, Hyderabad on 7.1.2011 authorizing PW17 to conduct further investigation, but the proceedings are not filed along with charge sheet, therefore, they are created subsequently to overcome latches.

97.Investigation Officer without verifying family background of

Accused Officer and his wife mechanically filed charge sheet boosting of figures of assets and expenditure and not considered independent income of his wife who is earning member of the family and also an income tax assessee. Properties purchased by wife and daughters with 21 their independent income were tagged to Accused Officer without having any evidence regarding flow of funds from the account of

Accused Officer. He further stated that, mostly worked in Non-Focal posts, hence there is no scope for any indulging corruption and acquiring assets by means of offence. His income, from all sources, disclosed in his explanation were not considered and they were deliberately ignored to make out a case against him. Non-filing of

APRs only amounts to violation of Service Rules and attracts departmental action but, not amounts to an offence or criminal misconduct under Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

98.It is further stated that, a file bearing No.48523/Vig.1/Rev,

Dept/2009 was opened in Government on my representation to drop the case against Accused Officer. Revenue Minister endorsed to drop further action against Accused Officer keeping in view of earning of family members and I.T. returns. As seen from record, it is observed that, Accused Officer submitted his explanation together with documentary evidence as per APRs and I.T. returns etc., further it appeared that, the value of assets and expenditure are boosted up.

Accused Officer and his wife and daughter are independent earning members paying income tax, therefore, it appears no disproportionate assets possessed by Accused Officer, subsequently, departmental enquiry was ordered by Hon’ble Chief Minister on 12.02.2014, but

Proceedings could not be issued to that effect due to Hon’ble Governor taking over the post of Chief Minister under proclamation of President rule. By that time the charge sheet was filed against Accused Officer without permission from Government. Investigation Officer filed charge sheet belatedly after retirement of the Accused Officer.

Investigation Officer did not take even permission from the

Government for filing the charge sheet. Even though D.G., ACB.,, has 22 reported in his final report that “Charge sheet is being filed before the concerned Court as per the procedure”. Neither D.G., ACB nor

Investigation Officer, did not follow the procedure. They did not even report to Government after filing the charge sheet.

99.Independent income of his daughter Deeparani totaling

Rs.16,34,740/-, income from property of Accused Officer

Rs.10,52,775/-, income of Vandana Rs.11,00,000/- and professional income of Rs.2,20,000/- was not considered.

100.Flat No.B-304 purchased by Usha Rani wife of Accused

Officer for sale consideration of Rs.13,27,000/- from out of her own funds legally raised from her property, as income arising from Sridhana (from her parental side). (See Ex.D7). All expenses of registration and other charges were paid by the vendors VVR Varma and others.

(PW17).

101. Flat No.D-503 was purchased by my daughter V.Vasantha for Rs.14,39,000/- working as Software Engineer with her own funds disclosed in her ITR (Ex.D7). All expenses of registration etc., were borne by vendors. (PW13).

102.Usharani purchased the Flat C.303 for Rs.11,47,000/- from

M/s. Prime Constructions with her own independent income. She is an income tax assessee. Her source are disclosed in her ITRs. She proved that registration were borne by the vendors.

103.PW2-Balasubramanyam, Sub-Registrar, Kurnool deposed that Kumari Vasantha purchased plot No.562 in Sy.No.679 of

Lakshmipuram Vilage for Rs.3,00,000/- from out of her own income.

K.J.Reddy the vendor-PW57 deposed the same and also added that 23

K.J.Reddy himself paid the expenses for registration on behalf of his company-Ex.D7.

104.Smt.Usharani wife of Accused Officer purchased plot NO.7 in Sy.No.712 of Kallur village for RS.1,19,000/- from her own sources of income as per PW14.

105.Smt.Usharani also purchased agriculture land with share of 20% in an extent of Ac.3.82 cents in Sy.No.117, for a total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e., 20% being Rs.40,0000/-. K.Rama

Murthy other partner of the land paid all expenses for registration.

PW6. PW4 Dy.E.E.-P.Bhaskar Raju did not estimate the interiors in the presence of Accused Officer.

106.Explanation submitted regarding the silver items that they are gift items as Sridhana form in-laws of wife Usharani-Ex.D7. The amount of Rs.18,30,000/- cash was found in the bed room of my son in law-N.Bala Subramanyam who is staying with them along with daughter of Accused Officer Deeparani who carrying 9th month pregnancy.

107.Net cash of Rs.18,30,000/- found in the bed room of his son-in-law not belongs to him and it belongs to his son-in-law N.Bala

Subramanyam only who came to see his wife i.e., daughter of Accused

Officer Deeparani since she was carrying in the 9th month pregnancy at that time, hence the said item has to be excluded.

108.Veenavani wife of Parthasaradhi first daughter of Accused

Officer and two of his unmarried daughters both employed as Software

Engineers are also present in connection with the betrothal ceremony of his third daughter Vandana on 25.10.2009, the raid was made on 28.10.2009. TVS Scooty belongs to second daughter Deeparani of 24

Accused Officer and the seized items found in the locker of IDBI Bank,

Kukatpally are Gift items as revealed to the raid party. (Ex.D7) (PW5).

109.PW6 deposed that he sold ac.3.82 cents of agriculture land for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- to Rama Murthy, his wife and others.

Rama Murthy paid the registration charges PW3-M.Venakta Subbaiah,

Retired Sub-Registrar, Kadapa confirmed thus. It is added by him that

Usha Rani paid part of consideration Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque issued by Bank of Baroda vide cheque No.059541 dt.14.11.2006 thus, confirming 20% of share only to Usha Rani.

110.Investigation Officer not considered the explanation properly and boosted up figures without any proof and he elaborately cross-examined concerned witnesses and elicited favourable answers from them.

111.Accused Officer obtained permission to purchase Tata

Sumo under Ex.P93 and purchased Tata India Car to meet certain contingencies as per the prevailing circumstances. He filed APRs for the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2006-2007 and they are marked as

Ex.D4 APRs for the year 2009 are marked as Ex.D5. He purchased house plot shown in item No.5 after obtaining permission under Ex.D6.

Purchase of item No.3 Flat was mentioned in APR 2008 marked as

Ex.D4, purchase of plot in item No.4 was mentioned in APR 2007, purchase of item No.6 was mentioned in APR 2006, purchase of item

No.1 was intimated and mentioned in Ex.D5 APR for the year 2009.

Investigation Officer admitted that himself and his daughters were earning members and income tax assesses, his wife is also an income tax assessee and she filed ITRs for the year 2007-2008, 2009-2010, his daughter Vasanta filed ITR for the year 2008-2009 and the ITRs marked 25 as Exs.P102 and 110. Accused Officer intimated purchase of item

Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 3 and 4 of assets in their respective income tax returns.

112.It is lastly stated that Investigation Officer did not conduct investigation fairly and carried out the same in a biased manner. After deleting unnecessary items in assets tagged to Accused Officer and after considering legal income of Accused Officer from all sources and after making necessary deductions in the expenditure, Accused Officer is not at all found in possession of disproportionate assets to a tune of

Rs.1,18,11,883/- but found to be in surplus income of Rs.70,37,539/- as per the table mentioned below,

Name Income Rs.ExpenditureLikely Rs.Assets Rs.Remarks Rs. Accused68,01,10918,39,49849,61,61119,25,371No officerDisproportionate Usharani71,94,2457,39,32864,54,47146,91,186No Disproportionate Deeparani5,47,30884685,38,84027,365No Disproportionate Vandana 18,55,16580,19717,74,96858,064No Disproportionate Vasantha 19,00,053400018,96,53818,21,349No Disproportionate 1,82,98,36526,71,4911,56,26,87485,23,335No Disproportionate thereby he is not at all guilty for the offence under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and as prosecution failed to prove the guilt against him beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled for acquittal.

113.On the defence side, accused officer has examined D.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. D-1 to D-50.

114.DW1-Smt.Usharani wife of Accused Officer, stated that, his father used to maintain Rice mill and Floor mill and got

Ac.10.00 cents of land, as such, she hails from financially sound family.

She married Accused Officer on 20.08.1976 and at the time of her marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.36,000/- and 50 tulas of gold as 26 ‘Sridhana’ to her and her in-laws presented 10 tulas of gold to her. Her mother Yashodamma executed a gift settlement kararunama-Ex.D10 on 17.12.2009 confirming those presentations as per Ex.D11 registered partition deed dt.01.12.1997, in which, she got 3 plots at Srikalahasti and subsequently, she sold away those plots under 3 registered sale deeds under Exs.D12 to D14 and received total Rs.2,40,000/- sale consideration.

115.She further stated that, Rs.36,000/- cash received at the time of her marriage was invested in money lending business and she received Rs.1,50,000/- income in money lending business from ryots.

The said amount was given to Kavuri Mastanaiah through her brother

Venkata Chalapathi under Ex.D7 pronote and she received

Rs.2,70,000/- under the said pronote. Later, she lent Rs.2,00,000/- to one Dharmaraju and received Rs.1,12,000/- interest with principal, she received Rs.2,70,000/-, and investing Sridhana amount Rs.36,000/-, she got Rs.4,52,000/- in the money lending business. Likewise,

Rs.2,40,000/- received by her by selling 3 plots also invested in the money lending business and received total Rs.3,88,400/- and out of which, she lent Rs.3,00,000/- to one Balaji and received total

Rs.4,92,000/- principal with interest.

116.She further stated that, she sold away 875 grams of gold vide Ex.D22 bills (12 in number) to M/s.Venkateswara Jewellers,

Madras, through her sister’s husband and received Rs.5,50,000/-. Her mother got 12 plots in the partition and she sold away 4 plots under

Exs.D16 to D19 for Rs.2,62,000/-, out of which her mother gave

Rs.2,35,000/- to her to purchase a Flat, to that effect, she gave affidavits, subsequently, which are enclosed to Ex.D7 at page No.179.

Subsequently, her mother died. She also stated that, her mother presented Rs.25,000/- cash each to her four daughters at the time of 27 half saree function and Rs.50,000/- to each at the time of marriages of their two daughters Veenavani and Deeparani. To that effect, Ex.D20 statement was given and enclosed to the explanation-Ex.D7 and her brother Venkata Chalapathi also presented Rs.65,000/- to her on 25.02.2008 from out of his agricultural income to purchase of Flat by her.

117.She further stated that, she used to undertake stitching of blouses, embroidery work and saree works since 1985 and during searches, ACB Officials found one sewing machine in her house mentioned in ex.P17 search proceedings and out of tailoring business, she got Rs.5,16,000/- income reflected her income tax returns 2007- 2008 showing income of Rs.1,34,200/- and for the assessment year 2008-2009 she has shown in Rs.2,21,250/- in total, she has shown income of Rs.8,71,450/- and after affecting cancer, she stopped doing embroidery works.

118.She further stated that, she purchased item No.1 Flat for

Rs.13,27,000/- under Ex.P2 sale deed in her name and in the name of her husband-Accused Officer but, Accused Officer is nothing to do with the purchase of the Flat. Actually, her daughter Vandana booked the

Flat and after purchase she made improvements by spending

Rs,.1,88,000/- and her daughter Deeparani contributed Rs.8,58,323/- by way of cheque. Subsequently, in the said Flat was let out to one

Madan Roy under ex.P2 on rent of rs.23,000/- per month from

September, 2009 to August, 2010 and he paid advance Rs.2,76,000/- which was shown in I.T. Returns filed for the assessement year 2009- 2010 and purchase of Flat was also shown in I.T. Returns. She only paid Municipal Tax and Electricity charges to the said Flat. As per

Ex.D23 is certified copies of registered sale deeds (6 in number) of

Flats in and around in item No.1 to show rates in the surrounding area.

28

After purchase of item No.1, she entered into a sale agreement with

K.Naresh and K.Sharavana on 27.09.2009 to sell the same for

Rs.18,50,000/- and received advance of Rs.9,00,000/-. Copy was also enclosed along with Ex.D7 explanation. She agreed to sell the said Flat to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter Vandana which was evidenced by Ex.D24-Nischaya Tambulam Patrika dt.25.10.2009.

119.She further stated that, she also purchased item No.2 for

Rs.11,47,000/- under Ex.P5 sale deed by obtaining loan of

Rs.9,50,000/- from LIC Housing Corporation and also with the amount received from sale of gold. After purchase, she let out the same to one

Murthy on monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- from June, 2008 to September, 2009 and received total rent of Rs.1,92,000/-, besides Rs.5,00,000/- advance under Ex.D1 receipt. Ex.D25 bunch of her marriage photos,

Ex.D26 marriage presentation list of her daughter Deeparani, Ex.D27 marriage presentation list of her daughter Veenavani, shows they received gifts. She lastly stated that, she also acquired one Plot shown in item No.5 in the sale of gold. She received Rs.50,000/- each at the time of ceremonial functions from 1977 to 2013 as ‘Adapaduchu

Lanchanam’ at the time of marriages of her brothers. In total, she received Rs.1,80,000/- towards Vadibiyyam and Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘Adapaduchu Lanchanam’ from her 3 daughters.

120.D.Sekhar who is said to be creditor of Vasantha was examined as DW2, he stated that, he lent Rs.8,00,000/- to Vasantha by mortgaging item No.4 on 01.10.2009 under Ex.D28 un-registered mortgage khararunama. Subsequently, Vasantha repaid Rs.2,00,000/- towards interest in the year 2012 and Rs.2,50,000/- in the year 2015 and Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2018, but total debt was not cleared till date.

29

121.N.Bala Subramanyam, son-in-law of Accused Officer was examined as D.W.3. He stated that, he married Deeparani on 4.8.2006 and even before marriage he was working as Software Engineer from 2004 at Pune. When at the time of conducting a raid, he was present in the Flat-Item No.3 since his wife Deeparani was carrying pregnancy, she was also residing in the same Flat in the Master bed room. On 25.10.2009 betrothal ceremony of Vandana, third daughter of Accused

Officer was performed in the said Flat. He further stated that, on the date of search, cash of Rs.18,30,000/- was seized from his suit case kept in the Master bed room and Accused Officer is nothing to do with the said amount. Though, he explained ACB Officials that the said cash belongs to him, but they have not mentioned the same in Ex.P17 search proceedings.

122.His wife Deeparani is also Software Engineer, as such she advanced Rs.8,58,323/- by way of 3 cheques under Ex.P23 to her father-Accused Officer, to purchase item No.1. Apart from that, she cleared LIC loan by giving Rs.3,00,000/- cheque, since his wife advanced amount to Accused Officer, as such, they were allowed to stay in his Flat from the year 2013.

123.He further stated that, his father was retired as Principal in the year 2006 and he advanced Rs.6,00,000/- from out his retirement benefits in the year 2006 to Accused Officer on 07.08.2007 to meet the expenditure to purchase Flat at Hyderabad. To that effect, he gave

Ex.D29 to the declaration to the ACB Officials, besides that, his father also advanced Rs.3,00,000/- out of agricultural income to Accused

Officer to meet the expenditure on the engagement and marriage of

Vandana. To that effect, he gave Ex.D30 declaration to the ACB

Officials. Subsequently, Accused Officer gave 2 postdated cheques to his father towards security for the amount advanced. Ex.D31 is 30 postdated cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- and Ex.D32 is postdated cheque for Rs.3,00,000/-. He lastly stated that, in his Aadhar card also item

No.2 Flat address was only shown.

124.Second daughter of Accused Officer-Deeparani was examined as D.W.4, she corroborated the evidence of her husband-

DW3 regarding lending of an amount to her father, seizure of cash of her husband, clearing of LIC Loan and as per Ex.D33 Andhra Bank Pass book shows, transfer of amounts from her account to the account of her mother. Ex.D34 Driving License shows she stayed in item No.2 Flat only.

125.Brother of Accused Officer-B.Syama Sundar, was examined as D.W.5, he stated that, he gave notarized affidavit regarding presentation of gold on ceremonial occasions to the daughters of

Accused Officer. In the presentation of gold by his father Krishna

Murthy to Veenavani and Deepararni. He also stated that, his father paid LIC Premiums on the two LIC polices obtained by Accused Officer.

126.B.Vasantha fourth daughter of Accused Officer was examined as D.W.6, she stated that, she has been working as Software

Engineer from August, 2006 and purchased item No.3 Flat for

Rs.14,39,000/- and her mother purchased item No.2 Flat for

Rs.11,47,000/- under Ex.P3 sale deed and she is an occupation of item

No.3 from the date of purchase and she never paid Rs.42,86,100/- to purchase the said Flat actually it is a semi finished Flat purchased for

Rs.11,00,000/- and paid Rs.3,39,000/- for the remaining works evidenced by Ex.P25 agreement including cub boards and interior decorations. She secured amount from out of her salary savings and by raising hand loans from her sisters and relatives from Stamp Duty and registration charges were paid by her vendor-PW13. She also stated, 31 that under Ex.P27 receipts they paid total Rs.41,04,200/- to the vendor-

PW13 for the above Flats 2 and 3 and after getting LIC loan of

Rs.9,50,000/- the vendor returned Rs.20,00,000/- to her.

127.She further stated that, she purchased item No.4 under

Ex.P8 for Rs.3,00,000/- since she was MCA student, she used to undertake project works, besides her employment and used to get income and with the said income she purchased the said Flat in item

No.4. Item No.33 SBI Account exclusively belongs to her, in which, her salary was being credited and Accused Officer is nothing to do with the same. She purchased the above said Flat through DW2 and mortgaged the same to him and obtained Rs.8,00,000/- under Ex.D28 mortgage bond. To prove the rates in the locality Ex.D35 to Ex.D38 registered sale deeds of surrounding plots are marked in her evidence as per

Ex.D39-Electricity Bill, Ex.D40-House tax bill, Exs.D41-H.P.Gas bill shows she is in occupation of item No.3 Flat as absolute owner thereof.

128.B.Parathasarathi, another son-in-law of Accused Officer who married Veenavani, daughter of Accused Officer, was examined as

DW7. He also stated that, he is a Software Engineer and attended engagement of Vandana took place on 25.10.2009. At that time, on request of Accused Officer, he lent Rs.3,00,000/- to meet the marriage expenses on 17.10.2009 from out of his salary savings.

129.Munindran, Co-brother of Accused Officer was examined as

DW8, he stated that through him, Accused Officer sold gold ornaments at Madras under Ex.D22-Bunch of receipts worth of Rs,.5,00,000/-. To meet marriage expenses of Vandana, his wife lent Rs.1,00,000/- under two pronotes to Accused Officer on 18.10.2009, in which, he signed as witness and another Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.10.2009 at the time of 32 engagement function of Vandana, later, Accused Officer repaid the same in the year 2011.

130.K.Venakta Chalapathi, brother-in-law of Accused Officer was examined as DW9. He stated that, about his family background that his father used to run a Rice mill and possessed Ac.10.00 cents of lands, besides one degadidatorwhich was used in the Raghavendra Traders

Business. He further stated that, his sister Usharani was given in marriage to Accused Officer in the year 1976 and at the time of his marriage, his father presented Rs.36,000/- cash and 50 thulas of gold as Sridhana and her in-laws presented 10 thulas of gold which was confirmed under Ex.D10-Kararunama. Subsequently, her sister invested the said amount in money lending business and lent

Rs.2,00,000/- to T.Dharma Raju under Ex.D48, in which, he signed as witness. Subsequently, Dharma Raju repaid entire dues and endorsed on the back of the pronote marked as Ex.D48A and Ex.D48B-part payment installments. He also stated that, he gave Rs.65,000/- to his sister Usharani wife of Accused Officer on 25.02.2008 to purchase flat.

To that effect, he gave Ex.D49 statement to the ACB Officials. Ex.D50

Form-1-B namuna shows he got Ac.2.00 cents of land. His mother gave

Rs.2,35,000/- to Usharani to purchase of Flat from out of sale proceeds of 3 plots received under Exs.D17 to D19 and his mother gave declaration under Ex.D15 to that effect. Lastly, he stated that, at the time of marriages of his brothers Rs.1,50,000/- was given to Usharani towards Adapaduchu Lanchanamu, apart from Vodibiyyam from 1997 to 2009 as per caste custom, which comes to Rs.1,80,000/-On the side of accused, Ex.D1 to Ex.D50 are marked.

131.Heard arguments of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for

ACB and Learned counsel for accused officer. Learned Special Public 33

Prosecutor for ACB and Learned Counsel for accused also filed synopsis of arguments with tables.

132.Now the points for determination are

(i)Whether, the accused officer who was a Public Servant found in possession of assets in his name and in the name of his family members to a tune of Rs.1,18,11,883/- disproportionate to his known sources of income?

(ii)Whether, item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 were purchased by wife of Accused Officer and item Nos.3 and 4 were purchased by B.Vasantha daughter of Accused Officer only with their own funds or Accused Officer only purchased the same in the name of his wife and daughter ?

(iii)Whether sanction is required to prosecute a retired public servant?

(iv)Whether permission is required from the Government to file charge sheet against accused in this cae who is a retired public servant?

(v)Whether accused officer could not give satisfactory explanation for possession of assets to a tune of Rs.1,48,30,619/- disproportionate to his known sources of income thereby, committed Criminal Misconduct U/S. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(vi)Whether, prosecution proved the guilt against the accused for the offence U/S. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt?

ADMITTED FACTS:

133.At the time of conducting searches/raids, accused was working as Spl. Gr.Deputy Collector, SSP, Kurnool and by virtue of post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant, within the definition of Sec. 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which, there was no dispute at all.

34

134. For the purpose of investigation, check period was taken from 05-12-1978 (i.e., date of entry into service by accused officer into

Government service) to 28-10-2009 (i.e., date of conducting searches), for the check period also, there was no dispute by the accused officer.

135.It is also an admitted fact that, the marriage of the Accused

Officer with Usharani-DW1 took place on 20.08.1976 even before

Accused Officer joined in Government Service. During wedlock four daughters were born to Accused Officer and DW1 namely Veenavani,

Deeparani, Vasantha and Vandana, out of which Vasantha and Vandana are twins, first daughter Veenavani though did MCA, not employed and married Parthasaradhi-DW7 who is a Software Engineer. Second daughter Deeparani is also Software Engineer married

Balasubramanyam-DW3 who is also Software Engineer. Vandana did

MCA worked in Satyam Computers and other Software Companies.

CONTENTION OF PROSECUTION:

136.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB submits that,

Accused Officer while working as Tahsildar at Mahabubnagar, Deputy

Collector and Special Grade Deputy Collectors, Srisailam Project,

Kurnool, indulged in corrupt practices and by dubious means, he acquired assets in his name and in the name of his wife and children, all worth Rs.1,48,30,619/- whereas, his income from all sources is only Rs.74,37,106/- and his family expenditure during check period comes to Rs.44,18,370/- and after deducting the expenditure from the income, there is likely savings only Rs.30,18,736/- and after deducting the same from the total value of assets, accused officer was found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.1,18,11,883/-, for which, investigating officer called explanation from the Accused Officer but, he could not account for satisfactorily and as Accused Officer 35 subsequently retired from service, there is no necessity to obtain sanction order from the Government to prosecute Accused Officer, hence, he was charged for the offence U/S.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

137. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that, prosecution proved all the three essential components i.e., total assets, total income and total expenditure of Accused Officer and his family members during check period, by examining as many as 70 witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW70 and marked Exs.P1 to 132and proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

138. It is further argued by Learned Special Public Prosecutor that, the contention of Accused Officer that, assets items 1 to 7 are purchased by his wife and daughter with their own funds is not correct and as per the evidence secured by prosecution, Accused Officer only purchased those assets in their name and further the said acquisition by Accused Officer and his family members were not properly accounted and not intimated to the Department, hence income derived thereon also cannot be considered. Income claimed by

Accused Officer through his wife and daughter also not intimated to the

Department. Non-intimation of receipt of Sridhana by wife and income on money lending business by the wife are also cannot be considered in calculation of disproportionate assets as per explanation attached to

Sec.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hence, prayed the Court to convict the accused for the charge U/S.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accordingly.

PLEA OF ACCUSED:

36

139.Learned counsel for accused officer submits that, his wife hails from affluent family and she brought Sridhana or gold and cash gift from her parents at the time of her marriage and which was invested in money circulation to ryots, but Sridhana gold not exempted and income received from money circulation by the wife and tailoring business was not considered. Out of his four daughters, 3 daughters

Deeparani, Vandana and Vasanta are all employed by the date of searches and their husbands are also working as Software Engineers and with their own income, they purchased assets in their names likewise, his wife with the Sridhana property invested in money circulation and other income from tailoring business only, she purchased properties in her name but, they are unnecessarily tagged to the Accused Officer without any proof of diverting funds from the account of Accused Officer to the account of his wife and children, hence, they have to be deleted from the account of Accused Officer.

140.Further, property purchased by the wife by selling her

Sridhana gold was not considered and other items acquired with the sources contributed by the daughters was also not considered.

Income received by sale of plots and cash gift received from others or selling plots and cash presentations received on the ceremonial functions which is in practice among Hindu families since long time, is also not considered. Values of assets were highly exaggerated against registered values of properties without placing any proof or examining neighbouring plot owners, but on report of ACB Engineer, who evaluated the assets belatedly after the raid.

141. Though income received by wife and daughters were intimated in their I.T.Returns and Accused Officer also intimated the same in APRs, but prosecution simply skipped away stating that,

Accused Officer not intimated the same and not filed his APRs and ITRs 37 so as to corner him. Cash seized from the bed from of his son-in-law was tagged to Accused Officer without any proof.

142.He lastly contended that values of assets are boosted up, legitimate income of Accused Officer and his family members not considered and figures of expenditure exaggerated so as to make out a case against the accused officer Investigation Officer has no power to investigate the case and having submitted final report to Government, he waited till his retirement and filed charge sheet subsequently, after his retirement to overcome necessity of requirement of valid sanction by the competent authority.

143. It is lastly submitted that, Accused Officer satisfactorily explained all his sources and his family members to acquire assets and proved income received by him and his family members from all sources by examining DWs.1 to 9 and by marking numerous documents Exs.D1 to D50 and probablised his defence as acquired by law, thereby, learned counsel argued that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt against the accused under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt, hence, prayed the Court to acquit the Accused Officer from the charge.

Points i & ii)

ASSEETS:

As per charge sheet, prosecution has shown total 36 assets all worth Rs.1,48,30,619/- described in Annexure-A of Abstract of Assets, as given below:

ANNEXURE – 1

38

ABSTRACT OF ASSETS

Sl.Details of Property Value of Rs. No

1.Purchase4s house flat No.304 (semi finished), Rs.37,59,523/- Vertex pleasant, Block B, IIIrd floor, in the name of A.O. and his wife

2.Purchased House flat No.303, 2nd floor, SB, Rs.12,60,400/- Hemadri Towers, Hyd in the name of wife of A.O.

3.Purchased House Flat No.503, 4th floor, SB Rs.42,86,100/- Hemadri Towers, Hyd in the name of daughter (Vasantha) of A.O.

4.Purchased House Flat No.562 in the name daughterRs.3,00,000/- (Vasantha) of A.O.

5.Purchased House Plot No.7 in the name of wife of Rs.1,19,000/- A.O.

6.Purchased land of 3.82 acres in the name of wife of Rs.66,668/- A.O.

7.Purchased Indica Car bearing No.APG BA 1640 in Rs.3,74,774/- the name of A.O.

8.Purchased TVS scooty bearing No.AP 22 E-3219 inRs.27,365/- the name of daughter (Deparani) of A.O.

9.Gold ornament 2-10-1980 gms seized from the Rs.1,50,000/- locker of IDBI Bank, Kukutapally Branch

10.Net cash found in the house flat No.503, D.Block, Rs.18,30,000/- Hemadri towers, Kukatpalli, Hyd of A.O.

11.Net cash found in the official quarter No.E/E-8, B Rs,2,77,150/- camp, Kurnool of A.O.

12.Household articvles found in the house of A.O.Rs.1,22,550/-

13.Silver articles found in the house of A.O.Rs.15,000/-

14.Outstanding balance in Axis bank, Kurnool in the Rs.82,306/- name of A.O. 15Outstanding balance in Axis bank, Kurnool in the Rs.15,321/- name of wife of A.O.

16.Outstanding balance in Karur Vijaya bank, KurnoolRs.82,916.76 in the name of A.O.

17.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.1405418,10094 in KarurRs.4,00,000/- Vysya Bank, Kurnool in the name of A.O.

18.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.1405.401. 17338/1 in Rs.1,23,000/- Karur Vysya Bank, Kurnool in the name of A.O.

19.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.1405.401. 17338/2 in Rs.95,000/- Karur Vysya Bank, Kurnool in the name of A.O. 20Fixed deposit vide A/c No.1405.401. 17338/6 in Rs.98,000/- Karur Vysya Bank, Kurnool in the name of A.O.

21.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.1405.401. 17421 in Rs.65,000/- Karur Vysya Bank, Kurnool in the name of A.O.

22.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.1405.418.10451 in Rs.Nil Karur Vysya Bank, Kurnool (B.Deepa Rani) Daughter of A.O.

23.Outstanding balance in IDBI Bank, Kukatpally in Rs.1,52,816/- the name of A.O.

24.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.280106000000499 in Rs.1,00,000/- IDBI bank, Kukatpally, in the name of A.O.

25.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.280106000000505 in Rs.1,00,000/- IDBI bank, Kukatpally, in the name of A.O.

26.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.280106000000514 in Rs.1,00,000/- IDBI bank Kukatpally, in the name of A.O.

39

27.Fixed deposit vide A/c No.280106000002264 in Rs.1,00,000/- IDBI bank Kukatpally, in the name of A.O.

28.Outstanding balance in S.B.A/C No.216137 in CityRs.5,504.80 Union Bank Ltd, Ameerpet, Hyd, in the name of A.O.

29.Outstanding balance in S.B.A/C No.CCD 1855334Rs.80,000/ in City Union Bank Ltd, Ameerpet, Hyd, in the name of A.O.

30.Outstanding balance in S.B.A/C No.01/00301908 Rs.20,570/- in Andhra Bank, Kukatpally (B.Vandana) Daughter of A.O.

31.Outstanding balance in S.B.A/C Rs.21,792/- No09970100000814 in Bank of Baroda, Kadapa in the name of A.O.

32.Outstanding balance in S.B.A/C No. Rs.86,498/- 408301011002558 in Vijaya Bank, N.P. Roa, Kukatpally, wife of A.O.

33.Outstanding balance in S.B.A/C No. Rs.96,624/- 408301011002557 in Vijaya Bank, N.P. Roa, Kukatpally, wife of A.O.

34.Invested Rs.1,20,000/- in units with Sudaran BNP Rs.1,20,000/- Paribas AMC vide Folio No.1807423/31 (AO)

35.Invested Rs.2,30,000/- in UTI asset management Rs.2,30,000/- company ltd, vide folio Nos.51023302703, 510213302642, 510208198605, 510208198645 (AO)

36.Outstanding balance in S.B.A/C No. Rs.66,742/- 004801542906, ICICI Bank, Secunderabad, daughter (Vandana) of A.O. Total Rs.1,48,30,619/-

Item No.1:

144.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer and his wife

Smt.Usha Rani purchased item No.1 Flat bearing No.304, which is semi- finished flat in Vertex Pleasant, 3rd Floor situated at Kukatpally, Ranga

Reddy District under Ex.P2-Registered sale deed dt.6.5.2009 and estimated value of item No.1 at Rs.37,59,523/-. To prove the registration of sale deed, prosecution examined PW1-Sub Registrar and marked Ex.P1-Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.6.5.2009. To prove valuation, prosecution examined PW4-Deputy Executive

Engineer in ACB, he evaluated the flat with additions and as per the sale agreement dt.6.5.2009 as Rs.33,58,000/- and estimated the additions Rs.1,17,000/- and after adding the additions, he valued item

No.1 at Rs.37,59,523/- vide Ex.P14-Evaluation Report. Prosecution also 40 examined builder/vendor as PW7 and marked Ex.P32 (14 original receipts) evidencing receipt of Rs.34,73,323/- from Accused Officer and his daughter-Vandana and adjusted the remaining amount towards registration stamp duty and taxes. Ex.P33-Booking form signed by

Smt.Usharani wife of Accused Officer, he also stated that prior to registration of the flat, he along with land owners, entered into an agreement of sale with Accused Officer for sale of land and prosecution marked Ex.P34-Photocopy of agreement and during course of investigation ACB Officials seized Ex.P35-Ledger Extract from them.

145.Accused Officer contends that, as per Ex.P2-Registered sale deed, value of the flat is only Rs.13,27,000/-, as per Ex.P33-Flat booking form Ex.P34-Sale agreement value of the flat was shown at

Rs.33,58,000/- and as per Ex.P14-Evaluation Report furnished by ACB

Engineer including additions it was shown at Rs.37,59,523/-.

Prosecution marked Ex.P32-14 receipts and total value comes to

Rs.34,73,323/-, but ACB has shown excess value of this item to a tune of Rs.2,86,200/-.

146.Regarding sources to purchase this flat, Accused Officer contends that, as per Ex.P35-Ledger Extract seized from Vertex Nirman (builder) account was opened in the name of B.Vandana and amount received from B.Vandana who is a Software Engineer, his wife got independent income which was gained from her Sridana property and also took amount from Deeparani another daughter, who is also a

Software Engineer, and he informed these sources in his APR marked as Ex.D5 and his wife disclosed her income in Ex.P119-ITR, but, Ex.P21-

Municipal tax receipt and electricity bil shows his wife is only owner of item No.1. In view of the above and as per Ex.D23-Sample sale deeds of surrounding Flats total value of this flat at best will be Rs.14,00,377/- 41 and same was acquired by his wife with her independent income, hence this item has to be deleted from his account.

147.As per value of this item concerned, no doubt, as per the face value of Ex.P2-Registered sale deed, it was shown at

Rs.13,27,000/-, but, as per prosecution it is only semi-finished flat. Like

Ex.D23-Sample sale deeds and some times, parties will reduce the market value to avoid stamp duty and registration charges therefore, face value of the document only cannot form as criteria for determination of real value of particular property/asset and other surrounding circumstances like sale agreements, receipts and evidence of vendor plays importance for determination of actual/real value of particular property/asset.

148.In this case, prosecution rightly examined his vendor/builder as PW17, he clearly stated in his evidence that, himself and his partner-Verma (LW5) constructed apartment in the name and style “Vertex Pleasant”, Hydernagar, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad and they sold flat No.304 (item No.1) to Accused Officer, for sale consideration of Rs.36,42,523/- including stamp duty and registration charges under

Ex.P2-Original registered sale deed bearing document No.1394 and sale deed was executed in favour of Accused Officer and his wife

Usharani for Rs.13,27,000/- as it was semi-fnished flat. He further stated that, they received sale consideration amount in installments by way of cash and demand drafts Ex.P32 is 14 original stamped receipts issued by their company under which, they received total

Rs.33,58,000/- and adjusted remaining amount towards registration, stamp duty and other charges. He also stated about, Ex.P33 flat booking form, though issued in the name of Accused Officer and his wife, but, wife Usharani only signed, which is not irregular since, any one of the purchasers, can sign in booking form and it is not a grave 42 irregularity. He also stated about entering agreement of sale with the

Accused Officer prior to registration of sale deed and after this case,

ACB officials seized Ex.P35-Ledger Extract from their company, in which, details of payment received from Accused Officer was mentioned.

149.Interestedly, Accused Officer did not dispute this agreement entered prior to the sale deed, but contended that, agreement was entered for Rs.33,58,000/- only including cost of cub boards and it is elicited by Accused Officer that from vendor-PW17 that, out of 14 receipts, they received Rs.9,00,000/- from Vandana daughter of Accused Officer by that time, agreement was not in existence which is also not improper or irregular and as flat was already booked they can receive amount from Accused Officer or from his family members or from his agent and sale agreement can be entered at any time

before registration of sale deed. Accused Officer also elicited another

insignificant discrepancy in the evidence of vendor/builder that sale agreement was not signed by Accused Officer and it was signed by his wife only and in my view, it is also not irregular since any one of the purchasers can enter into agreement and sign the same and all the purchasers need not be signed in the agreement. It was also elicited that, they received payments by way of 3 chques from Accused Officer and his wife which is also not irregular since they are only the registered purchasers/owners.

150.Admittedly, the sale agreement and payment receipts were seized during course of search in the house of Accused Officer, it was also not disputed by Accused Officer and as per evidence of Deputy

Executive Engineer-PW4 and Ex.P14, he rightly estimated value in the presence of Accused Officer at Rs.1,17,000/- and after adding the same to the total sale consideration of Rs.36,42,523/- received by 43 vendor/builder-PW17, total value of item No.1 comes to Rs.37,59,523/- but not sale deed value of Rs.13,99,677/- or sample sale deeds value since they did not contain sale agreements like Ex.P34.

151.As far as ownership of item No.1 is concerned, Ex.P2-

Registered sale deed shows, it was executed in the name of Accused

Officer and his wife Smt.Usharani, though her daughter made some payments and ledger amount was opened in her name on receipt of initial payment from her, it cannot be said that, her daughter Vandana is owner of flat or according to Accused Officer, his wife invested amount, as such, she is only the owner of the flat, also cannot be accepted. Since Accused Officer name is also shown as first purchaser/vendee, he cannot contend that, he is not the owner of the flat.

152.Accused Officer being the registered owner of the flat, purchased while in service, he is required to obtain prior permission from competent authority to purchase/acquire any immovable property explaining the sources of his income to purchase particular property but, in this case on hand, Accused Officer did not obtain any prior permission from the competent authority to purchase this flat. If he would have obtained prior permission explaining the sources as now advanced that, his daughters contributed money and his wife with her income only going to purchase property, then his explanation now advanced in this case would have some force, but in the absence of prior permission to acquire property in his name and in the name of his wife now, Accused Officer is under obligation to explain all his sources to purchase the said property by placing relevant and cogent material.

153.To prove sources of income of his family, he examined his wife as DW1, and she was elaborately cross-examined by learned 44

Special Public Prosecutor and elicited that, Accused Officer hails from below middle class family and his father was retired as a teacher in the year 1992 and died in the year 2009, mother also retired as a teacher in the year 1995 and after death of his father, family pension is only livelihood to the mother of Accused Officer, except house at Bestha

Street, Kadapa, in which, they lived, there are no other immovable or movable properties to them. Apart from house, there are no ancestral properties to Accused Officer to get income apart from the salary.

Though she stated that, her husband earlier, before check period, worked as Lecturer in private colleges and also worked in Banks, but no income claimed and no document was filed to prove the income prior to the check period.

154.She also admitted, she married Accused Officer on 20.08.1976 and in her family, there are four sons and four daughters to her parents. So she hails from a big family, though she stated that her father owned Ac.10.00 cents of land but no pattadar passbook or title deed was filed. Though she stated that, her father ran rice mill and they are financially sound, but no scrap of paper in respect of income from rice mill was produced. She claim that, parents gave 50 thulas of gold and Rs.36,000/- cash as Sridana, but there is no document filed to that effect.

155.Accused Officer also not declared the same in his APR her investment in money circulation and in money lending business hence, her investment of Rs.36,000/- in money lending business and getting huge income of rs.9,44,000/- is not believable in the absence of any piece of document regarding money lending business. She claimed gifts under Ex.D10, Ex.D11 also cannot be considered since, they are unregistered and not valid documents. Accused Officer also failed to place any evidence to show his wife received 875 gms of gold on 45 different occasions and not declared same in his APRs. However, in view of sale receipts, sale of gold for Rs.5,50,000/- was considered as income, Ex.D5 is also unregistered document not seized ruing course of searches and same is not valid and whatever the income got by her under registered document was duly considered as income.

156.Ex.D20 is also unregistered document and she has not shown the gifts in her ITRs at the relevant time and not proved properly before the Court. Likewise, her income for Rs.8,71,450/- on tailoring and embroidery works was also not proved before the Court and not intimated to the Department from time to time. She admitted that, she studied just 8th Class and depending on her husband and daughters, as such, she had no capacity to purchase property valued in lakhs of rupees. Claim of Accused Officer through her daughter-

Vandana was not proved properly since Vandana was not examined

before the Court. Though, he examined his another daughter-

Deeparani-DW3 and her husband-DW4 claimed possession over the

Flat in item No.1 by contributing money is also found to be false, since,

Accused Officer himself let out the property to tenants and received rents and advances as owner thereof. Ex.D21-Municipal Tax and

Electricity bill not relates to item No.1, but it relates to item No.2. For claim of income by way of Aadapadachu Lanchanams and Odibiyyam also cannot be considered for the reason of non-intimating the same by her husband to the Department and even if salary total of all the daughters Rs.18,78,171/- is computed, same is also not sufficient to meet expenditure to purchase this flat thereby, the sources putforth by the Accused Officer to purchase item No.1, are not at all sufficient to meet the expenditure, thereby, it cannot be deleted from the list of assets. Taking into consideration of evidence of vendor-Ex.P17 coupled with sale agreement, receipts and evaluation report given by Engineer, 46

I hold that, prosecution proved the value of item No.1 as Rs.37,59,523/- and Accused Officer failed to explain the sources properly thereby, value of this item is taken at Rs.37,59,523/- acquired by Accused

Officer only during check period, with unaccounted sources.

Item No.2:

157.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased item

No.2-Flat No.303 in 2nd floor in Hemadri Towers, Hyderabad, in the name of his wife Smt.Usha Rani for Rs.11,47,000/- under Ex.P6-

Registered sale deed and after purchase, he carried out wood work to fix cub boards by investing Rs.1,13,400/- which was evaluated by Dy.

Executive Engineer vide Ex.P14-Evaluation Report, thereby estimated value of item No.2 at Rs.12,60,400/- and to prove the same, prosecution examined Sub-Registrar-PW1 to prove registration, Land owner-PW12 and Developer-PW13 and marked Ex.P5-certified copy of registered sale deed, Ex.P6 original registered sale deed and Ex.P7- information given by Sub-Registrar, for the sale consideration, paid stamp duty and registration charges incurred thereon and Ex.P14-

Evaluation Report.

158.Accused Officer contends that, prosecution not produced any document to show that Accused Officer only paid sale consideration and as per PW4, cost of the Flat includes additions, hence further amount towards cub board work cannot be added. He further contends that, his wife only purchased the said plot by obtaining LIC loan of Rs.9,50,000/- and with her personal savings, got on embroidery work, she has also shown in her ITRs filed for the year 2007-2008 marked as Ex.P102 and Ex.P119 and Accused Officer intimated in his APR-2007 thereby, argued that, cost of the Flat is only

Rs.11,47,000/- and stamp duty and additions were borne by developer 47 –PW13 and argued to delete this item, since it is in the name of his wife and purchased with her own money.

159.Learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that, though sale deed obtained in the name of his wife, but Accused Officer is in possession of the Flat and leased out the same to PW62 and claimed rent and advance from him as income and further argued that,

Investigating Officer/PW70 deposed that, the said flat is a semi-finished flat and after purchase only, wood work was carried out and it was estimated at Rs.1,13,400/-.

160.Admittedly, the LIC loan claimed by Accused Officer through is wife for Rs.9,50,000/- was shown as income for item No.3 of assets but, Accused Officer failed to show personal earnings of his wife on embroidery work by placing any document or by examining any witnesses, except presence of sewing machine in his house may be used for personal works and on this single sewing machine, lakhs of rupees cannot be earned. The record reveals wife is not an employee and she is not having independent source of income therefore, claim of the Accused Officer, for total deletion of this item, cannot be accepted.

Since LIC loan obtained to purchase the Flat (item No.3) and rents and advance received by Accused Officer was given credit, this item cannot be deleted, on mere filing ITR for one year with anti date just before the raid. Even otherwise, these ITRs are not assessed by authorities and are self accommodative which will not establish sources of income, except to show payment of certain tax and accused has to prove the sources independently. Likewise, Ex.D4-APR said to have been filed by

Accused Officer on 9.10.2009 is also prepared after this case.

161.As far as value of this asset is concerned, ACB rightly has taken face value of the document as mentioned in the sale deed at

Rs.11,40,000/- and added only Rs.1,13,400/- towards cub board work.

48

Ex.P14-Engineers Report who evaluated the Flat shows that, flat was purchased in a semi-finished stage and he also inspected the wood work and additional in the flat which was made with teak veneer and granite slab flat form, which is a costly affair. However, as per the SSR rates for the relevant year 2008-2009. ACB Engineer rightly estimated

additional works at Rs.1,13,460/-, after deducting 10% towards self

supervision charges of Rs.12,600/- from out of total estimated value of

Rs.1,26,000/-. The APRs 2006-2008 do not contain signature or initials of competent authority and appears to have been prepared after this case to support his contentions, it will render any help. At any rate, the value shown by prosecution is not on higher side, and same is found to be just and reasonable therefore, cannot be further reduced.

162.Learned counsel for accused officer cross-examined ACB

Engineer-PW4, who evaluated the flat, but nothing was elicited in his evidence, except one discrepancy that, there is no evidence to show additions were made during the year 2008-2009 before terminal date of check period but, it is for accused to show on which date, he made additions by placing relevant bills of material purchased and by examining the carpenter who attended the wood work, since same is within the special knowledge of Accused Officer. But the Accused

Officer did not file any bills and did not examine any carpenter therefore, his contention for deduction of wood work charges from

Rs.1,13,400/-, cannot be considered, thereby value of this item is taken as it is as shown by the prosecution at Rs.12,60,400/-.

Item No.3:

163.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased Flat

No.503 measuring 1439 sq feet in 4th floor of Hemadri Towers,

Hyderabad in the name of his daughter-Vasantha under Ex.P4 49 registered sale deed dt.19.03.2008 from M/s Prime Constructions and estimated value of item No.3 at Rs.42,86,100/- and to prove the same prosecution examined Sub-Registrar-PW1 to prove registration of Ex.P4 registered sale deed. PW4-Dy. Executive Engineer in ACB, who evaluated Flat and issued Ex.P14-Evaluation report estimating the additions at Rs.81,900/- and PW13-Partner of M/s Prime Constructions who sold the Flat under Ex.P4 registered sale deed by receiving total amount of Rs.42,04,200/- under Ex.P27 (17 receipts) and subsequently, vendor-PW13 also confirmed the sale by Ex.P26-Letter and furnished

Ex.P25 sale agreement for completion of flooring, plastering and electricity works etc., for Rs.3,39,000/- and all put together, prosecution estimated value of this Flat described in item No.3 at

Rs.42,86,100/-.

164.Learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that, by the date of purchase of this Flat, Vasantha daughter of Accused Officer has got salary of Rs.1,20,000/- only and she is also not married so as to claim income from her husband since her marriage was taken place subsequent to the searches on 19.11.2010 and she had no capacity to purchase this Flat for Rs.42,86,100/- and Accused Officer only purchased this Flat in her name and simply because, sale deed in the name of his daughter, Accused Officer cannot claim for deletion of this item from the list of assets, without explaining sources of income of his daughter.

165.On the other hand, Accused Officer contends that, as per

Ex.P4-Registered sale deed, the value of this Flat is only Rs.11,00,000/- adding development charges of Rs.3,39,000/-, it comes to

Rs.14,39,000/-. He further contends that, Ex.P27 cash receipts relate to both Flats in items 2 and 3, but no document was collected from builder-PW13 to show that it was purchased for Rs.42,04,200/-. Builder- 50

PW13 also stated that, he received sale consideration from Vasantha and Ex.P27 receipts relate to both Flats 303 shown in item No.2 and

Flat No.503 in item No.3 and after obtaining LIC loan of Rs.9,50,000/- they returned to Rs.20,00,000/- to purchaser. He further contends that, they spent Rs.1,50,000/- each for cub boards, according to him, expenditure for Flat Nos.303 and 503 put together comes to

Rs.30,57,205/- and total amount received under receipts under Ex.P27

Rs.41,04,200/- + LIC loan Rs.9,50,000/- comes to Rs.50,54,200/- and after deducting total expenditure on two Flats of Rs.30,57,205/- (Rs.50,54,200/-(-)Rs.30,57,205/-) balance of Rs.19,97,000/- was returned to the purchaser. He further contends that, source of purchase by his daughter Vasantha was stated in her ITR-Ex.P110 and as per Exs.P36 to P38-Sample sale deeds for the similar Flats in the vicinity valued at Rs.15,00,000/- only thereby, value of item No.3 is only at Rs.14,39,000/- acquired by his daughter with her independent income, hence same cannot be tagged to him and it has to be deleted.

166.As far as value of item No.3 is concerned, though in Ex.P4-

Regsitred sale deed, it was shown that semi-finished Flat was constructed for Rs.11,00,000/- but Ex.P27 (17 cash receipts) seized from the house of Accused Officer during searches revealed that, a sum of Rs.42,04,200/- was paid to Builder-PW13 towards part payment of sale consideration to purchase Flat No.503. In the back side of last but one receipt dt.23.09.2007, further reveals that, total payment received by builder for Flat No.503 is Rs.42,04,200/- at the rate of

Rs.2800/- per sq feet for total 1439 sq feet of Flat No.503 therefore, there may not be any confusion regarding to which Flat, the payment was made in view of mentioning Flat number clearly in all the receipts, hence Accused Officer cannot contend that, the payment made for this

Flat and for the Flat No.303 (item No.2).

51

167.Builder-PW13 in his evidence clearly stated that, as per

Ex.P27 (17 receipts) except one receipt out of 17 receipts, were singed by him and as per the endorsement on the receipt dt.23.09.2007 total

Rs.42,04,200/- was received from the purchaser towards payment for

Flat No.503 (item No.3), but he denied writings on the backside of receipt dt.23.09.2007. In the cross-examination for Accused Officer, he made a false statement that, total amount of Rs.42,04,200/- mentioned on the back side of the receipt dt.23.09.2007 is no way connected to

Flat No.503, but relates to both Flat Nos.503 and 303.

168. He further made a false statement that, they sold Flat

No.303 at the first instance and continued the same receipts for Flat

No.503 also, but as seen from the sale deed of Flat No.303, it is dt.6.6.2007. Whereas Flat No.503 sale deeed-Ex.P4 shows that it is dt.9.3.2008 so, by the date of Ex.P4 sale deed pertains to Flat No.503,

Flat No.303 was already sold hence, receipt of part payments for sale

Flat No.303 under Ex.P27 receipts is not correct. In my view, without receipt of total sale consideration, vendor will not execute registered sale deed, therefore evidence by vendor-PW13 that, amount received under Ex.P27 receipts is for the both Flats is not correct and Ex.P27 receipts and Ex.P25-Development agreement and Ex.P26-Confirmation

Letter clinchinlgy establish that, the entire payments under Ex.P27 receipts pertain to Flat No.503 only. Man may lie, but documents will not lie. These documents was seized from the house of the Accused

Officer during the course of searches speaks itself that, total sale consideration paid to purchase the Flat No.503 was Rs.42,04,200/- and after adding additions as per the Ex.P14-Evaluation Report and evidence of PW4-Dy. Executive Engineer, total amount invested by

Accused Officer to purchase item No.3 is Rs.42,86,100/-, but not

Rs.14,39,000/-.

52

169.As far as contention of Accused Officer that, after adjusting of LIC loan of Rs.9,50,000/- which was sanctioned in the name of

Smt.Usharani wife of Accused Officer, to the account of Vasantha and returning Rs.20,00,000/- cash to the purchaser is somehow absurd and not believable because, ledger extract filed by builder, does not show return of Rs.20,00,000/-. Since builder is running a partnership firm in the name and style of “M/s Prime Constructions” and every payment by a Firm will definitely reflect in books of accounts or atleast there should be receipt and without any document, returning huge amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- by the builder to the purchaser is not at all believable.

Even as per calculation of Accused Officer, balance comes to

Rs.19,97,000/- but not Rs.20,00,000/-, hence theory of Accused Officer is not correct.

170.Further, learned Special Public Prosecutor in the re- examination of PW13 elicited that, this much evidence of PW13 is not find place in his earlier statement, so it is a subsequent improvement without any documentary evidence to help the purchaser. Likewise, sample sale deeds of surround plots Exs.P36 to P38 are only in respect of the semi-finished Flats purchased by showing Government rates which will be very less when compared to actual market rates, therefore Government rates mentioned in sample sale deeds i.e.,

Exs.P36 to P38 usually obtained to evade payment stamp duty and registration charges, cannot be form basis for fixation of actual rates of particular property, in a prime locality i.e., at Kukatpally, Hyderabad and cannot outweigh the receipts and other documents seized from the house of the Accused Officer during searches. These sample sale deeds also do not contain builder agreements which will reflect true figures.

53

171.As far as sources to purchase item No.3 by Vasantha- unmarried daughter of Accused Officer is concerned, admittedly,

Accused Officer did not obtain prior permission to purchase item No.3 from the competent authority since Vasantha was not married and she is a family member of Accused Officer, he is required to obtain prior permission as per Rule.9(1) of A.P.Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1964.

According to Accused Officer, she is working as Software Engineer and with her own income, his daughter Vasantha purchased item No.3, but

ACB conducted investigation and ascertained salary particulars of his daughter Vasantha which reveals that, she received salary of

Rs.1,20,000/- only, by the date of searches. She did not dispute this figure in her evidence and did not lay any excess claim of salary, though he claimed that, by doing project works, she got additional income but, to prove the same, she did not produce any documentary evidence and did not examine her employer to prove the project works.

172.To prove her exclusive possession and enjoyment, she procured Ex.D34-Driving License which was obtained subsequent to this case on 24.05.2014, hence it is not relevant. Learned Special

Public Prosecutor also elicited that, Ex.D33-Bank Account, not relates to her salary account which was opened when she was a student, she did not produce any other document to prove her sources. Likewise,

Exs.D40 and D41-House tax, gas connection bill are subsequent to this case, have no bearing number. Likewise, Ex.D46-Aadhar card, does not disclose when it was obtained and will not prove legal title and lawful possession by mere mentioning the address.

173.Further, Ex.D28 is unregistered mortgage deed created to gather sources, is found to be false since same is not registered and mortgagee-DW2 found to be binamidar of Accused persons involved in

ACB cases, have no capacity to lend huge amount under unregistered 54 document. Ex.P110-ITR Vasantha has shown her professional income only at Rs.2,20,000/- and by mere mentioning purchase of assets in the balance sheet without explaining sources and filed with anti date couple of months before registration of the case against her father, will not render any help to her.

174.Not only item No.3, item No.4 house plot was also purchased in the name of Vasantha but Accused Officer failed to probablise sources of income for house plot and as well as this Flat which he required to explain the same before the Court, therefore, he is not entitled to claim for deletion of this item from list of assets. From the foregoing discussion, taking into consideration of evidence of PW1-

Sub-Registrar, PW4-Dy. Executive Engineer and reliable part of evidence of vendor-PW13 coupled with Ex.P4-Original registered sale deed, Ex.P14-Evaluation report, Ex.P25-Agreement, Ex.P26-Letter and

Ex.P27-Bunch of receipts, I hold that, value of this item is

Rs.42,86,100/- purchased by Accused Officer only in the name of his unmarried daughter-Vasantha with unaccountable sources.

Item No.4:

Purchase of house Plot bearing No.562 in the name of Vasantha daughter of Accused Officer:

175.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased one house plot bearing No.562 measuring 444.44 sq yards situated at

Lakshmipuram Village of Kurnool District on 25.04.2007 under original of Ex.P8-regsitered sale deed in the name of his daughter Vasantha for

Rs.3,00,000/-. To prove the same, prosecution examined Sub-Registrar- 55

PW2 to prove the registration of the plot and vendor-PW57 and marked

Ex.P8 registered sale deed. Ex.P9 is the original sale deed.

176.Accused Officer contends that, he did not purchase the said plot, but his daughter-Vasantha only purchased the said plot with her salary savings. She also mentioned the purchase of plot in her ITR filed for the assessment year 2008-2009 and he also informed to the

Department in his APR marked as Ex.D4 on 9.10.2009. Vendor-PW57 also admitted in cross-examination that, Vasantha paid only sale consideration.

177.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB argued that, vendor-PW57 turned hostile and he marked his earlier statement as

Ex.P79 and Vasantha who was examined as DW6 admitted that, she has drawn only Rs.1,20,000/- salary, hence she had no sufficient funds to purchase this item, though he stated that, apart from salary, she also did project works and got income, but no document was filed to prove the said fact.

178.Learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that, no document to show that Vasantha did project works and got income was seized during house searches. Ex.D4 APR submitted by Accused Officer to Secretary, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad on 9.10.2009 does not contain signatures or official seals of chief

Commissioner, Land Administration, same is appears to be prepared by

Accused Officer subsequent to the case. Likewise, Ex.P110-ITR also prepared for the purpose of case of Accused Officer subsequent to this case mentioned in the details of the properties in the name of

Vasantha and paying nominal tax of Rs.24,600/-. Though, there was only taxable income of Rs.2,20,000/-, but purchased property valued in 56 lakhs of rupees at Hyderabad by simply stating that she borrowed lakhs of rupees from her sisters Vandana and Deeparani without proving the sources of income of herself and her creditors.

179.At any rate, these income tax returns will not establish lawful source as contemplated in the explanation in Sec.13(1)(e) of

Prevention of Corruption Act and to prove the same, independent evidence is required to account for the same. Accused Officer cannot skip away by simply saying property is in the name of his daughter and not in his name and no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show flow of funds from his account to the account of Vasantha but

Vasnatha is not married by the date of purchase, she just 24 years of age and earned only Rs.1,20,000/- as per her salary certificate, therefore, it is for the Accused Officer to explain sources of income to acquire assets in his name and also in the name of his family members. But, in this case, accused failed to explain the same properly, hence his claim for deletion of this item cannot be accepted, thereby value of this item is taken at Rs.3,00,000/-.

Item No.5:

Purchase of house plots bearing No.7 in the name of wife of Accused

Officer:-

180.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased house plot No.7 in the name of his wife Usharani and to prove the same, prosecution examined PW2-Sub Registrar to prove the registration and vendor as PW4 and marked Ex.P10-Certified copy of registered sale deed and Ex.P11 is original registered sale deed. Accused Officer contends that, he did not purchase the said property but, his wife only purchased the said property with her own funds received by a sale of gold (Sridana) and with personal savings received on embroidery and 57 he also obtained permission from the Department under Ex.D6 for acquisition of this item by his wife. The sale transaction was also reflected in his APR filed for the year 2007 and his wife Usha Rani also intimated to IT Department for the assessment year 2007-2008, hence argued to delete this item from his account.

181.As seen from Ex.P10 sale deed, it was registered on 7.2.2007, whereas, Ex.D6 permission proceedings issued by competent authority to purchase the said plot to Accused Officer is dt.4.6.2007 i.e., subsequent to the purchase and in the reference, application of

Accused Officer is mentioned shown dt.11.04.2007, it is also subsequent to the purchase. Further, while seeking permission Accused

Officer has shown sources to purchase the said plot as “his personal savings”, but not as savings of his wife therefore, Ex.D6 is totally against the case of the Accused Officer, not at all helpful to him, but useful to the prosecution to show with the personal savings of Accused

Officer, this property was purchased in the name of his wife.

182. Ex.P62 and Ex.P109 do not contain any assessment orders by the IT Department, Accused Officer did not examine any official from IT Department to prove the entries and failed to show his sources or sources of his wife. The ITRs are appears to be prepared for the sake of this case just couple of months before the trap, with ante date and they do not help Accused Officer to prove the sources, hence claim of Accused Officer for deletion of this item cannot be considered thereby, value of this item is taken at Rs.1,19,000/- as shown by the prosecution.

Item No.6:

Purchase of land an extent of Ac.3.82 cents in the name of wife of

Accused Officer:- 58

183.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased the land measuring Ac.3.82 cents in the name of his wife along with two persons for Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which, share of his wife was estimated at Rs.66,666/- and to prove the same prosecution examined PW3-Sub

Registrar to prove the registration of sale deed and vendor-PW6 and marked Ex.P13-Registered sale deed. Accused Officer contends that, his wife only purchased said plot along with two others under original of Ex.P13 registered sale deed dt.15.11.2006 with her own funds. As per sale deed, first vendee paid Rs.80,000/- and second vendee paid

Rs.80,000/- and his wife Usharani paid balance of Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque, but without verifying the recitals of sale deed, Investigating

Officer wrongly estimated the value of this item at Rs.66,666/-.

Learned counsel for Accused Officer argued that, his wife has shown the purchase in her ITRs-Ex.P102 and Ex.P119 thereby, argued to delete this item from his account.

184.As seen from Ex.P13-Certified copy of registered sale deed, recitals of page No.2 clearly shows that first vendee-Kakarla

Rammurthy paid Rs.80,000/- and Smt.Usharani wife of Accused Officer paid balance of Rs.40,000/- out of sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-, but without verifying the recitals of ex.P13 sale deed, it appears that

Investigating Officer estimated share of wife of Accused Officer by roughly taking 1/3rd share which is not correct. The said payment was also made by way of cheque hence, whatever the actual payment made only has to be taken as real value of item No.6 and remaining amount of Rs.26,666/- has to be deducted for estimating the value of this item.

185.As for as, ITRs are concerned, I already stated above that, they are not assessed by authorities filed with ante date couple of 59 months before the raid and appears to be prepared for the purpose of this case subsequent to this case. Even otherwise, they will not prove lawful source as per the decision in Selvi Vs Jayalalitha case, hence, this item cannot be deleted from the account of the Accused Officer, without explaining sources thereby, value of this item is taken at

Rs.40,000/- only.

Item No.7:

Tata Indica Car:

186.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased Tata

India Car bearing No.AP-GBA-1640 in his name by investing

Rs.3,74,774/- and to prove the same, prosecution examined PW7-RTA

Official and marked Ex.P19-B-Extract and also examined PW15-Sales

Manager from Concord Motors, Hyderabad and marked Exs.P28 and

P29-Invoice bills and letters. Accused Officer contends that, he purchased car by availing bank loan of Rs.3,40,000/- and disputed the figure stating that value of the car is only Rs.3,33,132/- including life tax, but under Ex.P29 life tax was separately shown at Rs.33,845/-, hence, actual value of the car is only Rs.3,33,132/- is only. He also obtained permission to purchase car under Ex.P93 and shown in his

APRs marked as Ex.D3.

187. Bank loan of Rs.3,40,000/- was shown by the prosecution as income, life tax and registration charges of Tata Indica Car at

Rs.34,130/- was shown as expenditure in item NO.9. As per Ex.P28-

Invoice value of the vehicle is Rs.3,33,132.67 ps and after including taxes Rs.41,641.58 ps, gross total value of the vehicle was shown at

Rs.3,74,774.25 ps and it was rounded after making adjournments as

Rs.3,74,774/-, which was shown by the prosecution as value of the car.

PW15 Sales Manager deposed that, they sold one Tata Indica Car for 60

Rs.3,74,774/- under Ex.P28-Invoice and collected life tax of

Rs.33,845/-, insurance of Rs.13,886/-, accessories Rs.15,001/-, extended warranty Rs.2700/-, handling charges Rs.7008/-, permanent registration charges Rs.2195/-, total he collected Rs.4,43,101/- as per

Ex.P29-Ledger Extract, life tax was not included in the value of the car shown as Rs.3,74,774/-. The tax shown in Ex.P28 is appears to be sales tax, but not life tax, hence claim of Accused Officer for deduction of

Rs.33,845/- cannot be considered and value of the Tata Indica Car under this item is can be taken at Rs.3,74,774/- as shown by the prosecution.

Item No.8:

TVS Scooty:

188.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased TVS

Scooty bearing No.AP-22-E-3219 in the name of his daughter-

Deeparani for Rs.27,365/- and to prove the same, prosecution examined PW9-RTO and marked Ex.P21-B.Register extract and also examined PW37, Assistant Manage from Sreerama Engineering

Company, Mahabub Nagar Dealer of TVS Scooty and marked Ex.p61-

Invoice and Sales Certificate, Accused Officer did not dispute value of the scooty, but contended that, his daughter-Deeparni is a Software

Engineer and with her own salary savings, she purchased the scooty.

189. Further prosecution not produced any material to show that, Accused Officer only purchased scooty in the name of his daughter, though Investigating Officer not examined Deeparani, he examined his daughter-Deeparani as DW4, she deposed that she purchased scooty with her salary savings by way of installments.

Prosecution also has shown salary income of Deeparani in the abstract of income under separate head, therefore, when income is shown, asset acquired by Deeparani also has to be shown for the purpose of 61 calculation of assets of Accused Officer and his family members, to find out whether there is any disproportionate assets or not after final calculation, but this item cannot be deleted totally, thereby value of this item is taken as it is at Rs.27,365/-.

Item No.9:

Gold ornaments:

190.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer is having a locker in IDBI Bank, Kukatpally Branch, during searches, Investigating Officer also opened the locker in the name of Accused Officer and his wife and found there are 6 gold ornaments weighing 210.80 gms worth

Rs.1,50,000/-, which is shown as asset under this item and to prove the same prosecution examined PW5-Meduiator present at the time of conducting search in the bank locker and marked Ex.P17-Inventory proceedings, Ex.P18-Search Proceedings and also examined PW10-

Gold Appraiser.

191.Accused Officer contends that, gold items in the locker is

Sreedhana property same was informed to the Investigating Officer in his explanation, but he did not examine his in-laws, no purchase bills were found to believe , he only purchased those items. Accused

Officer also informed the same in his APR-2006 marked as Ex.D3.

Further, engagement function of Vandana was held on 25.09.2009 and at the time of engagement her in-laws presented 77.53 gms and as per records, locker was last opened on 26.10.2009. PW10 said to have valued gold items not signed in Ex.P10, but when the incriminating article is found in possession of accused, it is for him to explain the sources to acquire the said article.

192.As per Ex.P18, year of acquisition of the gold items are recent years of 2003, 1989 and 2009 but not relates to the date of 62 marriage of Accused Officer which taken place in the year 1976 hence, they cannot be believed as Sreedhana. Whatever, the gifted gold and silver items found in the house of Accused Officer during inventory proceedings under Ex.P17 was returned to the Accused Officer treating it as gifts. Further, Accused Officer also claimed that, he has sold 850 gms of gold at Chennai and claimed Rs.5,00,000/- income. No explanation of Accused Officer is there in Ex.P18 treating it as

Sreedhana. Since year of acquisition and weight of gold is not tallied with Ex.D3-APR filed by Accused Officer for the year 2003-2006, in which, only 110 gms of gold was said to have received as presentation at the time of marriage in the year 1976, whereas, in Ex.P18 total weighing of gold is 210.80 gms year of acquisition as given by Accused

Officer as 1989, 2003 and 2009, hence Ex.D7 is not at all helpful to the

Accused Officer hence, gold seized in the locker cannot be taken as

Sreedhana property and cannot be deleted thereby, value of this item is taken at Rs.1,50,000/- as shown by the prosecution.

Item No.10:

Net cash of Rs.18,30,000/-:

193.As per prosecution case, during course of search of Asset

No.3 situated at Kukatpalli, Hyderabad by DSP-PW68 in the presence of mediators-PW5 and LW12-Nehru Babu, he found net cash of

Rs.18,30,000/- in suit case in master bed room, but Accused Officer did not give proper explanation regarding the said cash, hence same was seized from the house of Accused Officer. To prove seizure of cash

Rs.18,30,000/- prosecution examined PW5-Mediator, PW68-DSP and marked Ex.P17-Inventory Proceedings, under which, cash was seized.

194.Accused Officer contends that, the said cash not belongs to him, but it belongs to his son-in-law-Balasubramanyam-DW3, who 63 came to his house along with his daughter-Deeparani who was carrying 9th month pregnancy to attend betrothal ceremony of his daughter-

Vandana fixed on 25.10.2009. He further contends that, DW3 kept the said cash in his room to purchase a Flat and he explained the source in his evidence, hence this item cannot be tagged to him and argued to delete the same.

195.To prove his contention, Accused Officer examined his son- in-law as DW3 and daughter as DW4 and marked Ex.D34-License showing the address of the said Flat, but learned Special Public

Prosecutor elicited that, license was obtained subsequently on 24.05.2014 after registration of the case and DW4 also admitted that,

Ex.D33-Bank passbook is not her salary account and it was obtained when she was a student, but even as per Ex.D33 balance in the account is 0 (zero), Accused Officer did not file bank account of his son- in-law-DW3. To prove his capacity in the cross-examination of learned

Special Public Prosecutor, DW3 admitted that, there is no document with him to show as to how, he got huge amount of Rs.18,30,000/-.

196.Though he stated that, he kept the amount to purchase the

Flat, but there was no sale agreement, but he simply skipped away stating that talks are going on, but without completion of transaction, no person would keep hard cash of Rs.18,30,000/- in the house. He also failed to show any document to believe his capacity, and his father possessed immovable properties, he did not file the salary certificate or appointment letter to show his income at the relevant time. He also did not produce any document to show his father retired and received retirement benefits. Exs.D42 to D45 pension papers of his father and

Form-16 show his father received nominal pension at the rate of

Rs.4310/- and after commutation Rs.6465/-, as per Form-16 for the assessment year 2006-2007 his gross salary was shown as Rs.25,630/-, 64 in 2007-2008 his gross salary was Rs.4,23,113/-, for the year 2007- 2008 his gross salary was Rs.60,170/- and for the assessment year 2008-2009 his gross salary was Rs.5,28,865/- and for the assessment year 2009-2010 his gross salary was Rs.5,74,344/-, so, DW3 may not have much savings after deducting expenditure for the family.

197.Likewise, DW4 wife of DW3 i.e., daughter of Accused

Officer admitted that, they have not filed any document about withdrawal of Rs.18,30,000/- from bank or any financial institution.

DW4 cleverly stated that, her husband brought some amount from his father, for that also, no document was also placed before the Court.

She also admitted that, her husband did not file any requisition to

Investigating Officer for return of cash and did not give any explanation during searches. Learned counsel argued that, though they have given explanation but it was not incorporated in the proceedings, but it was denied by mediator and Investigating Officer-PW68.

198.At any rate, since cash was seized from the house of

Accused Officer, it is for him to explain the sources. If inmates in the house i.e., son-in-law claims the amount, it is for him to explain the sources. Contention of Accused Officer that his son-in-law came for temporary stay on account of pregnancy of his daughter and kept huge amount in his house cannot be believed. In the absence of any document regarding sources, even during relevant assessment year 2008-2009 also gross salary of son-in-law of Accused Officer (DW3) is only Rs.5,28,865/-, hence his likely savings are not at all sufficient to invest in any property without loan from any private or public sector banks and his possession huge cash of Rs.18,50,000/- in the house of

Accused Officer cannot be believed, thereby, this asset cannot be deleted, hence value of this item is taken as it is as shown by the prosecution at Rs.18,30,000/-.

65

Item No.11:

Net cash found during the course of searches in the official quarter of

Accused Officer:-

199.As per prosecution case, during searches net cash of

Rs.2,77,150/- was found in the official quarter of Accused Officer bearing No.B/E/A at B.Camp, Kurnool town, they found total cash of

Rs.2,77,150/- and seized under cover of Ex.P111-inventory proceedings and Ex.P112-Search list marked through Investigating Officer-PW17.

Accused Officer did not dispute seizure of the cash in his official quarter, but raised technical plea that, Inspector-Nagaraju who conducted search or the mediators present during course of search, but not examined, same is not material, since there is no dispute regarding seizure and claim made by Accused Officer as hand loan from his son-in-law i.e., DW7-Parthasaradhi.

200.Accused Officer contends that, he obtained hand loan of

Rs.3,00,000/- from his son-in-law-DW7 after spending some amount and he kept the remaining cash of Rs.2,77,150/- in his official quarter at Kurnool and the said loan has to be repaid, hence argued to delete this item from the list of assets. Accused Officer though examined his son-in-law-DW7 but no scrap of paper like pronote or cheque was produced by Accused Officer evidencing receipt on hand loan. DW7 did not produce any document to show any document like the bank statement or income tax returns to show that he had sufficient funds in his account at the relevant time and lent the same to Accused Officer.

201.He also admitted in his cross-examination by learned

Special Public Prosecutor that in his house at Bangalore also, search was conducted by ACB officials and found only Rs.30,000/- cash in his house. It is also elicited by learned Special Public Prosecutor that, DW7 66 was also married and has got two children. Learned Special Public

Prosecutor argued that, in several bank accounts, Accused Officer has got bank balance of Rs.3,45,334/-, FDRs worth Rs.11,80,000/- and net cash of Rs.18,30,000/- seized from his house, therefore, there may not be any necessary for Accused Officer, to obtain loan from his son-in- law, can be accepted. Accused Officer also did not intimate in his APR or in ITR about the said hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- at the relevant period, hence this asset cannot be deleted, thereby value of this item is taken as it is at Rs.2,77,150/-.

Item No.12:-

Household articles:

202.As per prosecution case, during course of searches in the

Flat No.503 at Hemadri Towers, Kukatpally, Hyderabad of Accused

Officer i.e., item No.3 of assets, Investigating Officer found household articles and they are inventoried and estimated value of house articles of Rs.1,22,550/- to prove the same, prosecution examined mediator-

PW5 and marked Ex.P17-Inventory Proceedings. Accused Officer contends that, value of cloths worth Rs.61,200/- which is exempted under CSO also included in the household articles and argued to exclude to all the clothes. He also contended that signature of family members was not obtained in Ex.P17 to prove year, value and mode of purchase of articles, but Ex.P17 contains signature of Accused Officer, and same is sufficient.

203.It is also not disclosed to whom those clothes belongs to, since Accused Officer his four daughters and son-in-laws living inside house and clothes of marriage daughters and son-in-law cannot be included. In master bed room, Investigating Officer noted two bed sheets worth Rs.1000/- can be excluded but 10 silk sarees valued at

Rs.5000/- cannot be excluded. There are 50 casual sarees worth 67

Rs.3000/- in North-West bed room, Double cot with bed and bed sheets worth Rs.8000/- was shown for bed sheets Rs.2000/- can be excluded and in third bed room there is single cot, there are two single cot beds with bed sheets valued at Rs.2000/-, out of which, Rs.500/- can be excluded for the bed sheets, for 3 sarees added Rs.8000/-, dresses 20 in number added Rs.10000/- also, pants and shirts 4 pairs, they have added Rs.3000/-, thereby, except silk sarees remaining cloth items which are exempted by CSO guidelines, hence after excluding exempted clothing item valued at Rs.26,500/- from out of total household articles Rs.1,22,550/- thereby actual value of household of articles comes to Rs.96,050/-, it can be taken as actual value of household articles, estimated at Rs.96,050/- under this item.

Item No.13:-

Silver articles found in the house of Accused Officer:

204.As per prosecution case, during course of searches in the

Flat in item No.3, they found 6 varieties of silver articles which are estimated at Rs.15,000/- shown as asset in this item and to prove the same prosecution examined mediator-PW5, gold appraiser-PW10 and marked Ex.P17-Inventory Proceedings. Accused Officer contends that, during course of searches, Investigating Officer questioned Accused

Officer and his family members about the year of acquisition and value of the articles and explanation given by Accused Officer and his family members was found satisfactory, therefore, Investigating Officer returned silver articles to the Accused Officer and is family members.

205.As seen from Ex.P17-Inventory proceedings page No.8 in second para, it is clearly mentioned that, as explanation given by

Accused Officer and his family members is “satisfactory” and they were purchased periodically the value of silver articles i.e., Rs.15,000/- 68 is taken into consideration and returned all silver articles to Accused

Officer and his family members.

206.Apart from the silver articles, Investigating Officer also found gold items and Accused Officer and his family members disclosed their gift items, hence Investigating Officer not seized either gold or silver articles shown in this item and specifically mentioned in inventory proceedings that explanation given by Accused Officer and his family members “is satisfactory” since gifts are exempted, they cannot be valued as asset. If Investigating Officer would have seized the silver articles and gold articles without retuning the same, certainly they can be added as asset but, in this case Investigating Officer has not seized either gold or silver articles and returned to Accused Officer and his family members on satisfying their explanation, hence silver articles cannot be shown as asset in this item, hence item NO.13 can be deleted, thereby value of item NO.13 is treated as nil.

Item No.14:

Outstanding balance in Axis Bank, Kurnool in the name of Accused

Officer:-

207.As per prosecution case, there is outstanding balance of

Rs.82,306/- in the account of Accused Officer in Axis Bank, Kurnool, to prove the same prosecution examined PW11-Bank Manager and marked Ex.P22-Statement of Account. Accused Officer contends that there is accrued interest Rs.1038/- it was also shown as asset and claimed deduction of the same, but the accrued interest was shown as income by the prosecution under separate head, hence Accused Officer again cannot claim deduction under this item. Since last balance in the amount is the principal amount, entire balance in the account has to be shown as asset, thereby value of this item is shown at Rs.82,306/-.

Item No.15:

69

Outstanding balance in the Axis bank account in the name of wife of

Accused Officer:-

208.As per prosecution case, there is outstanding balance of

Rs.15,321/- in the account of wife of Accused Officer and to prove the same prosecution examined PW11-Bank Manager and marked Ex.P23 statement of account. Accused Officer contends that there was accrued interest of Rs.2897/- in the account but accrued interest was shown separately as income of Accused Officer, where prosecution omitted to show the interest as income, Accused Officer also claimed the same as

additional income under separate head, therefore, Accused Officer

cannot claim deduction again in this item.

209.Accused Officer further contends that amount in the account of wife cannot be tagged to him since, she got independent income, as such Hon’ble High Court also released this item in

Crl.R.C.1153/2014 dt.15.06.2015, hence argued to delete this item from the assets, but while calculating assets, not only the assets in the name of Accused Officer and assets in the name of his family members also have to be taken into consideration for determination of disproportionate assets. If family members have got separate income they can prove the income separately but cannot claim for total deletion of the asset, thereby, value of this item is taken as it at

Rs.15,321/-.

Item No.16:-

Outstanding balance in Karur Vysya Bank in the name of Accused

Officer:-

210. As per prosecution case, there is outstanding balance of

Rs.82,912.76 ps in the account of Accused Officer in Karur Vysya Bank and to prove the same prosecution examined PW16-Bank Manager and 70 marked Ex.P31. Accused Officer raised similar contention that interest of Rs.946/- was also shown as above asset, but it was shown as income and wherever prosecution omitted, Accused Officer claimed that same as additional income under separate head, thereby value of this item is taken as after rounding it as Rs.82,912/-.

Item Nos.17 to 21:-

F.D.Rs.

211.As per prosecution case, there are 5 FDRs in the name of

Accused Officer shown in item Nos.17 to 21 FDRs deposited in Karur

Vysya Bank, Kurnool in the name of Accused Officer, out of which, item

No.17 for Rs.4,00,000/-, item No.18 is FDR for Rs.1,23,000/-, item

NO.19 is FDR for Rs.95,000/-, item No.20 is FDR for Rs.98,000/- and item No.21 is FDR for Rs.65,000/-. To prove the same prosecution examined PW16-Bank Manager and marked Ex.P31-Letter containing the details of FDRs, values of FDR, date of maturity interest accrued till 28.10.2009 and outstanding balance in the deposit.

212.Accused Officer did not dispute these FDRs shown in item

Nos.17 to 21 and contended that they are obtained with the salary savings and rental income and also shown in his APR for the year 2009 marked as Ex.D5, but Ex.D5 was submitted by Accused Officer on 14.01.2010 subsequent to the raid.

213.At any rate, Investigating Officer rightly shown the salary income drawn by Accused Officer separately and whatever the rental income entitled by Accused Officer was also considered by this Court, hence, FDRs shown as assets in item Nos.17 to 21 cannot be deleted in calculation of assets of Accused Officer and the values as shown by the prosecution can be taken as it is at Rs.7,81,000/-, accordingly.

Item NO.22:

71

FDR in the name of B.Deeparani:

214.During searches, it was also found there is one more FDR in the name of Deeparani daughter of Accused Officer in Karur Vysya

Bank for Rs.3,00,000/-. However, Investigating Officer not taken it as asset of Accused Officer and value of item No.22 is shown as nil in the

Annexure-A, hence value of item No.22 is treated as Nil.

Item No.23:-

Outstanding balance in IDBI Bank, Kukatpally in the name of Accused

Officer:-

215.As per prosecution case, there is outstanding balance of

Rs.1,52,816/- in the name of Accused Officer in IDBI Bank, Kukatpally

Branch and to prove the same prosecution examined Bank Manager as

PW18 and marked Ex.P36-Statement of Account. Accused Officer raised similar contention that, accrued interest Rs.3863/- was also shown in asset, but accrued interest was separately shown by the prosecution as income of Accused Officer, thereby, Accused Officer cannot claim deduction again in this item. whenever Investigating

Officer omitted to show the accrued interest, Accused Officer made separate claim as additional income, it was also considered by this

Court.

216.As far as, source is concerned, Accused Officer stated that it is his salary savings and rental income, but Investigating Officer has shown the salary savings of Accused Officer as income and whatever rental income entitled by Accused Officer was also considered by this

Court, hence, outstanding balance in the bank account of Accused 72

Officer can be shown as asset in this item as shown by the prosecution at Rs.1,52,816/-.

Item Nos.24 to 27:-

F.D.Rs:-

217.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer made FDRs each for Rs.1,00,000/- in IDBI Bank, Kukatpally Branch, in his name and to prove the same prosecution examined Branch Manager as PW18 and marked Ex.P37-Letter containing the details of FDRs, values of FDR, date of maturity interest accrued till 28.10.2009 and outstanding balance in the deposit. Accused Officer did not dispute these FDRs shown in item Nos.24 to 27 and contended that they are obtained into the salary savings and rental income and also shown in his APR for the year 2009 marked as Ex.D5, but Ex.D5 was submitted by Accused

Officer on 14.01.2010 subsequent to the raid.

218.At any rate, Investigating Officer rightly shown the salary income drawn by Accused Officer separately and whatever the rental income entitled by Accused Officer was also considered by this Court hence, FDRs shown as assets in item Nos.24 to 27 cannot be deleted in the calculation of assets of Accused Officer and the values as shown by the prosecution can be taken as it is at Rs.4,00,000/-, accordingly.

Item No.28:

Outstanding balance in City Union Bank:

219. As per prosecution case, there is outstanding balance of

Rs.5505/- in the S.B.Account of Accused Officer in City Union Bank

Limited, Hyderabad and to prove the same prosecution examined

PW19-Branch Manager and marked Ex.P38-Statement of Account.

Accused Officer did not dispute this figure stated that, it is his salary 73 savings, which was also shown by prosecution as income and contends that, interest of Rs.13,045/- has to be added as income. Prosecution rightly shown the accrued interest as income under separate head, hence value of item No.28 is taken as it is as shown by the prosecution at Rs.5504.80 ps instead of, it can be rounded it as Rs.5504/-.

Item No.29:

Outstanding balance in City Union Bank:

220.Outstanding balance in FDR in City Union Bank of

Hyderabad in the name of Accused Officer, as per prosecution case,

Accused Officer made fixed deposit of Rs.80,000/- and to prove the same prosecution examined-PW19 and marked Ex.P39-Aeenxure.

Accused Officer did not dispute this deposit in FDR stating it as salary savings which was shown by the prosecution as income of Accused

Officer and claimed interest Rs.8737/- which was also shown by the prosecution as income thereby, value of FDR for Rs.80,000/- can be taken as asset in this item.

Item No.30:

Outstanding balance in the S.B. Account of B.Vandana daughter of

Accused Officer:

221.As per prosecution case, B.Vandana daughter of Accused

Officer has got S.B. Account in Andhra Bank, Kutatpally, Hyderabad, in which, there is a balance of Rs.20,570/- and to prove the same prosecution examined Chief Manager, Andhra Bank as PW20 and marked Ex.P40-Statmeent of Account. Accused Officer contends that, his daughter Vandana is a Software Engineer has got independent income, hence her account cannot be tagged to him and shown as asset, but salary of his daughter Vandana was also shown as income by 74 the prosecution for computing disproportionate assets of Accused

Officer.

222.No doubt Hon’ble High Court released this item in

Crl.R.C.1153/2014 dt.15.06.2015 for encashment or use of the amount, but the orders passed in Interlocutory Applications have no impact on the main case, which has to be decided independently, notwithstanding the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in

Interlocutory Applications since salary of Vandana was also shown as income, and bank balance can be shown as asset under this item, thereby, value of this item is taken as Rs.20,570/-.

Item No.31:

Outstanding balance in the S.B.Account of Accused Officer in Bank of

Baroda, Kadapa:

223.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer is having

S.B.Account in Bank of Baroda, Kadapa, in which, there is balance of

Rs.21,792/- and to prove the same prosecution examined Senior manager from Bank of Baroda, Kadapa and marked Ex.P41-Statement of Account. Accused Officer did not dispute this account, but claimed that, interest of Rs.2744/-, was also shown as asset. As per banking rules, last balance in the account is the principle amount. Further

Accused Officer also claimed interest separately. Prosecution has shown interest under separate head, hence Accused Officer again cannot claim deduction of interest in this item, thereby value of this item is taken at Rs.21,792/-.

Item No.32:-

Outstanding balance in the account of wife of Accused Officer in Vijaya

Bank, Kukatpally:

75

224.As per prosecution case, wife of Accused Officer-Usha Rani has got S.B. Account in Vijaya Bank, Kukatpally, in which, there is balance of Rs.86,498/- and to prove the same prosecution examined

PW22-Assistant Manager of Vijaya Banka and marked Ex.P43-

Statement of Account. Accused Officer contends that, interest of

Rs.6529/- was also shown as asset, but prosecution has shown interest as income separately, hence, accused officer cannot claim deduction in this item. Other contention of Accused Officer that, Hon’ble High Court related this item in Crl.R.C.1153/2014 dt.15.06.2015 for encashment of use of the amount, but the orders passed in Interlocutory Applications have no legal force or impact on the main case, which has to be decided independently irrespective of the observations made by the

Hon’ble High Court in Interlocutory Applications thereby, last balance

in the account of wife of Accused Officer Smt.Usharani can be taken as asset, for calculation of assets of Accused Officer and his family members, at Rs.86,498/-.

Item No.33:

Outstanding balance in the S.B. Account of Vasantha:-

225.As per prosecution case, B.Vasantha, daughter of Accused

Officer has got S.B. Account in Andhra Bank, Kutatpally, Hyderabad, in which, there is a balance of Rs.98,624/- and to prove the same prosecution examined Chief Manager, Andhra Bank as PW20 and marked Ex.P40-Statmeent of Account. Accused Officer contends that, his daughter Vandana is a Software Engineer has got independent income, hence her account cannot be tagged to him and shown as asset, but salary of his daughter Vandana was also shown as income by the prosecution, for computing disproportionate assets of Accused

Officer.

76

226.No doubt, Hon’ble High Court released this item in

Crl.R.C.1153/2014 dt.15.06.2015 for encashment or use of the amount, but the orders passed in Interlocutory Applications have no impact on the main case, which has to be decided independently notwithstanding with the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in Interlocutory

Applications since, salary of Vandana also shown as income, and bank balance can be shown as asset under this item thereby, value of this item is taken as Rs.96,624/-.

Item No.34:-

Sundaram BNP Paribas Investment of Rs.1.20.000/-:-

227.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer invested

Rs.1,20,000/- in the mutual funds in Sundaram BNP Paribas on 4.12.2007 vide Folio No.1807423/31, on which no profits or dividends or principal amount was paid to Accused Officer as on 28.10.2009 and to prove the same prosecution examined PW23-Secretary from

Sundaram BNP Paribas Company, Chennai and marked Ex.P44-Letter.

Accused Officer contends that, Investigating Officer did not collect the original application, payment receipt to show payment made by

Accused Officer. PW23 also admitted that, they engaged distributors who will collect the money and mode of payment other details of credit are not furnished by him, signature in Ex.P44 is also not proved by prosecution.

228.But, as seen from Ex.P44, mode of payment was mentioned as cheque No.781071 dt.4.12.2007 drawn on Vijaya Bank,

Kurnool, hence, contention of Accused Officer, mode of payment and details payment not mentioned in Ex.P44 is not correct. When payment was made by way of cheque, Accused Officer cannot contend that he did not make the payment, he did not adduce any rebuttable 77 evidence to show that cheque No.781071 dt.4.12.2007 drawn on Vijaya

Bank, Kurnool, not belongs to him, hence contention of Accused Officer to delete this item from list of assets cannot be accepted thereby, value of this item is taken as Rs.1,20,000/-.

Item No.35:-

UTI Mutual Fund Investment:

229.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer invested

Rs.2,30,000/- in UTI mutual funds vide 4 Folios and to prove the same prosecution examined PW24-Manager Legal from UTI Mutual Fund

Company, Hyderabad and marked Ex.P45-Letter shows Rs.2,30,000/- was invested under 4 Folios bearing Nos.51023302703, 510213302642. 510208198605 and 510208198645. Accused officer contends that details of folios are not mentioned but, along with

Ex.P45-Letter, they have also enclosed Account Statement of each

Folio containing all the details namely, bank details, Pan card number, address particulars, payment details, nominees, telephone numbers, which are tallying with the details of Accused Officer available in record, hence, from disowning this investment of Rs.2,30,000/- in UTI

Mutual Funds, he made as vague plea except Accused Officer, no third party will give such details and third party has no necessity to make investments in the name of Accused Officer who will derive benefit hence, contention of Accused Officer cannot be accepted, thereby, value of this investment can taken as it is, as shown by the prosecution at Rs.2,30,000/-.

78

Item No.36:-

Outstanding balance in S.B.Account of Vandana in ICICI Bank in

Secunderabad:-

230.As per prosecution case, Vandana has got S.B.Account in

ICICI Bank Secunderabad, in which, there was balance of Rs.66,742/- as on 28.10.2009 and to prove the same prosecution examined Manager from the Bank and marked Ex.P46-Statement of Account. Accused

Officer contends that, accrued interest Rs.8678/- was also included and shown as asset but, prosecution has shown accrued interest as income separately in item No.8 of abstract of income hence, Accused Officer cannot claim deduction again under this item.

231.No doubt, Hon’ble High Court released this item in

Crl.R.C.1153/2014 dt.15.06.2015 for encashment or use of the amount, but the orders passed in Interlocutory Applications have no impact on the main case, which has to be decided independently notwithstanding with the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in Interlocutory

Applications since salary of Vandana was also shown as income, her bank balance can be shown as asset under this item thereby, value of this item is taken at Rs.66,742/-.

232.After giving necessary deductions and considering reasonable claims made by Accused Officer, the total assets of

Accused Officer comes to Rs.1,47,94,405-00, assets of his wife

Smt.Usharani comes to Rs.1,01,819-00, assets in the name of his daughter by name Vandana comes to Rs. 87,312-00 and in the name of his another daughter by name Vasantha come to Rs.96,624-00, and total value of assets in the name of accused officer and his family 79 members comes to Rs.1,47,62,631-00 described in the table given below:

Sl.No.Assets of Accused Officer Assets of wifeAssets ofAssetsof Smt.Usharani. daughterdaughter VandanaVasantha 137,59,523-00------ 212,60,400-00------ 342,86,100-0042,86,100-00 43,00,000-00------ 51,19,000-00------ 640,000-00------ 73,74,774-00------ 827,365-00------ 91,50,000-00------ 1018,30,000-00------ 112,77,150-00------ 1296,050-00------ 13Nil------ 1482306-00------ 15--15,321-00---- 1682,916-00------ 174,00,000-00------ 181,23,000-00------ 1995,000-00------ 2098,000-00------ 2165,000-00------ 22Nil. 231,52,816-00------ 241,00,000-00------ 251,00,000-00------ 261,00,000-00------ 271,00,000-00------ 285,504-00------ 2980,000-00------ 30----20,570-00-- 3121,972-00------ 32--86,498-00---- 33----96,624-00 341,20,000-00------ 352,30,000-00------ 36----66,742-00-- Total 1,47,62,631-001,01,819-0087,312-0096,624-00

Total Rs.1,47,62,631-00

INCOME:

80

233.As per charge sheet, the following is the income and

additional income derived by accused officer during the check period.

ANNEXURE – 1I

ABSTRACT OF INCOME

Sl.No. Details of Item Value in

1.Salary income of A.O.Rs.35,87,639.14

2.LIC Housing Loan availed by the A.O.Rs.9,50,000/-

3.Agriculture income received by wife of A.O.Rs.Nil; 4 Salary income of daughters of A.O.Rs.18,78,171/-

27.Income (Rs.9,00,000/-) towards sale agreement ofRs.Nil

5.Income of A.O. towards drawing of amount from Rs.77,000/- flat No.304 of A.O. PPF A/c 28Income (Rs.3,00,000/-) towards hand loan from Rs.Nil

6.Income accrued to the A.O. towards interest from Rs.1,31,862/- son in law of A.O. PPF A/c

29.Income (Rs.3,00,000/-) towards hand loan from Rs.Nil

7.Rental income of A.O.Rs.Nil Sri Kaleswara Rao.

8.Income accrued to the A.O. towards interest on Rs.1,00,812/-

30.Income (Rs.3,00,000/-) towards hand loan from Rs.Nil the bank accounts of A.O. and his family Smt Sarvathri of Chennai. members

31.Income from GPF part final withdrawlsRs.75,750/-

9.Income accrued to the A.O. towards interest on Rs.51,613/-

32.Income (Rs.1,17,519/-) towards encashment of ELthe fixed deposits accounts of A.O.Rs.Nil & SL from the year 1996 to 2009.

10.House loan availed by A.O. from Andhra BankRs.1,00,000/-

33.Income (Rs.4,342/-) towards encashment of EL &Rs.1,475/- SL from the year 1978 to 1995.

34.Income (Rs.1,34,200/-) by the wife of A.O. ADDITIONAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE A.O.Rs.Nil towards embroidery and saree work for the year

11.2007-08.Vehicle loan availed from Vijaya Bank, KurnoolRs.3,340,000/-

35.12.Income (Rs.2,21,250/-) by the wife of A.O. Income of rs.36,000/- and Gold ornaments as Rs.NilRs.Nil towards embroidery and saree work for the year Sridhanam received by the wife of A.O.

13.2008-09.Income (Rs.1,21,425/-) towards loan and bouns Rs.84,040/-

36.Income (Rs.4,39,153/-) towards rents of Indica on LIC plocy No.65011228 of A.O.Rs.Nil

14.car of A.O.Income (Rs.2,40 lakhs) towards selling of plots of Rs.Nil

37.Income (Rs.14,425/-) towards incentive to the A.O’s wife and accumulating the above income Rs.14,425/- A.O.through money lending business

38.15.Income (Rs.6,000/-) towards incentive to the A.O.Income (Rs.1,10,272/-) towards marriage Rs.6,000/-Rs.nil

39.presentations in the marriage of A.O’s daughter Income (Rs.28,000/-) towards Maturity value of Rs.11,683/- Smt.B.Veenavanipeerless policy

16.40.Income (Rs.26,636/-) towards Maturity of LIC Income (Rs.13,000/-) towards Surrender of postal Rs.26,636/-Rs.Nil policy No,.045543816LIC policy

17.41Income (Rs.78,182/-) towards marriage Income (Rs.8,00,000/-) towards unregistered Rs.NilRs.Nil presentations in the marriage of A.O’s daughter mortgage of Plot No.562 of the A.O.

42.Smt.B.DeeparaniIncome (Rs.9,000/-) towards TA & DA for the Rs.Nil

18.Hand loan (Rs.6,00,000/-) from Sri Kaleswara period from 1978 to 2009Rs.Nil Rao Total Rs.74,37,106/-

19.Income (Rs.2,35,000/-) towards cash gift by the Rs.Nil mother in law of A.O. 20Income (Rs.2,00,000/-) towards cash gift by the Rs.Nil mother in law of A.O. at different occasions

21.Gift cash (Rs.65,000/-) from brother in law of Rs.Nil A.O. 22Income (Rs.5,00,000/-) towards Hypothecation of Rs.Nil flat No.C-303 of A.O. 23 Rental income (Rs.2,26,000/- on flat No.303 of Rs.Nil A.O

24.Rental income (Rs.2,05,000/- on flat No.304 of Rs.Nil A.O

25.Income (Rs.2,54,048/-) towards medical Rs.Nil reimbursement by the A.O.

26.Income (Rs.6,204/-) towards interest on SB A/c Rs.Nil No.40500841025, Vijaya Bank, Kurnool.

81

Item No.1:

Salary income of Accused Officer:-

234.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer received salary income of Rs.37,87,639.14 ps during check period and to prove the same prosecution examined officials from various offices, in which

Accused Officer worked during check period namely PWs.26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 58, 59, 60 and 66 and marked Exs.P47, P48, P49, P50,

P51, P52, P53, P54, P55, P81, P80, P78, P84, P85, P86 and P94.

235.Accused Officer disputed this figure and claimed excess of

Rs.64,385/, which was not added to his net salary and argued that his total net salary income is Rs.36,18,692/-. To substantiate his contention, he draw the attention of the Court in the cross-examination of PW58, who admitted that, the T.A. & D.A. particulars are not furnished in Ex.P80, likewise PW59 admitted that salary particulars for the month of June, 2006 Rs.23,385/- was not shown in Ex.P81.

Investigating Officer-PW70 also admitted that, GPF advances received by Accused Officer Rs.32,000/-, Rs.9000/- on 30.08.2004 and salary of

Rs.23,385/- for the month of June, 2006 was not shown in Ex.P81. He further admitted that, if the above amounts are included, the salary income of Accused Officer during search period comes to

Rs.36,18,692/-. In view of admissions made by Investigating Officer and PWs.58 and 59, claim of Accused Officer for excess amount

Rs.64,385/- can be considered, thereby salary income of Accused

Officer under item No.1 during search period is taken at

Rs.36,18,692/-.

Item No.2:-

LIC Housing Loan availed by Accused Officer:- 82

236.As per prosecution case Accused Officer and is wife

Usharani availed LIC Housing loan of Rs.9,50,000/- to purchase item

No.2 of assets. To prove the same, prosecution examined Manager from LIC Housing Finance Limited examined as PW32 and marked

Ex.P56 statement of account. Accused Officer did not dispute this figure, but stated that, his wife only availed the loan, but as per Ex.P56 both wife and husband availed the loan, however, it makes no difference, because income of wife also claimed by the Accused Officer thereby, value of this item is taken as it is at Rs.9,50,000/-

Item No.3:-

Agricultural income received by wife of Accused Officer:-

237.Though prosecution examined PW33-Tahsildar, Kadapa and marked Ex.P57 adangals in respect of item No.6 of assets i.e., agricultural land of Ac.3.82 cents, in which, Usharani wife of Accused

Officer got 1/3rd share and also examined Mandal Agricultural Officer,

Siddavaram as PW34 and obtained Ex.P58 report estimating income on the land at Rs.1,01,080/-, in which 1/3rd share of Usharani comes to

Rs.33,693/- and marked Ex.P58-Report, but Investigating Officer did not show the said income as income of Accused Officer through his wife but, nil income was shown in the table described in Annexure-II abstract of income.

238.Learned counsel for Accused Officer contends that, though in the notice issued to Accused Officer, ACB has shown the agricultural income at Rs.33,693/- through his wife but, while filing charge sheet, they simply omitted and shown the income as nil. When the land is shown as asset, income derived thereon should also be shown as income of Accused Officer. Income received on landed properties, rents, etc., can be treated as legitimate income which is not forbidden 83 by any law and same is also not high or excess claim, so as to reject the same. Having examined witnesses and ascertained the income on the agricultural land, Investigating Officer cannot withhold and having mentioned the same while issuing notice to Accused Officer he cannot withheld by same while filing the charge sheet, which is not just and proper on the part of Investigating Officer hence, the claim of Accused

Officer for Rs.33,693/- can be considered as agricultural income received by him through his wife Usharani, thereby value of this item is take as Rs.33,693/-.

Item No.4:

Salary income of daughters of Accused Officer:-

239.As per prosecution case, out of 4 daughters, second daughter-Deeparani, third daughter-Vandana and fourth daughter-

Vasantha worked as Software Engineers in various companies and received income in total Rs.18,78,171/- and to prove the same prosecution examined PW35 marked Ex.P59, PW36 marked Ex.P60,

PW38 marked Ex.P62, PW44 marked Ex.P68 and through Investigating

Officer prosecution marked Exs.P113, P114 and P115 letters obtained from employers of Deeparani and Vasantha. Accused disputed this figure and claimed that second daughter received total Rs.5,47,308/-, third daughter-Vandana received salary of Rs.7,88,072/- but, allowances of Rs.88,500/- was not added and his fourth daughter received total Rs.9,78,000/- and in total, claimed income of

Rs.24,02,143/- through his three daughters basing on I.T. Returns,

Ex.P119 and Ex.P110 of Vasantha which are not conclusive and because, to enhance income and legalize income or some other purposes assessee may pay advance tax or excess tax, hence income shown in ITR cannot depict correct figures. In my view, the salary 84 particulars given by the employers only contain correct and genuine figures and they only can be taken into consideration.

240.Further contention of Accused Officer that, his second daughter-Deeparani income was considered up to 4.8.2006 only i.e, till her marriage, but even after marriage, she stayed in the house of

Accused Officer up to December, 2006, since her husband was working at Pune by that time and she set up family in the month of February, 2007 but, Investigating Officer did not add salary of Deeparani for the said period. But, when once marriage is performed, it is deemed that, daughter is severed from the parents family.

241.Similarly, learned counsel argued that professional income of Rs.2,20,000/- shown by his fourth daughter-Vasantha in her Income

Tax Returns-Ex.P110, was also not added, but in my view, apart from the salary income, there will not be any other professional income for the daughters and salary income which was already shown by the prosecution. Even the total figure claimed by Accused Officer at

Rs.24,02,143/- is also found to be wrong and total claim even according to him comes to Rs.24,01,880/-, thereby, the excess claim of

Accused Officer cannot be considered as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution for three daughters received only Rs.18,78,171/- towards salary, thereby, the value of this item is taken at

Rs.18,78,171/- only.

Item No.5:-

PPF withdrawals:

242.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer got income from withdrawing the amount from PPF account to a tune of Rs.77,000/- and to prove the same prosecution examined PW39-Official from Head Post

Office, Khairathabad, Hyderabad and marked Ex.P63-Statement of 85 account. Accused Officer did not dispute this figure, thereby, income shown by prosecution on PPF withdrawal of Rs.77,000/- can be taken as it is, as income of Accused Officer from PPF withdrawals in this item.

Item No.6:

Interest from PPF Account:

243.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer has got PPF

Account bearing No.200727 in Head Post Office, Khirathabad,

Hyderabad in which there were Rs.4,20,800/-deposits, on which, there was accrued interest of Rs.1,31,862/-. To prove the same, prosecution examined, PW39-Officer from Head Post Office, Khaitathabad,

Hyderabad and marked Ex.P63. Accused Officer disputed this figure and claimed Rs.1,36,664/-. Ex.P63 shows total amount of interest accrued is Rs.1,36,664/-. PW39 also stated the same figure in his evidence. Investigating Officer also conceded to add the difference of

Rs.4802/-, thereby, total income got by Accused Officer under this item can taken at Rs.1,36,664/-, probably, by mistake the Investigating

Officer has shown the figure at Rs.1,31,862/- in the charge sheet, thereby, the value of this item is taken at Rs.1,36,664/-.

Item No.7:

Rental income:-

244.Investigating Officer did not give any rental income though, examined tenant in item No.2 of assets as PW62 who stated that, he paid total rent of Rs.1,92,000/-, apart from Rs.5,00,000/- advance and another tenant in item No.1 LW49-Madan Roy. Accused Officer contends that, Investigating Officer has shown rental income of

Rs.2,99,000/- in the notice issued to him, and called his explanation and he claimed Rs.10,27,000/- in Ex.D7-Explanation.

86

245.PW62-Tenant in item No.2 admitted in the cross- examination that Ex.D1-Receipt-cum-Declaration dt.19.10.2009. As per this document, lease period is effective from November, 2009.

Whereas, raid was conducted on 28.10.2009, so this lease period is subsequent to the date of searches. So, except advance of

Rs.5,00,000/- which has to be adjusted towards rent at the rate of

Rs.12,000/- per month for a tenure of 50 months, Accused Officer is not entitled any rents.

246. Likewise, under Ex.D2 marked through PW62, which is styled as rental agreement-advance receipt dt.9.9.2009 and effective date of lease period is from September, 2009 i.e., one month before the raid and lease period is over 12 months, monthly rent is

Rs.23,000/- under which, tenant Madan Roy paid security advance deposit of Rs.2,76,000/- equalant to 12 months monthly rents. So, under this document, except advance of Rs.2,76,000/- and two months renti.e.,forSeptember,2009andOctober,2009 (Rs.23,000x2=Rs.46,000/-), totaling Rs.2,76,000/- + Rs.46,000/- =

Rs.3,22,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- received from PW62, Accused Officer is entitled to claim income of Rs.8,22,000/- only, as against his claim on

Rs.10,27,000/-.

247. Contention of prosecution is that, this rental income was not intimated by Accused Officer to the Department and Exws.D1 & D2 are subsequently furnished by Accused Officer appears to be created, to get income, hence it was not considered by the prosecution, but, evidence of PW62 tenant is available on record and Exs.D1 and D2 supports the contention of Accused Officer. Further, Investigating

Officer himself has shown rental income in the show cause notice and subsequently, withheld while filing charge sheet therefore, this legitimate income got by Accused Officer during search period on 87 property cannot be rejected, since same is not received by him from any forbidding sources and not by illegal means, hence, rents which are considered to be legitimate income of a public servant, can be considered. On scrutinization of Exs.D1 and D2 and evidence of PW62 establish that, Accused Officer is entitled Rs.8,20,000/- towards rental income, thereby income under this item is taken at Rs.8,20,000/- only.

Item No.8:-

Interest accrued on various banks accounts:-

248.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer has got bank accounts in various banks and on bank deposits, he got income of

Rs.1,00,812/- as accrued interest and to prove the same, prosecution examined bank officials PWs.40, 41, 11, 19, 16, 21, 20, 18, 22, 25, 43 and 68 and marked Exs.P22, P23, P24, P31, P36, P38, P39, P40 to P43,

P46 and P67. Accused Officer disputed this figure and claimed

Rs.1,08,633/-. As seen from evidence of PW18, he admitted that as per Ex.P36 Accused Officer got interest of Rs.3863/-, PW19 admitted

Accused Officer received Rs.13,045/-, PW20 admitted accrued interest is Rs.41,679/-, PW21 admitted accrued interest is Rs.2744/-, PW16 admitted accrued interest is Rs.946/-, PW11 admitted accrued interest is Rs.12,454/-. PW11 admitted Accused Officer received accrued interest Rs.12,454/-, PW20 stated that Accused Officer received accrued interest of Rs.41,679/-, PW21 stated that Accused Officer received accrued interest Rs.2744/-, PW22 stated that Accused Officer received accrued interest of Rs.6529/-, PW25 stated that Accused

Officer received accrued interest of Rs.8678/- and PW43 stated that

Accused Officer received accrued interest of Rs.3382/-. All put together, Accused Officer claimed Rs.1,08,633/- and it can be considered in view of admissions made by prosecution witnesses as 88 income from investment thereby, income under this item is taken that

Rs.1,08,633/-.

Item No.9:

Interest on fixed deposits:

249.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer has obtained fixed deposits, on which, he received Rs.2,12,473/-. To prove the case, prosecution examined PWs.16, 18 and 19 and marked Exs.P31, P37 and P39. PW16 stated that, on 6 F.D.Rs Accused Officer received

Rs.36,162/- accrued interest, PW18 stated that accrued interest on

F.D.Rs is Rs.58,941/- and PW19 stated that Accused Officer received accrued interest of Rs.8737/- on the F.D.R and all together, it comes to

Rs.1,03,840/-. In view of admissions made by prosecution witnesses, income under this item has to be taken at Rs.1,03,840/- towards accrued interest on F.D.Rs investment thereby, income under this item is taken as Rs.1,03,840/-.

Item No.10:

House loan from Andhra Bank:

250.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer availed house loan Rs.1,00,000/- from Andhra Bank and to prove the same prosecution examined PW40-Manager from Andhra Bank and marked

Ex.P64-Statement of Account. Accused Officer did not dispute this figure, thereby, income as shown by the prosecution under this item at

Rs.1,00,000/- is taken as it is, at Rs.1,00,000/-.

Additional income:

Item No.11:

Vehicle loan from Vijaya Bank:- 89

251.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer availed vehicle loan of Rs.3,40,000/- from Vijaya Bank, Kurnool and to prove the same prosecution examined Manager from Vijaya Bank as PW43 and marked

Ex.P67-Statement of account. Accused Officer did not dispute this figure, thereby, income shown by the prosecution at Rs.3,40,000/- can be taken as it is, at Rs.3,40,000/-.

Item No.12:-

Sridhana property as income:-

252.Accused Officer in his explanation claimed that, he married

DW1 on 20.08.1976 and at the time of marriage, Rs.36,000/- cash and 15 tulas of gold was presented to his wife as Sridhana by her parents.

Though, his mother-in-law was alive by the date of searches,

Investigating Officer not examined her. He further contends that, the cash of Rs.36,000/- was invested in rice mill business and on Ac.10.00 cents of agricultural land of his father. The said Rs.36,000/- was improved as Rs.1,50,000/- by 1998 in the rice mill business ran by his in-laws. To prove the same, he examined his wife as DW1 and his brother-in-law i.e., brother of his wife as DW9 and marked Ex.D10-Gfit settlement kararunama, confirming presentation of gold and cash given by his mother-in-law enclosed to his explanation. Learned

Special Public Prosecutor for ACB argued that, Ex.D10 is unregistered document created subsequent to the case on 17.12.2009, hence cannot be believed. I find some force in the contention of learned

Special Public Prosecutor since, Ex.D10 is unregistered one and obtained subsequent to the case. If really, Accused Officer through his wife received Sridana property i.e., cash and gold certainly, he would have declared in his APRs, but Accused Officer did not declare the same in his APR at the time of joining into service.

90

253.When cash gift was not proved and disbelieved, the question of investment of the same in the rice mill business and in money lending business, and getting income thereon does not arise.

No record from rice mill business was produced or any other record from agricultural society evidencing receipt of income on the Ac.10.00 cents of land, placed. No diaries or notebooks, evidencing improvement of Rs.36,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- by 1998 was proved

before the Court. DW1 is no other than his wife and DW9 is no other

than brother-in-law of Accused Officer, they are interested witnesses and there is every likelihood of giving false evidence to help the

Accused Officer hence, in the absence of any record or scrap of paper, the claim of Accused Officer cannot be considered.

254.Further contention of Accused Officer that, DW1 lent

Rs.1,50,000/- to Mastanaiah and he repaid the same with interest at

Rs.2,70,000/- on 10.11.2001 and his further case that, his wife also lent

Rs.2,00,000/- to Dharmaraju and he repaid the same with interest i.e.,

Rs.2,72,000/- + Rs. 1,82,000/-, totaling Rs.4,54,000/-. Accused Officer did not examine Dharmaraju, but simply marked photocopy of the pronote as Ex.D48 and part payment endorsement as Ex.D48A and

Ex.D48B through his brother-in-law, is not sufficient, he simply enclosed copy of pronote said to have given by Mastanaiah at page

No.149 of Ex.D7 explanation but, did not examine Mastanaiah.

Accused Officer also did not declare this income through his wife in

APRs at the relevant period, hence claim of Accused Officer for

Rs.4,50,000/- on money lending business without having any license or business records, cannot be considered.

255.Accused Officer further claimed Rs.5,54,379/- on sale of 885 gms of gold to Venkatesan Jewelers at Chennai and stated that, his wife received 550 gms as Sridhana, received 225 gms from kith and kin 91 as gifts and his parents also presented 110 gms to his wife at the time of marriage, total 885 gms and to support to his contention, he filed

Ex.D25 bunch of marriage photos of Usharani which revealed that, she is wearing gold ornaments in bridal dress at the time of marriage, hence, receipt of gold as Sridhana and gifts from kith and kin at the time of ceremonial functions, which is common in every Hindu family can be believed.

256.Accused Officer also probablised sale of gold through DW8 his co-brother at Chennai and by marking 13 bills as Ex.D22. ACB

Officials also conducted investigation with regard to the bills submitted by Accused Officer with explanation and found that shop was run by

Venkatesan Jewelries from 1.7.1998 to 1.10.2003. Thereafter, it was given on lease to Anwar Basha from 1.10.2003, so Venkatesan Jewelry shop is not fictitious, it was in existence, however, subsequently closed but, Investigating Officer did not examine either Venkatesan or subsequent lessee Answar Basha to treat the sale of gold by Accused

Officer as fake. Suggestion given to D.W.8 by learned Special Public

Prosecutor that these 13 receipts marked as Ex.D22 were created was denied Accused Officer probablised his defence and examined DW8 his co-brother, through whom, he sold away the gold and filed receipts

Ex.D22 and Ex.D25-Marriage photos therefore, this claim by Accused

Officer for Rs.5,54,379/- can be considered, hence value under this item is taken at Rs.5,54,379/-.

Item No.13:-

Income from LIC loan and bonus received thereon:

257.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer obtained LIC loan and also received bonus on LIC policy bearing No.65011228 to a tune of Rs.84,040/-. To prove the same, prosecution examined PW49-

Administrative Officer from LIC Kurnool Branch and marked Exs.P73 92 and P74-History Sheets, whereas, the Accused Officer claimed that, apart from the income Rs.26,636/- shown in item No.16 of additional income under this item, he received income of Rs.84,040/- and accrued bonus on Rs.1,22,025/- and all put together, total income under this item comes to Rs.2,32,701/-, but, I am unable to accept contention of

Accused Officer because, income of Rs.26,636/- was already shown in item No.16 of additional income, hence Accused Officer cannot claim again under this head.

258.For two loans, prosecution rightly shown income

Rs.84,040/-, for which, there was no dispute. As far as accrued bonus of Rs.1,22,025/- is concerned, it was subsequently to received by

Accused Officer after the check period. Investigating Officer-PW70 clearly explained the same, hence, loan amount was shown as income.

So, income received during check period only can be taken into consideration but, income received subsequent to the case or after check period, cannot be counted for any purpose, hence income under item No.13 has to be taken at Rs.84,040/- only as shown by the prosecution.

Item No.14:

Income from sale of plots:

259.Income on sale of plots received by her Ex.D11-Registered partition deed dt.1.12.1997 belongs to wife of Accused Officer, Accused

Officer in his explanation claimed Rs.2,40,000/- towards sale of 3 plots under Exs.D12, D13 and D14. Accused Officer further contends that, out of Rs.3,40,000/-,his wife lent Rs.1,20,000/- to K.Rajeswar Rao on interest and received total Rs.1,96,800/-, lent Rs.1,10,000/- to

Munikrishna and received Rs.1,89,200/- with interest and lent

Rs.3,00,000/- to Balaji and received total Rs.4,92,000/- and to believe the transactions, he enclosed the copy of 3 pronotes to his explanation 93 at pages 176, 178 and 179 of Ex.D7, but, Accused Officer did not examine any of the debtors under the pronotes, it was also not shown in the ITRs of his wife at the relevant period, thereby, only sale proceeds of Rs.2,40,000/- received by her under Exs.D12 to D14 registered sale deeds only can be taken as income under this item and rest of the claim by Accused Officer can be rejected for the reasons stated above, thereby value under this item is taken at Rs.2,40,000/- only.

Item No.15:-

Income from marriage presentations in the marriage of B.Veenavani daughter of Accused Officer:-

260.Accused Officer claimed income of RS.1,10,272/- as cash presentations received at the time of marriage of his daughter

B.Veenavani and original is marked as Ex.D26. Presentations at the time of marriage like cash, gold and gift items, is very much prevailing among Hindu Caste Custom. The perusal of Ex.D26 appears to be genuine not appears to be created subsequently, in view of age of the paper turmeric marks affixed on all four sides of the paper, so, Accused

Officer also examined is wife DW1 through whom Ex.D26 was marked, thereby, claim of Accused Officer under this item can be considered, thereby, value under this item is taken at Rs.1,10,272/-.

Item No.16:

Income received on maturity of LIC policy:

261.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer has obtained LIC policy bearing NO.045543816, on which, he received Rs.26,636/- maturity amount on 28.06.2004 and to prove the same, prosecution examined Administrative Officer from LIC Office, Kurnool Branch and marked Ex.P73-History sheet, Accused Officer did not dispute this 94 value shown under this item, thereby, income shown by the prosecution at Rs.26,636/- can be taken as it is, at Rs.26,636/-.

Item No.17:-

Income from marriage presentations in the marriage of B.Deepararni daughter of Accused Officer:-

262.Accused Officer claimed income of RS.78,182/- as cash presentations received at the time of marriage of his daughter

B.Deepararni and original is marked as Ex.D27. Presentations at the time of marriage like cash, gold and gift items, is very much prevailing among Hindu Caste Custom. The perusal of Ex.D27 appears to be genuine not appears to be created, subsequently, in view of age of the paper turmeric marks affixed on all four sites of the paper. So, Accused

Officer also examined his daughter Deeparani and marked Ex.D27 thereby, claim of Accused Officer under this item can be considered, hence value under this item is taken at Rs.78,182/-.

Items 18 & 29:

Hand loans from Sri.Kaleswara Rao:

263.Accused Officer claimed additional income that, he borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from Sri.Kaleswara Rao who is his ‘viyyanka’ on 7.8.2007 to meet expenditure for purchase of Flat at Hyderabad and another Rs.3,00,000/- on 18.10.2009 to meet expenditure of engagement function of his third daughter thereby, he claimed total

Rs.9,00,000/- as additional income. Learned counsel for Accused

Officer argued that, Investigating Officer-PW69 examined said

Kaleswara Rao, but not cited him as witness and to prove the loans,

Accused Officer marked Exs.D29 and D30 letters said to have given by

Kaleswara Rao under the title as “to whomsoever it may concerned” and to further believe the said transactions, Accused Officer issued two 95 cheques Kaleswara Rao one for Rs.6,00,000/- on 5.8.2010 and another for Rs.3,00,000/- on 18.10.2011, but these cheques should be with

Kaleswara Rao and if really they were issued at the relevant point of time, Kaleswara Rao would have enchased those two cheques but could not have kept with him or returned to the Accused Officer. If huge amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- was lent, certainly, the creditor will obtain security from the borrower like mortgage, pronote or at least cheque but, could not have lent huge amounts as a hand loan.

264.Learned counsel for Accused Officer argued that, Kaleswara

Rao is a Retired Principal in a Government Junior College and out of his pension benefits, he lent Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/-, out of sale proceeds of agricultural land but, no bank statement of Kaleswara Rao filed to show he lent Rs.6,00,000/-, out of his pension benefits and no sale deed copy was filed to show Kaleswara Rao got money by sale of his agricultural land. Accused Officer got marked Exs.D42 to D45 pension papers of Kaleswara Rao through is son-DW3 and son-in-law of

Accused Officer but in cross-examination, DW3 admitted that, last pay of his father Kaleswara Rao by the date of retirement was Rs.21,550/-,

SP Rs.10,775/-, EPF Rs.10,775/-, FP Rs.6465/- and gratuity

Rs.3,50,000/- and as per the Ex.P43pension was Rs.4310/-, thereby, pension amount and retirement benefits of father of DW3-Kaleswara

Rao are insufficient to lend huge amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to Accused

Officer.

265. Further, Ex.D29 and Ex.D30 letters written on a white paper has no evidentiary value and there letters are not seized during the course of searches. The postdated cheques Exs.D31 and 32 are dt.5.8.2010 and 18.10.2011 respectively i.e., after registration of the case, hence, they are apparently created for the case of the Accused 96

Officer. Further, these huge borrowals of loans was not reflected in the

APRs or ITRs of Accused Officer at the relevant point of time, hence they need not be considered as additional income of Accused Officer, thereby the claim of Accused Officer under these two items 18 and 29 is treated as Nil.

Item No.19:

Cash gift of Rs.2,35,000/- from mother-in-law of Accused Officer:

266.Accused Officer contended that his mother-in-law got 4 house plots in the family partition and she sold away the said plots under Exs.D17 to D19 and received sale consideration of Rs.2,62,000/- and out of which she gave cash gift of Rs.2,35,000/- to her daughter

B.Usharani wife of Accused Officer. To support his claim, Accused

Officer marked Ex.D15-Statement said to have given by his mother-in- law Kotti Yasodamma written on a white paper to his wife DW1, but this document is unregistered and unstamped has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Same is also not seized during course of searches, hence appears to be credited subsequent to the case. This huge cash gift was not reflected in APRs or ITRs of Accused Officer, hence, claim of Accused Officer under this item cannot be considered, thereby value of this item is treated as Nil.

Item No.20:

Cash gifts from mother-in-law of Accused Officer on different occasions:

267.Accused Officer claimed cash gift of Rs.2,00,000/- from his mother-in-law to his children on different occasions like marriage and

Ony functions and to support his claim, he marked as Ex.D10-Letter said to have given his mother-in-law marked through his wife-DW1, but this document is unregistered and unstamped has no evidentiary value 97 in the eye of law. Same is also not seized during course of searches, hence appears to be credited subsequent to the case, this huge cash gift was not reflected in APRs or ITRs of Accused Officer at the relevant point of time hence, claim of Accused Officer under this item cannot be considered, thereby value of this item is treated as Nil.

Item No.21:-

Cash gift of Rs.65,000/- from brother-in-law:-

268.Accused Officer claimed cash gift of Rs.65,000/- from his brother-in-law who was examined as DW9 who got Ac.2.00 cents of wet land. To prove the same Accused Officer marked as Exs.D50-1B extract and Ex.D49-A statement written by DW9 on Rs.10/- stamp paper, but it is unregistered and has no evidentiary value. Learned Special Public

Prosecutor, during cross-examination of DW9 elicited that, except

Ac.2.00 cents of land got in partition, he has no any other immovable properties, his business was not flourishing. He has no document to show he is getting income from the rice mill purchased by his father, has no document to show his cement bricks business, rental income from the house at Srikalahasti.

269.Further, Ex.D49 was not seized during course of searches.

Accused Officer also not intimated the said cash gift in his APRs or in his ITRs at the relevant time but, producing a document for the gifts allegedly given long back shows this document Ex.D45 is created for the purpose of his case and the same is not a contemporaneous document to believe the same. Further, DW9 is not a Landlord. When he had only Ac.2.00 cents of land, hence he is a marginal or a small farmer, had no capacity to give such a huge gift of Rs.65,000/- to his 98 married sister which will be generally nominal and will be expended on the same day or on the next day and thereby cannot be claimed as income in the absence of cogent evidence and non reflecting the same in the APRs and ITRs of Accused Officer, hence claim of Accused Officer in this item cannot be considered, thereby value of this item treated as

Nil.

Item Nos.22 to 24:

Rental income:

270.Accused Officer claimed rental income of Rs.10,27,000/- from item Nos.1 and 2 of assets and this Court already considered the rental income to an extent of rupees in item No.7 of income, hence

Accused Officer is not entitled to claim again under these items 22 to 24 of additional income, hence claim of income under this item Nos.22 to 24 again, is treated as Nil.

Item No.25:

Medical reimbursement:

270.Accused Officer claimed Rs.2,54,048/- towards medical reimbursement bill for the expenditure incurred by Accused Officer which subsequently reimbursed by the Department. Accused Officer further contends that, his wife took treatment in Yashoda Hospital,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad, while he was working as Special Collector (LAO), SSP at Kurnool and his mother-in-law looked after her at

Hyderabad and borne the expenditure from 8.7.2007 to 17.10.2007, accordingly, his mother-in-law incurred expenditure for the treatment of his wife, therefore, Accused Officer is not entitled to claim reimbursement which not was not incurred by him personally, as rightly contended by learned Special Public Prosecutor that, claim by

Accused Officer for the expenditure incurred by stranger amounts to false claim for which he is liable for criminal action. Admittedly, 99 prosecution did not show any expenditure towards medical bills, therefore, whatever the expenditure incurred by Accused Officer was only reimbursed by the Government, thereby, Accused Officer cannot get any income or additional benefit hence, claim of Accused Officer under this item is treated as Nil.

Item No.26:

Interest accrued on S.B.Account in Vijaya Bank:

271.Accused Officer claimed accrued interest of Rs.6024/- in his S.B. account No.40500841025 in Vijaya Bank, Kurnool, the accrued interest was also considered by this Court in item No.8 of income, hence Accused Officer not entitled to claim interest again under the head of additional income in item No.26, thereby claim for additional income under this item is treated as Nil.

Item NO.27:

Income of Rs.9,00,000/- under sale agreement:-

272.Accused Officer contends that, to meet marriage expenses of his daughter, he agreed to sell plot in item No.1 of assets, to Kotte

Naresh and Kotte Sarvana for Rs.18,50,000/- on 27.09.2009 and received Rs.9,00,000/- as advance and mentioned in Ex.D5/APR, but this APR/Ex.D5 was submitted to the Department subsequent to the case on 4.1.2010. Ex.P24 is only shows Nischaya Tambula Pathrika of his daughter Vandana, but Accused Officer did not examine purchasers

Naresh and Sarvana and original sale agreement was not produced, copy of which was also not marked separately but simply enclosed to the explanation and same is not amounts to sufficient proof under law.

Further, no permission was obtained by the Accused Officer before entering into the agreement of sale. According to DW1 wife of Accused

Officer, agreement was cancelled and not acted upon, hence Accused 100

Officer is not entitled to claim any income under this item, thereby income under this item is treated as Nil.

Item No.28:

Hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from son-in-law:

273. Accused Officer claimed that, he borrowed hand loan of

Rs.3,00,000/- from his son-in-law-DW7 to meet engagement function and marriage expenses of his daughter Vandana. Accused Officer contends that, his son-in-law-DW7 is a Software Engineer had sufficient funds to lend money. To prove his claim, he examined, his son-in-law as

DW7 and enclosed letter given by his son-in-law at page No.223 of his explanation, which has no value in the eye of law, bank statements of his son-in-law to show he had sufficient funds as on 17.9.2009, it was not produced before the Court or the IT returns of his son-in-law was not placed before the Court, Ex.D5-APR filed by the Accused Officer subsequent to this case and had no significance.

274.Learned Special Public Prosecutor elicited in the cross- examination of DW7 and during course of searches in his house at

Bangalore there was only cash of Rs.30,000/- was found, no gold, silver was also found in his house to believe his financial capacity, he also did not inform to ACB officials about his lending of Rs.3,00,000/- to

Accused Officer. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further elicited that,

DW7 was also married and have got two children, hence his income is sufficient to meet the family expenditure. In the absence of any valid document like pronote, or payment by way of cheque or bank statements of either parties showing lending and borrowing, this claim of Accused Officer cannot be considered, since DW7 is a close relative and interested witness to Accused Officer, his evidence has to be received with care and caution since, there is every chance of deposing 101 falsehood to save his father-in-law, hence claim of Accused Officer for

additional income in the absence of documentary proof cannot be

considered, thereby under this item is treated as Nil.

Item No.29:

275.Hand loan from Sri.Kaleswara Rao which was already discussed along with item No.18, hence, need not be discussed again separately.

Item NO.30:

Hand loan from Savithri sister of wife of Accused Officer:

276.Accused Officer claimed additional income of Rs.3,00,000/- as a hand loan from Savithri, sister of his wife borrowed to meet marriage expenses of his daughter-Vandana. To prove his claim, he enclosed copy of promotes to is explanation at page Nos.224 to 226 and disclosed in his APR-Ex.D5. On the other hand, learned Special

Public Prosecutor disputed this claim stating that, Savithri was not examined, original pronote was not filed, Bank statement or ITR of

Savithri was not filed to show Savithri had sufficient funds with her as on date of alleged lending of Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.D5-APR was subsequent to the case, had no significance Savithri was not examined.

Examination of her husband-DW8in the place of Savithri is of no use, therefore, in the absence of any valid document and non-examination of Savithri, the claim of Accused Officer for Rs.3,00,000/- as additional income under this item cannot be considered, thereby value under this item is treated as nil.

Item No.31:

GPF part final withdrawal:

102

277.Accused Officer claimed GPF Part Final withdrawal of

Rs.75,750/- as additional income to prove the same prosecution examined PW27 and marked Ex.P59 and also marked Ex.P50 and P82.

Investigating Officer also admitted this claim by Accused Officer as genuine, hence, claim of Accused Officer for Rs.75,750/- towards GPF part final withdrawal can be considered, thereby value under this item is taken at Rs.75,750/-.

Item No.32:

Difference of encashment of Earned Leave and Surrender Leave for the years 1996 to 2009:

278. Accused Officer claimed Rs.9873/- towards Surrnder Leave for the period from 1.7.2004 to 15.07.2004, prosecution also examined

PW59 and marked Ex.P81, Investigating Officer-PW70 also admitted receipt of this amount by Accused Officer hence, same can be cosndiered as additional income of Accused Officer, therby value under this item is takn as Rs.9873/-

Item No.33:

Difference of encashment of Earned Leave and Surrender Leave for the years 1978 to 1995:

279.Accused Officer claimed Rs.1475/- for encashment of

Earned leave and Surrender Leave for the years 1978 to 1995, prosecution also examined PW58 and marked Ex.P80, Investigating

Officer-PW70 also did not disputed this claim in his cross-examination thereby, value under this item is taken at Rs.1475/-.

Item Nos.34 and 35:

Income claimed by wife of Accused Officer from embroidery and saree work:

103

280. Accused Officer claimed income of Rs.1,34,200/- through his wife from embroidery saree work during 2007 to 2008 under item

No.34 andRs.2,21,250/- during 2008-2009 under item No.35 and

Rs.5,16,000/- from year 1985 totaling Rs.8,71,450/-. To support his claim, he filed Ex.P119 ITR filed for assessment year 2007-2008 filed on 29.07.2009 showing income of Rs.1,34,200/- from embroidery and saree works but, tax shown as nil and she also filed ITR for the assessment year 2009-2010 which was filed on the same day on 29.07.2009 under which, she claimed rental income from Flat No.303 i.e., asset Nos.1 and 2, but paid only nominal amount of Rs.530/-, except these 2 ITRs in the year 2009 one month before raid ITRs of previous years from 1985 to 2007 not field, there is no partnership or proprietary firm in the name of wife of Accused Officer to believe this huge income claimed by her on embroidery and saree works.

281.Further, she is only house wife, had no other employment, except her oral statement, there is no scrap of paper evidencing source of income from the business. Ex.P17 only shows that one sewing machine available in her house may be for her personal use but, on this sewing machine alone, lakhs of rupees cannot be considered as income in the absence of any plausible evidence.

282. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB argued that,

Accused Officer is working as Special Grade Deputy Collector and his wife is sickly person, hence earning on sewing machine and getting income is not believable, I find, some force in the contention of learned

Special Public Prosecutor. Even otherwise, entries in income tax returns on self serving, prepared and filed to legalize the unaccounted money and without proving the source of income, there ITRs have no legal sanctity as per the decision reported in State of Karnataka Vs Selivi 104

J.Jayalalitha and others, wherein, it was held that, the ITRs and orders passed in IT proceedings would not for themselves to establish that, such income had been from lawful source as contemplated in the explanation in Sec.13(1)(e) and that independence evidence would be required to account for the same but, in this case on hand, no independent evidence was produced by Accused Officer to claim huge income of Rs.8,71,450/- through his wife on embroidery and saree works, cannot be considered, thereby value under this items 34 and 35 is treated as Nil.

Item No.36:

Rents from Tata Indica Car:-

283. Accused Officer claimed that, he is owning Tata India Car bearing

No.AP-G-BA-1640 since, he was provided with Departmental Car, he leased out personal car to Sindhu Travels, Ramu Proprietor used the said vehicle and he received rental income of Rs.4,39,153/- on the said car and claimed as income under this item. To prove his claim, he relied on certain copies of bills enclosed to explanation-Ex.D7 at pages 273 to 286 and affidavit of owner of Sindhu travels but, he did not examine owner of Sindhu Travels or the proprietor Ramu who used his car. Original cash bills not produced and they were not seized during searches, and this income also not intimated in his APRs and ITRs at the relevant time. When Accused Officer made claim, it is his duty to prove his claim by examining relevant persons but it is not the duty of

Investigating Officer to examine and prove the claim of the Accused

Officer hence, the huge claim of Accused Officer for Rs.4,39,453/- under this item, cannot be considered, thereby value under this item is treated Nil.

Item No.37:

Incentive of Rs.14,425/-:

105

284. Accused Officer claimed that he received Rs.14,425/- as election incentive, Investigating Officer-PW70 considered the claim of

Accused Officer, hence claim of Accused Officer in the chief- examination itself not disputed in the cross-examination, hence claim of Accused Officer can be considered, thereby, value under this item is taken as Rs.14,425/-.

Item No.38:

Incentive of Rs.6,000/-:

285.Accused Officer claimed that he received Rs.6,000/- as incentive, Investigating Officer-PW70 considered the claim of Accused

Officer, hence claim of Accused Officer in the chief-examination itself not disputed in the cross-examinaiton, hence claim of Accused Officer can be cosndiered, thereby value under this item is taken as

Rs.6,000/-.

Item No.39:

Income from peerless policy:

286.Accused Officer claimed Rs.11,683/- as maturity value on peerless policy, prosecution examined officer from pearles company as

PW41 and marked Ex.P65-Letter and Investigating Officer-PW70 admitted the same in chief-examination and not disputed the claim of

Accused Officer, hence, claim made by Accused Officer under this item for Rs.11,683/- can be considered, thereby value under this item is taken as Rs.11,683/-.

Item No.40:

Income from surrender of postal LIC policy:

287. Accused Officer claimed Rs.30,000/- from surrender of postal

LIC policy, but Investigating Officer disputed the same and denied the 106 suggestion, hence it is incumbent upon the accused to produce evidence and to prove his claim, but Accused Officer did not produce any scrap of paper and did not examine any witnesses in this regard and no details like policy No., date of maturity and surrender of amount by LIC was proved before the Court, hence the claim of Accused Officer under this item cannot be considered in the absence of any proof, thereby, value under this item is treated as Nil.

Item No.41:

288.Accused Officer claimed Rs.8,00,000/- through his daughter-Vasantha under Ex.D28 unregistered mortgage deed stating that, his daugher Vasantha mortgaged asset No.4 to DW2 and borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from him and to prove the same Accused

Officer examined DW2 said to be mortgagee and his daughter-

Vasantha-DW6 and enclosed photocopy of unregistered mortgage deed to Ex.D7-Explanantion at pages 287 and 288. On the other hand, learned Special Public Proseuctor aruged that Ex.D28 is only photocopy of unregistered mortgage deed, original document was not produced and further argued that every mortgage should be registered one and unregistered mortgage is not valid and not admissible in evidence and

Ex.D28 was created by the Accused Officer to boost up his income by securing old stamp papers with the help of the DW2 who has been acting as binamidar to the Accused persons involved in ACB cases like in C.C.NO.5/2017.

289.As rightly argued by learned Special Public Prosecutor, unregistered mortgage deed is not valid in the eye of law and not admissible in evidence. Further learned Special Public Prosecutor elicited in the cross examination of DW2 that, he is only a white ration card holder. Though, he stated that, he got Ac.30.00 cents of land but did not place any document and getting income from the land. He also 107 unable to say name of document writer, scribe of unregistered mortgage deed, he unable to say name of the stamp vendor so, the evidence of DW2 shows that Ex.D28 is only a sham document appears to have created by the Accused Officer to boost up his income. He also did not inform the huge debt through his daughter to the Department in his APR and if really, it was in existence by the time of case, certainly, it would have been seized by the ACB officials during searches. Accused Officer also did not produce ITRs of DW2 or his daughter and their respective bank accounts to believe this transaction hence claim of Accused Officer for huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on invalid document, cannot be considered thereby, value of this document is treated as Nil.

Item No.42:

Income towards TA & DA:

290. Accused Officer made huge claim of Rs.9,00,000/- as TA & DA received from 1978 to 2009 i.e., from entire check period. To prove his claim, statements of TA & DA particulars secured from the various offices in which he worked enclosed to his explanation-Ex.D7 at page

Nos.331 to 335. Investigating Officer clearly explained in his cross examination that TA & DA was given to Accused Officer for the actual expenses incurred while on tours, hence, he cannot claim the same separately as a income, thereby denied the claim of Accused Officer. I find, some force on the part of the Investigating Officer because, for actual expenditure incurred by public servant while on tours only, will be reimbursed as per rules, so also, medical expenses. Since prosecution not shown expenditure on tours and other duties, hence

Accused Officer cannot claim income and if it is considered it amounts to giving undue advantage to the public servant and loss will be caused to the prosecution hence, claim of Accused Officer under this 108 item cannot be considered, thereby value under this item is treated as

Nil.

Item No.43:

Income from other sources i.e., from daughters Deeparani-DW4 and

Vandana and Aadapadachu Lanchanams+Odibiyyam:

291.Accused Officer claimed that, his wife purchased item

Nos.1 and 2 and his daughters gave amounts and helped her, through his daughter Deeparani, he claimed Rs.3,00,000/- on 29.12.2008,

Rs.2,78,000/- on 27.04.2008 and Rs.2,80,323/- on 2.5.2009, totaling

Rs.8,58,323/- and to support his claim he relied on Ex.D33-Andhra

Bank passbook evidencing transfer of amounts from the Bank account of daughter Deeparani to the account of her mother-Usharani by way of cheques. Similarly, from Vandana, he claimed Rs.11,00,000/- andRs.2,00,000/- on 6.4.2007 and Rs.6,00,000/- on 19.05.2007,

Rs.3,00,000/- 0n 11.06.2007, but did not examine his daughter

Vandana and did not prove her source of money. Prosecution already given the credit to the salaries drawn by daughters of Accused Officer in item No.4 of income, hence, claim of Accused Officer again under this item as additional income cannot be considered. Apart from the salary, what are the other source of income of Vandana are not shown or proved by Accused Officer.

292. Though, daughter of Accused Officer Deeparani was examined as DW4, she has shown the transfer of amounts from her bank account and relevant entries of cheque transfers reflected in her bank passbook, but, she has not explained her sources of income to transfer the huge amounts to her mother from her account and learned Special

Public Prosecutor questioned DW4 about the source of money deposited in her account, but DW4 simply skipped away stating that, they are her personal savings, but no details were given by her.

109

Whatever salary she earned was already given credit by the

Investigating Officer as salary income of daughters under item No.4 of income and apart from salary how she got this huge amount of

Rs.8,58,323/- was not at all explained by her properly.

293. In this item also, Accused Officer claimed Rs.1,50,000/- towards Aadapadachu Lanchanams through his wife and Rs.1,80,000/- received as Odibiyyam (customary gifts) but no scrap of paper was field to believe this huge gifts, totaling Rs.3,30,000/-. In the absence of any document or proof these gifts cannot be considered, thereby claim under this item NO.43 was not made earlier under separate head, but claimed through some utterances of prosecution witnesses, and some suggestions cannot be considered without any document thereby, value under this item is treated as Nil.

294.After considering genuine claims made by the accused officer, his total income and additional income during the check period is arrived at Rs.93,79,408-00as against the income of arrived by the prosecution at Rs.74,37,106-00/-described in the table given below:

INCOME

Sl.ProsecutionCourt Value No.value 1Rs.35,87,639.1436,18,692-00 2Rs.9,50,000/-9,50,000-00 3Rs.Nil;33,693-00 4Rs.18,78,171/-18,78,171-00 5Rs.77,000/-77,000-00 6Rs.1,31,862/-1,36,664-00 7Rs.Nil8,20,000-00 8Rs.1,00,812/-1,08,633-00 9Rs.51,613/-1,03,840-00 10 Rs.1,00,000/-1,00,000-00

ADDITIONAL INCOME

113,40,000-00 125,54,379-00 1384,040-00 142,40,000-00 151,10,272-00 1626,636-00 1778,182-00 110 18Nil. 19Nil. 20Nil. 21Nil. 22Nil. 23Nil. 24Nil. 25Nil. 26Nil. 27Nil. 28Nil. 29Nil 30Nil. 3175,750-00 329,873-00 331,475-00 34Nil. 35Nil. 36Nil. 3714,425-00 386,000-00 3911,683-00 40Nil. 41 42Nil. 43Nil. 74,37,106-00 93,79,408-00

EXPENDITURE:

295.As per prosecution, expenditure of the accused and his family members during the check period was estimated at

Rs.44,18,370/-, described in item Nos. 1 to 23 of Annexure-III,

Abstract of Expenditure, as mentioned below:

ANNEXURE-III

ABSTRACT OF EXPENDITURE

Sl.No Details of property Value in

.

1.House hold expenditureRs.11,28,278/- 2Expenditure on stamps & RegistrationRs.3,09,993/-

3.Education expenditure Rs.3,57,855/-

4.Payment of LIC policies No.654411406 & Rs.1,17,000/- 654410062

5.Expenditure towards purchase of cell phones Rs.24,100/-

6.Repayment of car loan at Vijaya Bank, Kurnool Rs.3,93,360/-

7.Repayment of car loan to LIC Housing Finance Rs.10,90,575/- Ltd.

8.Expenditure towards subscription of PPF Rs.4,20,800/- account

9.Life tax and Registration charges of Indica CarRs.34,130/-

10.Expenditure on Telephone billsRs.25,832/-

11. Expenditure on electricity billsRs.Nil 111

12.Expenditure on Hotel billRs.7,611/-

13.Expenditure towards purchase of gold coinRs.12,994/-

14.Expenditure towardsd rent of Marriage function Rs.17,500/- hall

15.Payment of SBI life Insurance premiumsRs.48,000/-

16. Payment of LIC premium policy No.603233957Rs.26,197/-

17.Car Insurance paymentRs.5,173/-

18.Scooty insurance paymentRs.468/-

19.Payment towards LICs policies 045543816 & Rs.1,78,074/- 650112298 20Tata Indica car maintenance chargesRs.71,253/-

21.TVS Scooty Maintenance chargesRs. 15,510/-

22.Repayment of loan at Andhra Bank, WanaparthyRs.1,27,667/-

23.Payment of premiums towards pearless policyRs.6.000/-

Total Rs.44,18,370/-

Expenditure:

Item No.1:

Household of expenditure of Accused Officer:

296. Investigating Officer-PW70 estimated the household expenditure of Accused Officer during the search period at

Rs.11,28,278/- and prosecution marked Ex.P131- household and family expenditure chart prepared by first Investigating Officer M.Mahaboob

Basha, at Rs.14,06,438/- but under Ex.P123 another chat prepared by final Investigating Officer-PW70 estimating household expenditure at

Rs.11,28,278-26ps adopting Consumer Price Indi (CPI) of Hyderabad, for base year 1960 and 1984-1985.

297.Learned counsel for Accused Officer contends that,

Accused Officer mostly worked in rural areas like Mahabub Nagar,

Ranga Reddy and Kurnool Districts and cost of living is very low when compared to the cities and towns, no officials from Central Statistical

Organization (CSO) was examined and no report from any official from

CSO was obtained for computing the household expenditure of

Accused Officer. He further contends that, household expenditure includes food, clothing, fuel, electricity and transport, but they were 112 not exempted, for which Rs.1,57,950/- was added to the household expenditure and the same has to be excluded. Further, Accused Officer was mostly on tours on account of his job and got T.A., D.A., to a tune of Rs.4,90,766/- and excluding those days, household expenditure for the remaining family members i.e., his wife and four daughters have to be computed separately and the same is not done.

298. Further, out of four daughters, marriage of two daughters was over by the date of searches and as per the Hindu Caste Custom they are supposed to be in-laws house and will join parents house only after 5th month pregnancy, but their expenditure was also included.

Though his two daughters are working from the year 2005 in Software

Companies at different places, but their expenditure was also included and there will be variation of Rs.1,00,000/- in the calculation of household expenditure of two marriage daughters and altogether a sum of Rs.6,68,616/- has to be deducted from out of the total expenditure of Rs.11,28,278.26 ps, thereby, actual household expenditure according to him is only Rs.4,59,662/-.

299.Investigating Officer-PW70 admitted in the cross- examination, Accused Officer worked in Mahabub Nagar up to 2001 and in Kurnool from 2006 to 2009. He also admitted that, cost of living in rural areas, when compared to cities, is less. He did not examine any official from CSO Department and did not obtain any data or information from CSO. He adopted consumer index number fixed for

Hyderabad City. He also admitted that, household of expenditure includes clothing fuel, light, furniture and household appliances, but he did not exclude furniture, clothing, fuel and electricity from the household expenditure. He also admitted that, as per the nature of duties, Accused Officer will be mostly on tours and entitled T.A., and 113

D.A., as per Rules, but he did not calculate D.A., received by him separately while on tours and also did not calculated household expenditure of remaining family members separately excluding

Accused Officer during that tour period. For receipt of D.A., to a tune of

Rs.4,10,776/- is concerned, Investigating Officer admitted that Accused

Officer might have received D.A., but for the actual expenditure incurred by Accused Officer, D.A was paid by the Department, hence in my view, Accused Officer cannot claim again. Likewise, accused officer cannot claim any deduction for the cost of household articles in the household expenditure at best, he can claim deduction in the household articles shown separately in the list of assets.

300.Normally, in these type of cases, Investigating Officer has to take assistance from any technical person from Central Statistical

Organization or from State Organization, to assess household expenditure of Accused Officer during the relevant period, but

Investigating Officer in this case did not examine any person from

Central Statistical organization or from any technical person from

Engineering Department, Income Tax Department or from any banking organization who can assess the expenditure of Accused Officer in a scientific way.

301.There is also no evidence to show that Investigating Officer underwent special training in this regard or had any experience previously for assessing household expenditure of Accused Officer in these type of cases, therefore, in my view, in the absence of any scientific data or report from the official from CSO, or sample survey report of similarly placed groups like middle class, nor collection of information from NSS survey and consumer index on the consumer expenditure for each month for urban or rural areas break up and non- exempting to expenditure on telephone, electricity, house tax, fuel and 114 adding the same under separate heads in the list of expenditure, non- taking into account of decreasing number of family members after marriages of two daughters, non-taking consideration of consumer index of place of posting of Accused Officer in rural areas, I hold that, computation of household expenditure of Accused Officer not done properly by adopting correct method and same is not in a scientific way.

302.If 15% deduction is given to Accused Officer on account of the above discrepancies pointed out it comes to Rs.1,69,241/- and if it is deducted from out of total expenditure, actual household expenditure of Accused Officer comes to Rs.9,59,037/- which is less than 1/3rd of his net salary and same is found to be just and reasonable household expenditure of Accused Officer during check period, hence value of this item is taken at Rs.9,59,037/-.

Item No.2:

Expenditure on stamps and registration:-

303.Prosecution estimated expenditure incurred by Accused

Officer towards stamps and registration charges at Rs.3,09,993/-. To prove the same, prosecution examined PW1-Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally and marked Exs.P1 to P7 registered documents. PW2-Sub-Registrar from Nandyal and marked Exs.P8 to P12, PW3-Sub-Registrar from

Kadapa and marked Ex.P13, PW12 vendor under Ex.P5, PW57 vendor under Ex.P8, PW6 vendor under Ex.P13, PW14 vendor under Ex.P10,

PW13 vendor under Ex.P3 and PW17 vendor under Ex.P2.

304.The accused contends that as per endorsement on the back of registered documents, registration charges are paid by vendors. PW13 vendor admitted that, he paid stamp duty and registration charges to the Registration Department i.e., 115

Rs.85,000+65,000 for sale of items 2 and 3, totaling Rs.1,50,000/-.

PW17 vendor who sold item No.1, he stated that, they sold item No.1-

Flat to Accused Officer for sale consideration of Rs.36,42,523/- including stamp duty and registration fee under Ex.P2 registered sale deed and stamp duty and registration fee was estimated by Accused

Officer at Rs.1,15,323/-. PW6-Vendor of item No.6 asset stated that, he sold land in item No.6 to Ramamurthy brother-in-law of Accused

Officer, his wife and wife of Accused Officer for which, Rama Murthy paid registration fees and stamp duty.

305.For item No.4 asset sold by PW-57 to Vasantha, stated that, he paid stamp duty and registration charges, since it was included in the sale consideration amount as per marketing policy. For item No.5 of asset, his wife-DW1 incurred stamp duty and registration charges of

Rs.10,710/- and that amount only has to be taken into consideration as value under this item and learned counsel argued to delete the rest of the amount. As seen from the evidences of vendors PW13, PW17 and

PW6 though gave evidence against the prosecution but, they were not treated as hostile by the prosecution. Though, PW57 was treated as hostile, except marking his earlier statement as Ex.P79 and one bare suggestion that, he is deposing falsely to help the Accused Officer but, nothing was elicited from his evidence to discard his evidence totally.

According to accused as per marketing policy to encourage customers they may pay stamp duty and registration charges to purchasers, they can improve their business.

306.So also, collection of stamp duty and registration charges while entering into agreement or receiving sale consideration at initial stages to complete transactions quickly by vendors without any delay by purchasers, can also be believed. Thereby, after deleting stamp duty and registration charges paid on item Nos.1 to 3, there remains 116 only item No.5 on which, wife of Accused Officer paid Rs.10,710/- towards stamp duty and registration charges for purchasing item No.5, hence the said amount of Rs.10,710/- is only taken into consideration as actual expenditure under this item excluding Rs.2,98,953/-thereby value of this item is taken at Rs.10,710/-.

Item No.3:-

Education expenditure:-

307.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer incurred a sum of

Rs.3,57,855/- towards education expenditure of his four daughters. To prove the same, prosecution examined officials from schools i.e., PW42 marked Ex.P56, PW48 marked Ex.P72, PW45 marked Ex.P69, PW46 marked Ex.P70, PW47 marked Ex.P71 and PW67 marked Ex.P98 and one more letter from Kottam Thulasi Reddy Memorial Engineering

College at Mahabub Nagar and marked Ex.P122 through Investigating

Officer-PW70.

308.Learned counsel for Accused Officer argued that, education expenditure is exempted under CSO and while calculating household expenditure necessary points will be deducted towards education, electricity, fuel and transport thereby, they cannot be shown again separately, hence argued for total deletion of this item. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for Accused Officer as per

CSO regulations, educational expenditure up to upper primary school is only exempted and for the remaining classes after 7th standard i.e., up to 10th class, Intermediate, Degree and Engineering studies, which are comes under verifiable expenses, can be shown under separate head by prosecution and they are not totally exempted.

309.As per the evidence of PW42, School Fee paid for

Veenavani and Deeparani from classes 1 to 10 and for Vandana and

Vasantha from classes 4 to 10 were shown totaling Rs.43,080/- but as 117 per CSO regulations up to upper primary school fee is exempted, hence from classes 8 to 10 for four daughters only have to be taken into consideration, if that amount is taken Rs.1500+1500+1740=Rs.4740/- was paid for classes 8th to 10th for Veenavani, Rs.1740x3=Rs.5220/- paid for Deeparani for classes 8th to 10th, Rs.5220/- each paid for

Vandana and Vasantha for classes 8th to 10th, thereby total expenditure incurred by Accused Officer, towards school fee from 8 to 10th class comes to Rs.19,560/-, remaining all, for college studies i.e., Rs.16,000/- as per PW45, Rs.79,135/- as per PW46, Rs.12,000/- as per PW47,

Rs.61,740/- as per PW48 and Rs.2400/- as per PW67, but Ex.P122 was not proved by examining concerned College Authority and no receipt was produced evidencing payment of Rs.1,43,500/- and as per

Ex.P122, was simply marked through Investigating Officer and same is not proved before the Court as per law and according to accused the said amount was paid by his father hence, the said amount cannot be taken into consideration, thereby, total expenditure incurred by

Accused Officer under this item, after giving necessary deductions, comes to Rs.1,90,835/-, thereby value of this item is taken as

Rs.1,90,835/-.

Item No.4:-

Expenditure of LIC Polices:-

310.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer obtained two polices in his name bearing Nos.654411406 and 654410062 and incurred expenditure of Rs.1,17,000/- towards premiums. To prove the same, prosecution examined PW49-Administrative Officer from LIC and marked Exs.P73 and P74 receipts and Ex.P75 two status reports with covering letter. Accused did not dispute this payment thereby, value of this item can be taken as it is at Rs.1,17,000/-.

118

Item No.5:-

Purchase of cell phones:

311.As per prosecution case, during house searches, they found 5 Nokia cell phones mentioned in Ex.P17-Inventory Proceedings and to prove the same, prosecution examined mediator-PW5 and marked

Ex.P15-Search Warrant, Ex.P16-Search List, Ex.P17-Inventory

Proceedings.

312.Accused Officer contends that, out of 5 cell phones, 1st cell phone bearing No.9849994522 is the official phone given to Accused

Officer, 2nd cell phone bearing No.9000015509 is the personal mobile of

Accused Officer purchased for cost of Rs.4100/-, 3rd cell phone bearing

No.9949527217 purchased by Vandana daughter of Accused Officer for

Rs.6000/-, 4th cell phone bearing No.9704587012 purchased by wife of

Accused Officer for Rs.7000/- and the last cell phone bearing

No.9000014248 purchased by Vasantha daughter of Accused Officer for Rs.4000/- and argued that, wife and daughters have got independent income and with their income only, they purchased the cell phones, hence they have to be excluded and expenditure of

Rs.4100/- incurred by him to purchase his personal mobile phone bearing NO.9000015509 only has to be shown as expenditure under this item towards purchase of cell phones.

313. Investigation Officer-PW70 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that cell phone bearing No.9849994522 is official phone given to Accused Officer so, from the office expenses, the expenditure will be incurred not from the pocket of Accused Officer. Accused admitted purchase of personal phone bearing No.9000015509 for

Rs.4100/-. Investigation Officer admitted the 3rd phone is in the name of Vandana daughter of Accused Officer, 4thphone bearing

No.9704587012 is in the name of wife of Accused Officer for Rs.6000/- 119 and 5th phone purchased is in the name of Vasanta daughter of

Accused Officer for Rs.4000/-. He further categorically admitted that by the date of raid, daughter of Accused Officer namely Vandana and

Vasanta were doing jobs as Software Engineers but living in the house of Accused Officer. So, they can easily purchase the cell phones from out of their salary but their salaries were shown in income hence, further deduction is not warranted.

314.4th cell phone is in the name of wife of Accused Officer purchased for Rs.7000/-, but, she is not an employee and have no business to get regular income, so as to exclude the same. Non-filing of purchase bills by prosecution is not material, since it is for the

Accused Officer to explain the sources to purchase the cell phones or any other property. The bills are within the custody or in the special knowledge of Accused Officer and in case of dispute regarding values, it is for him to produce relevant bills under which, he or his family members purchased the cell phones or any other properties therefore, expenditure incurred by Accused Officer to purchase his personal cell phone bearing No.9000015509 for Rs.4100/-, for purchase of 5th cell phone in the name of Vasantha at Rs.6000/- for purchase of 3rd cell phone in the name of Vandana, Rs.4000/- to purchase cell phone for his wife bearing No.9704587012 for Rs.7000/- only has to be taken into account and total value of 4 cell phones comes to Rs.11,100/- can be taken an expenditure under this item, rest can be excluded, thereby value of this item taken as Rs.21,100/-.

Item No.6:-

Repayment of Car loan:

315.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer obtained car loan from Vijaya Bank, Kurnool and towards repayment of car loan, he paid

Rs.3,93,360/- and to prove the same, prosecution examined PW43- 120

Manager from Vijaya Bank, Kurnool and marked Ex.P67 statement of account. Accused did not dispute this expenditure incurred by him towards repayment of car loan and did not dispute the figures, thereby, value of this item as shown by the prosecution at Rs.3,93,360/- is taken as it is, as expenditure incurred by Accused Officer towards repayment of car loan.

Item No.7:-

Repayment of loan to LIC Housing Finance Limited:

316.As per prosecution case, wife of Accused Officer obtained

Rs.9,50,000/- loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited and repaid the same with interest comes to Rs.10,90,575/- and to prove the same prosecution examined Manager from LIC Housing Finance Limited,

Hyderabad as PW32 and marked Ex.P56-Statement of Account.

317.Accused Officer contends that a sum of Rs.3,68,417/- was paid by Deeparani-second daughter of Accused Officer by way of

Andhra Bank cheque bearing No.985553 and to prove the same

Accused Officer examined his daughter Deeparani as DW4 and marked

Ex.D33 Andhra Bank Passbook which shows that, an amount of

Rs.3,68,417/- was debited in her account on 24.12.2008 for clearance of LIC Housing Finance Limited loan. Ex.P56-Account copy also shows receipt of the amount by way of Andhra Bank cheque. Manager-PW32 also admitted that an amount of Rs.3,68,417/- and received by way of

Andrha Bank cheque bearing No.985553. As per the evidence of DW4 she has been working as Software Engineer from 2004 and getting income, but, her income was also shown by the prosecution under separate head in the abstract of income along with income of other daughters therefore, her expenditure also has to be added by taking

Accused Officer and his family members as one unit. Whatever the income apart from the salary received by daughters, can be proved by 121

Accused Officer by adducing evidence as required by law but, this payment of Rs.3,68,417/- by daughter by way of cheque cannot be deducted or otherwise, it amounts to giving double benefit to the

Accused Officer therefore, value of this item as shown by the prosecution is taken as it is at Rs.10,90,575/-.

Item No.8:-

PPF subscriptions:

318.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer opened PPF account in Head Post Office, Khairathabad, Hyderabad, bearing

No.200727 on 19.02.1997 and made subscriptions to a tune of

Rs.4,20,800/- as on 28.10.2009, on which, there was an accrued interest of Rs.1,33,664/- and Accused Officer withdrawn Rs.37,000/- on 17.05.2004 and Rs.40,000/- on 16.11.2005 and to prove the same prosecution examined public relation Inspector from Head Post Office,

Hyderabad as PW39 and marked Ex.P63 statement of account.

319.Accused Officer contends that, accrued interest on

Rs.1,36,664/- + Rs.77,000/- of withdrawal amount, totaling

Rs.2,13,664/- has to be deducted from out of closing balance of

Rs.4,80,664/- and balance comes to Rs.2,66,800/- and argued to take the balance of Rs.2,66,800/- only as expenditure under this item but, I am unable to agree with the contention of the accused officer because, accrued interest of Rs.1,36,664/- was shown as income in item NO.6 and Rs.77,000/- withdrawal amount was shown as item No.5 of income, totaling Rs.2,13,664/- was shown as income thereby, accused officer again cannot claim further deduction in this item and if it is considered, it amounts to giving double benefit to the accused, which is not permissible thereby, actual subscriptions made by Accused Officer to a tune of Rs.4,28,100/- has to be shown as expenditure incurred by 122

Accused Officer under this item therefore, value of this item is taken as it is as shown by the prosecution at Rs.4,28,100/-.

Item No.9:

Life Tax and Registration charges of Tata India Car:

320.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer incurred

Rs.34,130/- towards life tax and registration charges of Tata India Car, purchased in his name and to prove the same prosecution examined

PW7-Official from RTA Office, Khairathabad, Hyderabad and marked

Ex.P19-B.Extract containing the details of expenditure. Accused Officer did not dispute this expenditure shown in this item thereby, the value as shown by the prosecution in this item is taken as it is at

Rs.34,130/-.

Item No.10:

Expenditure on Telephone bills:

321.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer obtained Landline

Telephone Connection from BSNL bearing No.227021 in his name installed in Royal Towers, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool on 21.09.2004 and as per the records maintained in Telephone Office, a sum of Rs.25,832/- was paid towards telephone bills as on 28.10.2009. To prove the same, prosecution examined Accounts Officer from BSNL, Kurnool as PW61 and marked Ex.P87-Computarised print out with covering letter.

322.Accused Officer raised technical plea that, in the Telephone bill except name, address particulars of the premises, in which Landline connection was installed, was written with pen, his application form telephone bills are not produced and there may be some other person with the same name of accused officer. Further, the telephone 123 connection was disconnected on 16.06.2006 for non-payment of charges but, bill was given for the actual consumption period only.

323. Further, the details were given by the BSNL in a computer generated form, as such, there was no chance to tamper with the details recorded in the system. The contention of Accused Officer that, there is no evidence to show that, Accused Officer paid the bills and there may be some other person with the same name of accused officer, if such is the case, it is for the accused produce material before the Court to show there is some other person with the similar name, but accused officer did not do so. If accused officer not paid the bills what is necessity for a stranger to pay the bills in his name?

324.Admittedly, accused worked as Special Grade Deputy

Collector in Srisailam Project, Kurnool by the date of searches, hence his staying in Kurnool and search was also conducted in his official premises, hence Accused Officer obtaining landline connection from

BSNL, Kurnool, cannot be ruled out and there is no necessity for ACB to create false evidence in the name of accused officer for the petty amount without actually obtaining telephone connection in his name and there is no possibility to tamper old records stored in the computer in the day today business, therefore, I find no substance in the technical plea taken by the Accused Officer and the same appears to be made to reduce expenditure, but nothing else, hence value as shown by prosecution at Rs.25,832/- can be taken as it is as expenditure under this item.

Item No.11:-

Electricity Bills:-

325.Prosecution, did not show any figure towards expenditure incurred by Accused Officer for payment of electricity bills and shown it 124 as nil in the abstract of expenditure described in annexure-III, thereby same is also treated as Nil.

Item No.12:-

Expenditure of hotel bill:

326.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer paid an amount of

Rs.7611/- towards arranging dinner and breakfast to Hotel Bliss at

Tirupathi and to prove the same prosecution examined, General

Manager of Hotel Bliss as PW51 and marked Ex.P77 bill. Accused

Officer contends that, Ex.P77-Bill does not disclose name of the accused officer mentioned in the bill, hence this amount cannot be tagged to the accused officer.

327.As seen from Ex.P77, which is a photocopy of bill, does not reflect name of accused officer or the name of the person paid the amount. In this computerized bill, there are handwritten words as Balasubramanyam Weds Deeparani but, PW51-Manager of the Hotel stated that, he cannot say the name of the person who made those writings in the bill and he cannot say person who issued the bill. He also admitted that, accused officer name and signature not available in the bill. He cannot say the person who paid the amount under bill.

328.Further the bill does not disclose amount was paid towards marriage function. There is every chance of payment of the bill from the bridegroom side i.e., Balasubramanyam also, so in the absence of name of the person who paid the bill and to whom the bill was issued and non-examination of the person who made hand written words in the computerized bill, and as Ex.P77-Photocopy of the bill, the expenditure under this item, cannot be tagged to accused officer without positive proof, hence same can be excluded, thereby value under this item is treated as Nil.

125

Item No.13:

Purchase of Gold Coin:

329.As per prosecution case, during searches they found one god coin in the house of Accused Officer which purchased from Tata

Gold Plus shop, S.V.Complex, Kurnool valued at Rs.12,994/- and to prove the same prosecution examined PW63-Store in-charge of Tata

Gold Plus and marked Ex.P88-Letter under which information was furnished by the Tata Gold Plus shop owner to the ACB.

330.As seen from Ex.P88-Letter issued by Tata Gold Plus to

Inspector, ACB, Kurnool, in which, the Manager clearly stated that

B.Chandra Mohan i.e., Accused Officer has purchased 8 gms of Gold

Coin value of Rs.12,994/- vide invoice No.KNL/CM/1984 from their shop on 6.8.2009 during the check period, since invoice number is mentioned, same is sufficient. As gold coin was seized from the possession of the Accused Officer, it is for him to explain the sources.

The technical plea that, Managing Director was not examined, and bills were not produced, is not material when the Accused Officer has purchased the gold coin, the bill is within his knowledge, therefore, I find there is no substance in the contention of the accused to exclude this item from the expenditure and this contention appears to be made to reduce his expenditure but nothing else thereby, value of this time is taken as it is, as shown by the prosecution at Rs.12,994/-.

Item No.14:

Expenditure for marriage function:

331.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer performed marriage of his daughter B.Veenavani in K.S.R.Kalyana

Mandapam,Kadpa on 3.12.2003 and paid Rs.17,500/- towards rent and maintenance of Kalyana Mandapam and to prove the same, 126 prosecution examined PW64-Owner of the Kalyana Mandapam and marked Ex.P89-Letter. Accused Officer contends that, his father paid the said amount but he did not pay the said amount. In the cross- examination, PW64 though admitted that father of Accused Officer paid

Rs.17,500/- towards rent and maintenance for using Kalyana

Mandapam since he is local person but, the letter shows that Accused

Officer-B.Chandra Mohan, paid the amount for performance of marriage of his daughter-Veenavani. In the re-examination learned Special

Public Prosecutor elicited the said fact and it does not disclose, father of Accused Officer paid the said amount.

332. If really, father of Accused Officer paid the said amount certainly, name of father of Accused Officer will only be mentioned in

Ex.P89, therefore document has to be preferred rather than the oral evidence. Accused did not produce any document that his father paid amount and not examined his daughter-Veenavani. DW5-brother of

Accused Officer only stated about presentation of gold by his father, but did not state about payment of Kalyana Mandapam charges thereby, value of this item cannot be deleted and has to be added as expenditure of Accused Officer, hence value of this item is taken as

Rs.17,500/-.

Item No.15:-

S.B.I., Life Insurance Premiums:

333.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer obtained S.B.I.,

Life Insurance policy bearing NO.24049385208 in the name of his daughter-Vandana and paid premium at the rate of Rs.24,000/- each on 6.5.2008 and 11.05.2008, total Rs.48,000/-. To prove the same prosecution examined PW52-Manager from S.B.I. Life Insurance,

Kurnool and marked Ex.P78-Letter. Accused Officer contends that, 127

Vandana paid premiums by way of ICICI Bank cheques Vandana who is working as Software Engineer and Investigating Officer-PW70 admitted

Vandana is working as Software Engineer and no document was collected to show that Accused Officer incurred this amount. Since income of Vandana is also shown by the prosecution under separate head in the abstract of income, hence expenditure incurred by her also has to be shown but cannot be deleted, thereby expenditure under this item is taken at Rs.48,000/-.

Item No.16:-

Payment of LIC premium:-

334. As per prosecution case, Accused Officer obtained one

Jeevana Jyothi LIC policy bearing No.603233957 in the name of his daughter Vandana, on which, he paid Rs.26,197/- as on 26.12.2008 towards premium and to prove the same prosecution examined

Administrative Officer from LIC Office, Hyderabad as PW53 and marked

Ex.P79-Letter. Accused Officer contends that, his daughter Vandana is a Software Engineer and she only obtained policy and paid the premiums, hence this expenditure cannot be tagged to him. Since income of Vandana is also shown by the prosecution under separate head in the abstract of income, hence expenditure incurred by her also has to be shown but cannot be deleted, thereby expenditure under this item is taken at Rs.26,197/-.

Item No.17:-

Car Insurance Premium:-

335.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased Tata

Indica Car baring No.AP-09-BA-1640 and obtained policy from Bajaj

Allianz Insurance Company bearing No.OG-09-1801-1801-000-36031 128 and paid Rs.5173/- towards premium and to prove the same, prosecution examined Area Manager from Bajaj Allianz Insurance

Company as PW54 and marked Ex.P80-Certificate-Policy schedule.

Accused Officer did not dispute this expenditure thereby, value of this item as shown by the prosecution can be taken as it is at Rs.5173/-.

Item No.18:-

Insurance Payment for Scooty:

336.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer purchased one scooty in the name of his daughter-Deeparani and paid Rs.468/- towards insurance policy from New India Insurance Company, Mahabub

Nagar and paid Rs.468/- as premium and to prove the same, prosecution examined Assistant Manager from New India Insurance

Compnay, Mahabub Nagar Branch and marked Ex.P81-Letter. Accused

Officer contends that, he did not purchase the scooty and did not pay the premium and his daughter-Deeparani who is a Software Engineer and she only purchased the scooty and paid premium since his daughter is a Software Engineer and had independent source of income. However, as income of Deeparani is also shown by the prosecution under separate head in the abstract of income, the expenditure incurred by her also has to be added but cannot be deleted thereby, expenditure under this item is taken at Rs.468/-.

Item No.19:-

Payment of LIC premiums:

337.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer obtained two polices in his name bearing Nos.045543816, on which he paid

Rs.8955.50 ps, as per Ex.P73-History sheet and another policy bearing

No.650112298, on which, Accused Officer paid premium of 129

Rs.1,69,119-80 ps, as per Ex.P74-History sheet, total Accused Officer incurred expenditure of Rs.1,78,074/- on the said two polices and to prove the same prosecution examined PW49-Administrative Officer from LIC and marked Exs.P73 & P74-History Sheets.

338.Accused Officer contends that, his father paid the premiums, since he died, Accused Officer examined his brother as DW5 who stated that his father paid premiums. Further, there is calculation mistake and Investigating Officer admitted the mistake and stated that total premiums paid under the two polices was only Rs.1,27,309/-, thereby pleaded to exclude this expenditure. As seen from the evidence of Investigating Officer-PW70, he did not admit the calculation is wrong but denied the suggestion.

339.On my calculation of premiums paid under the said two polices also, the calculation shown by the prosecution is tallied but not wrong. The other contention of Accused Officer that, his father at

Kadapa paid premiums since he used to work during the period in

Telangana Region, but learned Special Public Prosecutor elicited that the father of Accused Officer worked as Teacher and retired in the year 1989 and except pension, there is no other income for his father, so as to pay the premiums for his son even though son is a Gazetted Officer.

So, the contention of Accused Officer without any proof cannot be accepted on the interested testimony of his brother DW5. No such theory was suggested to PW49 and nothing was elicited in the cross- examination of PW49 either regarding wrong calculation or payment of premiums by his father, therefore, contention of accused officer for deletion of this expenditure under this item cannot be accepted and thereby, value of this item is taken as it is as shown by the prosecution at Rs.1,78,074/-.

130

Item No.20:-

Tata Indica Car maintenance:

340.Prosecution estimated maintenance of expenditure on Tata

Indica Car owned by Accused Officer at Rs.71,253/-. To prove the same, prosecution examined Motor Vehicle Inspector as PW8 and marked

Ex.P20-Report, Accused Officer not disputed this expenditure, thereby, value of this item as shown by the prosecution can be taken as it is, at

Rs.71,253/-.

Item No.21:-

Maintenance of TVS Scooty:-

341.Prosecution estimated maintenance of TVS Scooty at

Rs.15,510/- and to prove the same, prosecution examined PW8-Motor

Vehicle Inspector and marked Ex.P20-Report given by Motor Vehicle

Inspector. Accused Officer did not dispute expenditure under this item thereby, value as shown by the prosecution at Rs.15,510/- can be taken as it is, hence expenditure under this item is taken at

Rs.15,510/-.

Item No.22:-

Car loan to Andhra Bank:-

342.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer availed

Rs.1,00,000/- towards car loan from Andhra Bank and repaid same with interest, totaling Rs.1,27,667/- and to prove the same prosecution examined Manager from Andhra Bank, Vanaparthy and marked Ex.P64-

Statement of Account. Accused Officer did not dispute the expenditure under this item thereby, value of expenditure as shown by the 131 prosecution in this item can be taken as it is, hence, expenditure under this item is taken at Rs.1,27,667/-.

Item No.23:- Payment of premium on Peerless Policy:

343.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer obtained a policy from Pearls General Finance and Investment Company Limited, bearing policy NO.43936335 and towards premiums, he paid Rs.6000/- and to prove this expenditure prosecution examined PW41-Branch Supporting

Officer Peerless Company and marked Ex.P65-Letter. Accused Officer did not dispute this expenditure, thereby value of expenditure as shown by the prosecution in this item can be taken as it is, hence value of expenditure under this item is taken at Rs.6000/-.

344.After considering legitimate deductions and deleting unnecessary items i.e., item Nos.11 and 12, total expenditure of accused officer and his family members during the check period comes to Rs.37,79,515/- ,as against the claim of prosecution for

Rs.44,18,370/-described in the table given below:

EXPENDITURE

Sl.PROSECUTION VALUECOURT VALUE No. 1Rs.11,28,278/-9,59,037-00 2Rs.3,09,993/-10,710-00 3Rs.3,57,855/-1,90,835-00 4Rs.1,17,000/- 1,17,000-00 5Rs.24,100/-21,100-00 6Rs.3,93,360/- 3,93,360-00 7Rs.10,90,575/-10,90,575-00 8Rs.4,20,800/-4,28,100-00 9Rs.34,130/-34,130-00 10Rs.25,832/-25,832-00 11Rs.NilNil. 12Rs.7,611/-Nil. 13Rs.12,994/-12,994-00 14Rs.17,500/-17,500-00 15Rs.48,000/-48,000-00 16Rs.26,197/-26,197-00 17Rs.5,173/-5,173-00 18Rs.468/-468-00 19Rs.1,78,074/-1,78,074-00 20Rs.71,253/-71,253-00 21Rs. 15,510/-15,510-00 22Rs.1,27,667/-1,27,667-00 23Rs.6.000/-6,000-00 Rs.44,18,370/- Rs.37,79,515/- 132

Points iii & iv):

Sanction orders:

345.Learned counsel for Accused Officer argued that to prosecuteapublicservant,previoussanctionfor government/Competent Authority is required under Sec.19 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, and simply because, Accused Officer was retired from service by the date of filing of charge sheet, is of no consequence since, offence allegedly committed by him during course of his employment. To support his contention, he relied on decision reported in Chittaranjan Das Vs State of Orissa, 2011(7) Sec.167, wherein it was held, when competent authority denied sanction while public servant was in service, subsequently, public servant cannot be prosecuted after retirement, despite the fact that, no sanction is necessary under Prevention of Corruption Act.

346.Learned counsel further argued that, in the instant case,

Departmental Enquiry was ordered on 12.02.2014 in note File

No.48523/VigIII(1)/2009 by Chief Minister of A.P. and subsequently, final report was submitted by D.G., ACB on 13.08.2012 to the

Government in Revenue Department and charge sheet was filed by

Investigating Officer on 21.11.2012 without sanction of prosecution, in such a case, formal orders for filing charge sheet is required, when once the final report was submitted to the Government, the ACB should wait for the formal orders from the Government, but in this case on hand, without sanction or without formal orders from the Government, charge sheet was filed against the accused officer hence argued that, prosecution of Accused Officer is not sustainable.

347.Likewise, decision in State of Bihar Vs Rajender Agarwal (1999 Crl.L.J.1372) for formal orders for filing charge sheet required 133 when once final report was submitted to Government and ACB should wait for the formal orders from Government, but in this case on hand, even before submitting draft final report by Investigating Officer to

D.G., ACB., in the year 2012, Accused Officer was retired from service on attaining superannuation on 31.12.2010, hence ACB did not request for sanction from the Government, thereby question of ACB should await for formal orders from Government, to file charge sheet does not arise.

348.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB refuting the contention of learned counsel for Accused Officer argued that, earlier on similar grounds, Accused Officer filed quash petition before the

Hon’ble High Court in Crl.Petition No.16208/2014, but Hon’ble High

Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by petitioner/Accused Officer and it seems that no appeal was preferred against orders passed by

Hon’ble Hihg Court and it became final. Learned Special Public

Prosecutor, to draw the attention of the Court to the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the criminal petition, wherein Lordship observed that, crime was registered against the Accused on 26.10.2009. Accused was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2010 and charge sheet was filed against him on 12.11.2013 and by the date of taking cognizance of offence by the

Court, Accused was not in service hence, sanction is not required as per the principles enunciated in M.Chinna Gopala Krishna, labh Singh,

Padmanabhan Nair, Neelam Bhardwan and Kalicharan Mahapatra.

349.The Lordship further observed that, internal circulation of note file with the Government and decision taken to order

Departmental Enquiry was not communicated to the Accused, hence no right will be conferred on the Accused to implement orders in the internal circulation of the file without receiving final orders from the 134

Government. Lordship further observed in the said internal circulation of the note file also, there is no specific recital to drop the criminal proceedings against the Accused. The perusal of note file dt.12.02.2014 does not reveal refusal of sanction or dropping of criminal proceedings against the Accused and no material was produced by Accused to show that, State Government has communicated the decision of dropping criminal proceedings against the Accused. In similar cases, Hon’ble High Court rejected contention of Accused in K.Sreenivasulu, K.Rama Krishna Raju and Akunuri

Haranadha Babu Rao cases, thereby, the lordship observed that, the memo in the note file, is no way helpful to the accused for quashing of criminal proceedings and consequently, dismissed the criminal petition.

350. Therefore, in view of non-communication of orders of internal circulation of note file by way of G.O., or Memo in Rt. number by the Government and as there was no specific order by the

Government to drop criminal proceedings or specific words of refusal of sanction order except the words “ordered for Departmental Enquiry”, hence the above decisions relied by accused, will not helpful to the accused, in which, there was specific refusal of sanction order by the

Government and further attempt by investigation agency to reconsider the Government decision was also rejected. Further, accused was retired on 31.12.2010 much before sending Draft Final report to D.G.,

ACB in the month of July, 2012 and filing of charge sheet on 21.11.2012 and Court has taken cognizance of the offence on 12.11.2013, in such circumstances, in my considered view, sanction is not required to prosecute the Accused Officer in this case, hence these points are answered against the Accused Officer and in favour of the prosecution.

135

Points v and vi)

Annual property returns (APRs) & Income tax returns (ITRs):

351.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB argued that, there are 6 immovable properties shown in item Nos.1 to 6 of assets, except for item No.5 Accused Officer, not obtained prior permission to purchase those assets from the competent authority by explaining sources of income as required under U/S.9(1) of A.P.Civil Service

Conduct Rules, 1964 and not intimated his acquisition/income in his

Annual Property Returns (hereinafter referred as APRs in short) at the relevant point of time and income now claimed by Accused Officer at the trial cannot be considered as per explanation appended to

Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which reads as follows; “For the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source “and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant”.

352.Learned Special Public Prosecutor draw the attention of the

Court to the evidences of prosecution witnesses in this regard. PW66-

Administrative Officer from Collectorate, Mahabubnagar, clearly stated in his evidence that no permission was accorded to Accused Officer to purchase TVS Scooty (item No.8) in the name of his daughter-

Veenavani, to that effect, they issued Ex.P7-Letter. No cross- examination was made on that aspect, hence it is deemed that no permission was obtained by Accused Officer.

353.PW65-Revenue Inspector from the office of Chief

Commissionerate of Land Acquisition, A.P., Hyderabad stated that, he is 136 looking after annual property returns and permissions in respect of movable and immovable properties of employees in the office and he was duly authorized by Secretary to CCLA to give evidence in this case and brought file pertaining to this case and the file reveals that,

Accused Officer not applied prior permission to purchase item Nos.1 to 5 and permissions were not accorded to purchase those items, except for item No.5, which was subsequently obtained after acquisition. He further stated that, Accused Officer submitted APRs for the year 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 at a time ACB represent to his Court, hence they were not considered and to that effect, they issued Ex.P91-Letter. For the APRs filed during the years 2003 to 2006, they issued Ex.P92-Letter

Accused Officer obtained permission to purchase Tata Sumo under

Ex.P93, but same was not shown as asset in this case, hence Ex.PO92 is not helpful to either parties.

354.PW60-Special Deputy Collector, Guntur stated that,

Accused Officer not furnished APRs and did not obtain any permission for purchase of immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members, to that effect, they issued Exs.P84 to P86 letters, except, some discrepancy that, those are filed on the date of giving evidence by witness not filed along with the charge sheet and they do not contain dispatch numbers and stamp of the office, except that but nothing was elicited to disbelieve this official witness deposed before the Court as per records.

355.PW30-Superintendent from Special Collector, Land

Acquisition, Veligonda Project, Ongole, deposed that Accused Officer worked as Personal Assistant to Special Deputy Collector, Veligonda

Project, Ongole from 4.5.2006 to 31.5.2006 and also from 2.5.2005 to 3.5.2006, but there was no information available in their office records that, Accused Officer obtained permissions to purchase property, to 137 that effect, they issued Ex.P54-Letter, but no cross-examination was made and same is reported as nil.

356.Likewise, PW28-Junior Assistant from Collectorate, Ranga

Reddy District stated that Accused Officer worked as Tahasildar, NSS,

Ranga Reddy from 29.01.1996 to 14.10.1998 and there are no records available in respect of immovable property and APRs of Accused Officer in their office, to that effect, they issued Ex.P51-Letter. He also stated that Office of District Collector, Ranga Reddy also obtained information from the office of Tahsildar, Vikarabad, where Accused Officer worked as Tahsildar from 26.09.1991 to 12.11.1992 and the information received that, Accused Officer not obtained any permission to purchase immovable property and not filed APRs during 1992-1994, to that effect, they issued Ex.P52-Letter. In the cross-examination, this witness was asked by Accused Officer whether he had any personal knowledge that Accused Officer sent APRs for the year 1991 to Directorate,

Commissioner of land Revenue, Hyderabad and for the period from 1994 to 1996, but this official witness stated that, he had no personal knowledge and no records are available in the office. If really, Accused

Officer sent APRs to competent authority, he can summon or and can file copies of APRs in his evidence, but no such steps have been taken by the Accused Officer to believe his version.

357.Lastly, PW26-Senior Assistant from the office of Special

Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, TTD., Tirupathi, stated that, there was no information available in their office with regard to permissions obtained by Accused Officer to purchase immovable property and filing of APRs by him to that effect, they issued Ex.P48-Letter, for this witness also cross-examination was reported as nil.

138

358.Learned Special Public Prosecutor also draw the attention of the Court to Ex.P124-Letter given by Deputy Collector, Guntur dt.24.01.2010 stating that, Accused Officer has not submitted APRs, during his tenure as Special Officer, ULC, Guntur and not obtained any permissions in respect of assets acquired. Ex.P125-Letter and Ex.P51 both are one and the same issued by Special Tahsildar, NSS, Ranga

Reddy dt.31.08.2010 reveals that, Accused Officer not submitted any

APRs during his work period from 29.01.1996 to 14.10.1998. As per

Ex.P126-Letter issued by District Collector, Mahabubnagar dt.4.9.2010

Accused Officer not filed any APRs from 15.12.1978 to 30.11.1986, 5.2.1998 to 27.12.1996 and 13.01.1999 to 10.08.2001.

359.As per Ex.P127-Letter issued by Chief Secretary and Chief

Commissioner of Land Acquisition, A.P., Hyderabad dt.1.5.2010

Accused Officer submitted APRs for the years from 2006 to 2009 at a time during his suspension period that is, after registration of the case, hence they are not useful. As per Ex.P92, Accused Officer not filed

APRs for the year 2002, but submitted APRs for the year 2003 to 2007 during suspension period, after registration of this Disproportionate of

Asset case. As per Ex.P47 also, there was no correspondence with regard to APRs and prior permissions available in the office of Special

Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, TTD., Tirupathi.

360.The above evidences adduced by the prosecution is crystal clear that, Accused Officer not obtained prior permission to purchase immovable properties except for item NO.5 subsequently and also not intimated his acquisition and income at the relevant calendar year hence in ‘stricto-senso’ income claimed by the Accused Officer after this case need not be considered, except his salary income drawn from his office which is a prime source of income apart from income derived from any property or investment. Furnishing information regarding his 139 acquisitions after registration of case, in Forms-I to VI is of no consequence and will not serve any purpose.

361. As far as the Income Tax Returns (hereinafter referred as

ITRs in short) are concerned Investigating Officer-PW70 deposed that,

Accused Officer filed income tax returns for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, wife of Accused Officer filed ITR for the year 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 but for the rest of the period, they did not file income tax returns during the check period. Likewise, Vasantha-daughter of

Accused Officer filed ITR for the assessment year 2008-2009 and other daughters Deeparani and Vandana did not file income tax returns at all.

362.PW70 further deposed that, his predecessor addressed a letter to Income Tax Department, to furnish income tax details of

Accused Officer and his family members and Income Tax Department furnished information vide Ex.P102 informing PAN Numbers of Accused

Officer, his wife Usharani and is daughters Vasantha, Deeparani and

Vandana, Ex.P130 ITR of Accused Officer for the year 2008-2009, in which, only his salary income and income from house property total comes to Rs.4,64,487/- and out of which, net taxable income

Rs.3,64,487/- and income tax paid thereon is only Rs.44,647/-, Ex.P104 is ITR of Accused Officer for the assessment year 2009-2010, in which, he has shown salary income and house property income comes to

Rs.4,96,448/- and out of which net taxable income Rs.3,96,448/- and tax paid thereon is only Rs.24,563/-.

363.As per Exs.P105 and Ex.P106 Accused Officer not filed ITRs at the place of his working (ward) as per Ex.P107. Accused Officer furnished information with regard to ITRs of his daughter Deeparani and Vandana for assessment year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Ex.P108 140 is ITR of Vandana for assessment year 2009-2010, in which, her total salary was shown as Rs.2,42,617/- and taxable income as Rs.1,75,850/- and nil tax paid. Ex.P109 is ITR of Deeparani for the assessment year 2008-2009 and she has shown total salary income as Rs.2,42,726/- and net taxable income as Rs.1,43,210/- and tax paid is nil. Ex.P110 is ITR of Vasantha for the assessment year 2008-2009, in which, she has shown total salary Rs.2,20,000/- and shown payment of income tax of

Rs.14,935/- only.

364.These ITRs are filed during the year 2009, in which year,

Accused Officer was booked in Disproportionate Assets case and earlier period ITRs have not seen the light of day which shows that these ITRs are also prepared with anti-date only for purpose of this case, even as per these ITRs also, they have not shown income now claimed in this case at the relevant period of time. Even the entries in these ITRs which are self accommodative will not come as lawful sources of income since assessee can pay advance tax or excess tax to legalize his ill-gotten money and change the nature of the acquisition that is the reason, law require proof of lawful source not these type of ITRs.

365.Learned counsel for Accused Officer vehemently argued that, non-obtaining permissions and non-filing of APRs and ITRs does not amounts to Criminal Misconduct as defined under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Accused Officer can prove his income not within the knowledge of prosecution and he can prove the same during course of trial by adducing evidence. I agree with the contention of learned counsel for Accused Officer that, non- obtaining permission and non-filing of APRs though not amounts to

Criminal Misconduct, but it is a simple misconduct under Service Rules, but as per the explanation appended to Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, the Court need not be consider those income 141 which was not intimated to the Department, except income from property or investment by adducing satisfactory, but same is lacking in this case evidence so, there is difference between simple misconduct and

Criminal Misconduct and consequences of non-compliance of explanation appended to Sec.13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Case Law:

366.First and foremost contention raised by Accused Officer is that, Inspector of Police is not competent to investigate the case registered under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigation has to be conducted by officer not below the rank of DSP, hence entire investigation in this case is vitiated to support his contention, he relied on decision in State of Haryana Vs

Bhajan Lal 1992 Crl.L.J.527 On this ground,the Accused Officer also filed quash proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.16208/14, but Hon’ble High Court rejected the contention of petitioner holding that, Inspector of Police is competent to investigate into ACB cases in view of Sec.17 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by relying on decision of Hon’ble

High Court in V.Suryanarayana Vs. State.

367.Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on decision of

M.Chinna Gopala Krishna Vs State of A.P., wherein it was held, that first proviso to Sec.17 empowers the state Government to authorize a police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police to investigate into an offence except Sec.13(1)(e) under the Act without order of

Magistrate of I Class. The Government of A.P., issued notification vide

G.O.Ms.No.170 GAD (SC-D) Department dt.20.03.1967 authorizing

Inspector of police of ACB to conduct investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After coming into force of new

Act, 1988, Government of A.P., issued another notification vide

G.O.Ms.No.10 GAD (SC-E) authorizing Inspectors of Police of ACB to 142 conduct investigation of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that by virtue of G.Os issued by the Government and Sec.17(c) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 Inspector of Police is competent to investigate into offence. He also relied on decision in State of Punjab Vs Harneekh

Singh (2002)(1) Supreme 642=2002 Crl.L.J. 1494 wherein Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India held that, investigation conducted by Inspector of Police is proper, legal and valid and similar view was expressed in

M.Chinni Gopala Krishna Vs State of A.P., therefore contention of

Accused Officer that, PW70 who is only Inspector of Police is not competent to investigate this case is not sustainable.

368.Other contention of Accused Officer that, no preliminary enquiries conducted before registration of the case is not correct. After conducting preliminary enquiries only, source report was submitted by

Inspector-PW68 to the D.G., ACB., A.P., Hyderabad on that, Joint

Director, Rayalaseema Region, issued Ex.P99-proceedigns, to register the case on 26.10.2009 and accordingly on the same day FIR was registered against the accused under Ex.P100 at 6.00 A.M. Learned

Special Public Prosecutor argued that, on early hours on 26.10.2009 proceeding were issued through special messenger and on receipt of the proceedings, immediately PW68-Inspector of Police, ACB., registered FIR., hence contention of Accused Officer that, no preliminary enquiries were not conducted is not correct.

369.The other contention of Accused Officer is that,

Investigating Officer not verified the family background of the Accused

Officer and mechanically filed chare sheet is also not correct. In view of evidence of PW70/Investigating Officer, who clearly stated that he investigated about the family background of Accused Officer and his 143 wife Smt.Usharani and gave required details of family members of

Accused Officer in his evidence.

370.In the above decision relied by Accused Officer Hemant

Kumar Mohanthy Vs State of Orissa 1973, wherein it was held that,

Accused need not prove his claim with mathematical exactitude but, without any proof like ITRs and APRs on mere oral evidence, huge claim of Accused Officer for additional income cannot be considered as per the decision in Suresh Rajan’s case since there is huge difference between total value of assets and total income of Accused Officer and huge Disproportionate Asset was arrived, hence the said decision is not helpful to Accused Officer.

371.In Suresh C.Singhal Vs Union of India and others, wherein it was held that, failure to report acquisition of assets by spouse is not misconduct, unless it is out of Government servants funds. There is no dispute with the said ratio because, acquiring assets is not an offence but, failure to explain source of acquiring assets is only an offence and without intimation of income of spouse by public servant may not amounts to misconduct but, the income will not be considered.

372.Similarly, in Vidyadhar Krishna Rao Mungi VS Usman Gani

Sahib, wherein it was held that payment of consideration of amount by husband on behalf of wife and mere management would not prove his ownership, but, the property in this case in the name of Accused

Officer and his wife and his unmarried daughter, therefore, Accused

Officer is under obligation to explain sources to purchase those assets in his name and in the name of his wife and children, hence above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

373.In DSP Chennani Vs Ibusagaran (AIR) 2006 SC 552 wherein it was held that prosecution has to prove exclusive possession of 144

Accused Officer over incriminating material seized and learned counsel argued that seizure of cash Rs.18,30,000/- under Ex.P17 was made from the bed room son-in-law of Accused Officer and it cannot be tagged to Accused Officer but, son-in-law also failed to show any proof of possession of huge amount in his room in the Flat belongs to

Accused Officer, hence in the above decision is not helpful to Accused

Officer.

374.As far as additional income is concerned, Accused Officer relied on R.Vittaleshwara Rao Vs State of A.P. 2008(1) ALT Crl.45 and in

S.Kurmi Naidu Vs State of A.P., 1999(1) ALT (Crl) 69 wherein it was held that Sridhana, Pasupukunkuma and Adapaduchukatnam are exempted in this case, reasonable additional income from property and investment was considered, so also, Sridhana, Pasupukunkuma and gifts were also considered. Regarding fair investigation, Learned counsel for Accused Officer relied on B.Ramachandra Rao Vs State, but, in this case on hand nothing was elicited from the evidence of

Investigating Officer to show that he acted in unfair and biased manner except some calculation and errors and inadvertent mistakes. He has given notices twice calling explanation from Accused Officer and considered the reasonable claims made by Accused Officer, hence the above decision is not helpful to Accused Officer.

375.In Maddu Laxman Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004

ALD 663, wherein it was held that, complainant cannot be investigating officer is not applicable to the cases registered and investigated by

ACB and the said ratio applicable in respect of NDPS cases because in this case PW68-Inspector of Police-Mahaboob Basha, is the complainant and it was investigated by PW70-Nagaraju Yadav-

Inspector, hence the above decision is not applicable to the present case.

145

376.Since rental income of Accused Officer was considered by this Court though not given by Investigating Officer, hence the above decision relied by Accused Officer reported in State of Bihar and another Vs P.P.Sharma and another is not applicable to the present case.

377.Regarding I.T.Returns are concerned, learned counsel for

Accused Officer relied on M.Krishna Reddy Vs State, 1993 Crl.L.J.308 wherein it was held that income tax returns filed prior to the registration of the case, must be accepted as they are not filed or manipulated in anticipation of the registration of the case. In this case on hand, except ITR filed for the year 1998 and 1999 in which year, case was registered against the Accused Officer earlier ITRs are not produced by Accused Officer, hence same are found to be suspicious and even as petitioner, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvi

J.Jayalalitha’s case, the ITRs will not substitute lawful source of income, hence in the above decision is not helpful to Accused Officer.

378.Regarding additional claim of income, Accused Officer relied on decision in R.Vittaleshwara Rao Vs State of A.P. 2008(1) ALT (Crl.) 45 wherein it was held that duty of Investigating Officer to investigate regarding various source of income, canvassed by Accused

Officer and place the material before the Court for necessary appreciation by the Court, but in this case on hand, Investigating

Officer rightly investigated regarding additional income claimed by

Accused Officer in his explanation and considered the genuine claims and rejected false claims made by Accused Officer even otherwise,

Accused Officer was also permitted to prove his additional income during trial and this court considered reasonable claims wherever is warranted.

146

379.Regarding burden of proof, learned counsel for Accused

Officer relied on Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170 wherein it was held, nature and extent of the burden cast on the accused is by way of preponderance of probability only and not beyond all reasonable doubt, there is no quarrel with regard to the settled proposition of law, but in this case on hand, accused failed to probablise his defence of claim of huge additional income by placing material. Mere claiming lakhs of rupees as income without legally acceptable evidence but under invalid documents like unregistered documents is not permitted, if it is accepted it will lead to disastrous consequences as held in Suresh Rajan’s case.

380.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB also relied on the following decisions;

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others Vs Sarvesh

Berry 2005 SCC (Crl) 1605 wherein it was held that the expression known sources of income means, sources within the knowledge of authorities and not within the knowledge of the accused and onus is on accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income.

In Chenna Prasad Vs State Rep. By ACB, City Range, Hyderabad, wherein it was held that, burden cast on accused to lead rebuttal evidence to prove that, property in the name of his wife is not benami and non-compliance of Service Rules, judgment of the trial Judge cannot be disturbed.

In R.Vithaleshwar Rao Vs State of A.P., rep. by CBI, Hyderabad, wherein it was held accused has to satisfactorily place documentary proof regarding sources of his additional income.

In P.Nallammal Vs State of Tamilnaduit was held that to claim lawful sources income to be intimated by the public servant in 147 accordance with the law or rules. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ram

Singh, it was held that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object of the Act. In

A.Radhakrishna Murthy (died) by LRs Vs State of A.P., wherein it was held that when property acquired from unknown sources of income, the income derived from them, cannot be added to the income of the accused.

In State Vs Bharat Chandra Roul 1995 Crl.L.J.2417 (Orissa) wherein it was held that every receipt would not partake into character of income and returns of public servant gets primary item of income of his salary and other income will be from property or investment.

In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and others (2004) Crl.L.J.598 wherein it was held that burden is cast on acused not only to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that explanation is worthy of acceptance.

In Radhakrishnaiah (died) through LRs Vs State of A.P., 2009

Crl.L.J.1767 whereinit was held that, known sources of income does not include receipt from windfall or gain of graft, crime or immoral accretions – would not be receipt from known sources of income of public servant.

In M.Krishna Vs State (2005) Crl.L.J.2013, wherein it was held that, accused purchased properties with his money in the name of his wife and brother in law – seizure of documents from his house coupled with non-examination of his wife of the accused officer to prove source of income establishing the fact – accused did not dispute seizure of incriminating documents from his house during search by ACB officials – in absence of sufficient evidence, plea of accused that, his wife was getting income and was having source of income is not tenable – he 148 could not show that various properties were purchased by his wife from out of her income – conviction of accused is therefore proper.

As far as income tax returns (ITRs) are concerned lordships of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in famous judgment reported in Selvi

J.Jayalalitha’s case held that, documents such as income tax returns cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof to show that the income is from lawful sources, under Prevention of Corruption Act.

In Bhaskar Sankar Wagh and others Vs State of Maharastra wherein it was held that, explanation appended to Sec.13(1)(e) shifts burden on accused to explain his income received from lawful source.

It was necessary for him to intimate competent authority about acquisition of such movable and immovable assets as per service rules.

Failure to inform the competent authority regarding property acquired in his name and in the name of his wife, who has no independent source of income satisfactorily accounts was given by them, hence accused would be guilty of criminal misconduct.

In A.Radhakrishna Murthy (Died) by L.Rs. Vs. State of A.P., it was held that, when property is acquired from unknown sources of income, the income derived from them cannot be added to the income of the accused.

Lastly, in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ram Singh wherein it was held that, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a social legislation designed to curb illegal activities of public servants, should be liberally construed so as to advance its object.

Conclusion:

381.In the light of above discussion on points 1 to 6, both on fact and law, the final calculation of assets of Accused Officer and his 149 family members, income of Accused Officer and his family members and total expenditure of Accused Officer, during check period from 05.12.1978 to 28.10.2009, is arrived as shown in table given below;

Final calculation.

Assets Income Expenditure Item No. Rs.Item No.Rs.ItemRs. No.

137,59,523-00136,18,692-0019,59,037-00 212,60,400-0029,50,000-00210,710-00 342,86,100-00333,693-0031,90,835-00 43,00,000-00418,78,171-004 1,17,000-00 51,19,000-00577,000-00521,100-00 640,000-0061,36,664-006 3,93,360-00 73,74,774-0078,20,000-00710,90,575-00 827,365-0081,08,633-0084,28,100-00 91,50,000-0091,03,840-00934,130-00 1018,30,000-00101,00,000-001025,832-00 112,77,150-00Addl. Income11Nil. 1296,050-00113,40,000-0012Nil. 13Nil125,54,379-001312,994-00 1482306-001384,040-001417,500-00 1515,321-00142,40,000-001548,000-00 1682,916-00151,10,272-001626,197-00 174,00,000-001626,636-00175,173-00 181,23,000-001778,182-0018468-00 1995,000-0018Nil.191,78,074-00 2098,000-0019Nil.2071,253-00 2165,000-0020Nil.2115,510-00 22Nil.21Nil.221,27,667-00 231,52,816-0022Nil.236,000-00 241,00,000-0023Nil. 251,00,000-0024Nil. 261,00,000-0025Nil. 271,00,000-0026Nil. 285,504-0027Nil. 2980,000-0028Nil. 3020,570-0029Nil 3121,972-0030Nil. 3286,498-003175,750-00 3396,624-00329,873-00 341,20,000-00331,475-00 352,30,000-0034Nil. 3666,742-0035Nil. 36Nil. 3714,425-00 386,000-00 3911,683-00 40Nil. 41 42Nil. 43Nil. TOTALRs.1,47,62,631-00 93,79,408-00 Rs.37,79,515/- 150

Formula for Calculation of DA:

Income – Expenditure = Likely Savings.

Total Assets -Likely Savings = D.A.

Calculation of DA :

Total Income of A.O. and his family members = Rs. 93,79,408.00 ps.

(-) Expenditure = Rs. 37,79,515.00 ps.

----------------------- Likely Savings = Rs. 55,99,893.00 ps. ------------------------ Total Assets of A.O. & his family members) = Rs. 1,47,62,631.00 ps.

(-) Likely Savings = Rs. 55,99,893.00 ps.

________________

D.A. Rs. 91,62,738.00 ps.

_____________________

Formula for Percentage of D.A. = D.A X100 Income

Percentage of D.A. =Rs.91,62,738.00 X100=97.68% Rs.93,79,408.00

382.The above calculation reveals that, accused officer abused his official position as a Public servant during check period, acquired movable and immovable assets in his name and in the name of his family members by unfair means to a tune of Rs.91,62,738/- disproportionate to his known sources of income for which, he could not satisfactorily account for the same, hence he is guilty for the offence under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 therefore, he is liable for conviction accordingly.

383.Since percentage of disproportionate assets (D.A.) comes to Rs.90,70,768.00 which is on higher side, even if benefit of 10% of margin is extended to Accused Officer as per G.O.Ms.No.368/Spl.- 151

B/2002-1 issued by Government of A.P., he cannot escape from the charge and very much fell within the mischief of Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Questioning of accused with regard to the quantum of sentence:

384.Accused stated that he is now aged 68 years and retired from service on 31.12.2010. He got wife and four daughters and all of them are married now. He stated that his wife has been suffering from

Ovarian Cancer since 2011. He got heart ailment and suffering from high blood pressure and diabetics. Since, he further stated that he has been attending the case right from the date of receipt of summons till date without causing any interference in the trial from 2013. There were no complaints against him about threatening witnesses. He has been in financial troubles to meet medical expenditure of his wife. His pensionary benefits are withheld and not yet released and getting 75% of pension and no other income, therefore prayed the Court to reduce the punishment by showing mercy on him.

385.Learned SPP for ACB submits that, offence proved against the accused under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) is a grave offence and classified as socio economic offence and percentage of D.A. proved against him is 97.68% almost all hundred percent hence, deterrent punishment is warranted in this case and no mercy need to be shown in view of gravity of offence proved against him and further prayed the

Court impose sufficient fine on him and properties have to be confiscated to the State. He further submits that C.C.No.4/2019 on the file of authorized officer, Kurnool under the Special Courts Act for confiscation of assets of Accused Officer is also pending for orders therefore, accused is not entitled lenient view in this case. Since percentage of disproportionate asset came at Rs.97.68% same is on 152 higher side, Accused Officer is not entitled lenient view and has to be punished properly in the ends of justice.

386.In the result, the Accused Officer is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years (three years) and shall pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) in default of payment of fine, Accused Officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months. Fine amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- would be set off against the confiscated properties.

Since Accused Officer is convicted under Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, confiscation of properties which are acquired by means of offence shall follow the conviction under Sec.452 of Cr.P.C., and under

Sec.5(6) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Consequently, immovable properties in item No.1 purchased by

Accused Officer in his name and in the name of his wife, Item Nos.2, 5 and 6 purchased by Accused Officer in the name of his wife, Item Nos.3 and 4 of assets purchased by Accused Officer in the name his daughter

B.Vasantha, shall stand confiscated to State by conducting public auction and proceeds shall be transferred to the State.

Copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the Special Public

Prosecutor for ACB and also Accused Officer forthwith.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 15th day of December, 2021.

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

153

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1K.Sampath Kumar. PW2G.Bala Subramanyam. PW3M.Venkata Subbaiah. PW4P.Bhaskara Raju. PW5G.Narasimhulu. PW6Y.Venkata Ramana. PW7A.Kiran Kumar. PW8G.Sreekanth. PW9M.Chandra Sekhar Goud. PW10A.Sandeep jain. PW11T.Prasad. PW12P.Sudarshan. PW13K.Venkateswara Rao. PW14S.Sahajadi Begum. PW15S.Venkata Subbaiah. PW16K.krishna Kishore. PW17Murali Mohan. PW18D.V.Krishna Reddy. PW19R.Neelakantachari. PW20P.Srinivas. PW21B.N.Sanjeeva Prasad. PW22J.Sandya Rani. PW23P.Sundara Rajan. PW24K.Adil. PW25P.L.Srinivas. PW26Venkata Ramana. PW27P.Neelakanteswara Rao. PW28M.Sankar. PW29A.Bikshapathi. PW30T.Radhakrishna Murthy. PW31B.Pullaiah. PW32N.Chandra Sekhar. PW33B.Santhamma. PW34C.Padmvathi PW35Sayed Rahim Ahmed PW36K.Naveen Kumar PW37T.Narayana PW38N.Venkateswarlu PW39S.Bapu Reddy PW40K.Shoba rani PW41P.Surya Chandra rao PW42Lourdumar Reddy PW43K.Govindappa PW44M.Ramamoorthy PW45G.Srikanth Goud PW46P.Venu Madhu PW47A.Anjaneyulu PW48R.Mahendar Reddy PW49T.Sekhar PW50B.Laxmaiah PW51A.Ravi Sankar Reddy 154

PW52K.S.Ravi Kumar PW53Y. Nagaraja Rao PW54K.Chandra Mohan PW55D.Muneppa PW56PCHV Ramana Murthy PW57K.Janardhan Reddy PW58Raghotham PW59G.P.Shoba Suvarnamma PW60G.Ravindar PW61A.Rambabu PW62S.V.S.N Moorthy PW63B.Praveen Kumar PW64K.N.Kalyan PW65C.J.Balaram PW66T.Narasaiah PW67C.J.Samson PW68M.Mahaboob Basha PW69R.Venganna PW70P.Nagaraju Yadav

FOR THE DEFENCE:

DW1R.Usha Rani. DW2D.Sekhar. DW3N.Bala Subramanyam. DW4B.Deepa Rani. DW5B.Syam Sundar. DW6B.Vasantha. DW7B.Parthasarathi. DW8Munindran. DW9K.Venkata Chalapathi.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P16-5-2009C.C. of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1394/2009 executed by V.V.R.Varma and another, partners of M/s Vertex Nirman in favour of A.O. and his wife Smt.Usharani Ex.P2 6-5-2009Original of Ex.P.1 Ex.P3 19-3-2008C.C. of registered sale deed bearing doc.No.1502/2008 executed by M/s Prime constructions rep., by its partner K.Venkateswara rao in vaour of B.Vasantha, D/o of A.O. Ex.P419-3-2008Original of Ex.P.3 Ex.P56-6-2007C.C. of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.3977/2007 executed by P.Sudharsan and 5 others in favour of Smt.Usharani, wife of A.O. Ex.P66-6-2007Original of Ex.P.5 Ex.P731-10-2009Covering letter with regard to information of registered sale deeds Ex.P825-4-2007Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by K.J.Reddy in favour of 155

Smt.Vasantha D/o of A.O. for plot no.562 in S.No.679 Ex.P925-4-2007Original sale deed of Ex.P.8 Ex.P108-2-2007Certified copy of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.2454/2007 executed by S.Sahajadi Begum, GPA in favour of B.Usha rani w/o of A.O. Ex.P118-2-2007 Original sale deed of Ex.P.10 Ex.P124-11-2009 and Two covering letters with regard to 11-1-2010 furnishing of sale deeds Ex.P1315-11-2006Certified copy of registered sale deed along with covering letter was executed by Y.Venkataramana in favour of K.Ramamurthy Ex.P1430-7-2010Report along with separate additions Ex.P1526-10-2009Search warrant Ex.P16Search list relating to item No.1 to 15 Ex.P1728-10-2009Inventory proceedings Ex.P1828-10-2009Search proceedings dt.28-10-2009 Ex.P1914-12-2009Attested copy of extract of B.Register of motor vehicle along with covering letter Ex.P2015-6-2010Detailed approximate expenditure given by MVI along with covering letter Ex.P2126-11-2009Attested copies of B.Register along with registration papers, life tax and registration fee Ex.P22--Attested copy of statement of account of B.Chandra Mohan (A.O) Ex.P23--Attested copy of statement of account of Smt.B.Usha Rani as on 28-10-2009 Ex.P244-6-2010Covering letter, under which P.W.11 forwarded Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23 Ex.P2519-3-2008Unregistered agreement dt.19-3-2008 Ex.P2615-7-210Letter dt.15-7-2010 along with particulars of payment Ex.P27--17 receipts passed by P.W.13 Ex.P2819-1-2005Invoice dt.19-1-2005 Ex.P29--Extract for Rs.4,43,101/-, which was downloaded from computer Ex.P3012-12-2009Letter forwarding Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.29 Ex.P313-6-2010Letter furnishing the information with regard to fixed deposit Ex.P32--14 original receipts, which were signed by employees of P.W.17 Ex.P336-4-2007Flat booking form, which bears signature of P.W.17 Ex.P3415-6-2007Xerox copy of agreement for sale of flat Ex.P35--Ledger extract Ex.P3623-12-2010Statement of account along with covering letter containing the details Ex.P3728-5-2010Letter with regard to information furnishing along with the certificate for interest on deposits from 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2009 Ex.P3816-6-2010Letter addressed to Inspector along with statement of SB account Ex.P3920-12-2010Letter addressed to DSP ACB along with information with respect to fixed deposit Ex.P40 28-5-2010Statement of account along with covering letter 156

Ex.P41 26-5-2010 C.C. of statement of account along with covering letter Ex.P42 --Statement of account along with covering letter Ex.P43--Statement of account along with covering letter Ex.P44 16-11-2009Letter with regard to furnishing information from the records available in office of P.W.23 Ex.P45 --4 statements of accounts for the folios along with covering letter dt.19-1-2010 Ex.P46 --Attested copy of statement along with letter dt.15-6-2010 Ex.P47 --Covering letter dt.19-11-2009 along with pay particulars Ex.P48 --Attested copy of salary particulars of A.O. along with covering letter dt.18-1-2016 Ex.P49 --Statement of pay and drawn particulars along with covering letter dt.11-8-2010 Ex.P50 --Letter dt. 1-2-2011 furnished particulars of GPF part final for Rs.10,000/- Ex.P51 --Statement of particulars of pay drawn in three sheets along with covering letter dt. 7-8-2010 Ex.P52 --Statement of pay drawn particulars along with letter dt.17-4-2010 addressed by Tahsildar, Vikarabad Mandal, RR District Ex.P53 -- Statement of pay drawn particulars along with covering letter of A.O. dt.14-9-2010 Ex.P54 --Statement of pay drawn particulars along with covering letter of A.O. dt.15-12-2009 Ex.P55 --Statement of pay drawn particulars along with covering letter of A.O. dt.4-2-2010 Ex.P56 --Statement of account along with covering letter dt.9-11-2009 furnished by LIC Housing Finance Limited, Hyderabad Ex.P57 --Attested copy of adangals for four faslies 1416 to 1419 along with covering letter dt.27-1-2010 Ex.P58 20-11-2010Statement showing the extent of land yield particulars, expenditure and net amount pertaining to three years 2006-07 to 2009- 10 Ex.P59 --Letter dt.27-4-2010 along with information regard to salary of Deeparani Ex.P60 Letter dt.15-6-2010 along with pay drawn particulars of B.Vandana in two sheets Ex.P61 --Attested copy of invoice and sale certificate along with covering letter dt.2-12-2009 Ex.P62 --Covering letter dt.5-1-2010 along with offer appointment and pay drawn particulars from May.,2009 to Oct., 2009 Ex.P63 --Attested copy of statement of account along with covering letter dt.26-5-2011 Ex.P64 --Attested copy of statement of account of A.O along with covering letter dt.9-7-2010 Ex.P65--Letter dt.28-1-2011 furnished by P.W.41 Ex.P66 --Detailed statement along with covering letter dt,10-3-210 157

Ex.P67 --Statement of loan account and two covering letters dt,14-5-2011 and 11-11-2009 Ex.P68 --Details of employment particulars and pay drawn particular statement of Vasantha along with covering letter dt.8-9-2010 Ex.P69 --Letter dt.2-3-2010 furnished information with respect to the college fee particulars of Vandana and Vasantha Ex.P70--Fee paid details along with covering letter dt.20-11-2009 which bears signature of P.W.46 Ex.P71 --Details of fee with letter dt.31-3-2010 Ex.P72 --Letter dt.4-12-2009 with information regarding fee particulars of Deeparani, daughter of AO Ex.P73--History sheet of policy along with covering letter dt.13-12-2010 Ex.P74 --History sheet along with covering letter dt.13-12-2010 Ex.P75 --Two status sheets along with covering letter dt.31-12-2009 Ex.P76--E.B.S. reports along with covering letter dt.6-11-2009

Ex.P77Bill receipt No.293 for Rs.7,611/- along with covering letter dt.9-11-2009 Ex.P78--Letter dt 4-11-2009 containing the information of the policy bearing No.24049385208 in the name of Vandana

Ex.P78A--Photocopy of Pay particulars of AO along with covering letter dt.27-9-2010

Ex.P79--Letterdt.9-11-2009containingthe information of the policy bearing No.603233957 in the name of Vandana Ex.P79A--Photocopy of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.57

Ex.P.80--Certificate-cum-policy schedule along with covering letter dt.2-12-2009

Ex.P.80A-- Photocopy of letter dt.22-11-2010 containing pay drawn particulars of AO

Ex.P81--Letter dt.25-11-2009 containing the information with respect to motor vehicle insurance of new scooty in the name of B.Deeparani

Ex.P81A--Pay drawn particulars of AO along with covering Letter dt.19-7-2010 Ex.P82--Letterdt.19-1-2011containingthe information with respect to motor vehicle insurance of new scooty in the name of B.Deeparani Ex.P83--Letter dt.28-11-2009 158

Ex.P84--Statement containing pay drawn particulars Ex.P85--Letter dt.20-1-2010 addressed by competent authority and Spl.Officer Urban ceiling Guntur Ex.P86--Letter dt.24-1-2010 addressed by District Collector to Inspector, ACB Kurnool Ex.P87Computer printout along with covering letter dt.11-11-2009 Ex.P88--Letter dt.6-11-2009 Ex.P89--Letter dt.14-12-2009 containing the information bears signature of P.W.64 Ex.P902-7-2016Authorization Ex.P91--Letterdt.23-9-2010containingthe information with respect to filing APRs for the year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Ex.P92--Letterdt.18-9-2010containingthe information with respect to filing APRs for the year 2003 to 2006 Ex.P9320-4-2005Proceedings to accord sanction to purchase TATA SUMO vehicle Ex.P94--Letter dt.22-11-2010 containing the information of pay particulars

Ex.P95--Letterdt.16-8-2010containingthe statement of pay particulars Ex.P96--Letter dt.13-9-2010 along with statement of pay fixation arrears Ex.P97 --Letter dt.4-9-2010 containing to accord permission Ex.P98 --Letter dt.with educational expenses of A.O. Ex.P99 26-10-2009Proceedings dt.26-10-2009 Ex.P10026-10-2009Original FIR Ex.P10128-10-2009Search proceedings in the house of Deepa Rani Ex.P10212-11-2010Letter addressed by income tax officer Ex.P103--Income tax returns of accused officer (8 sheets) for the year2008-09 Ex.P104--Income tax returns of accused officer (8 sheets) for the year 2009-10 Ex.P10512-10-2010Letter addressed by income tax officer, Ongole dt.12-10-2010 Ex.P10619-11-2010Letter addressed by income tax officer, Mahaboob Nagar dt.19-11-2010 Ex.P10718-8-2010Letter addressed by income tax officer, Hyderabad dt.18-8-2010 Ex.P108--Income tax returns of Vandana for the assessment year 2009-10 with two sheets Ex.P109--Income tax returns of Deepa Rani for the assessment year 2008-09 with seven sheets Ex.P110--Income tax returns of Vasantha for the assessment year 2008-09 with 23 sheets Ex.P11128-10-2009Inventory proceedings Ex.P11228-10-2009Search list Ex.P113--Letter dt.20-12-2003 of HR Manager of Altus Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Ex.P114--Letter dt.21-7-2006 and 31-5-2007 Ex.P115--Letter dt.7-10-2007 and 28-11-2008 159

Ex.P116--Letter dt.20-12-202010 of Manager, City Union Bank, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad Ex.P117--Letter dt.23-10-2010 of IDBI, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad Ex.P118--Letter dt.30-12-2010 received from Karur Vysya Bank, Kurnool Ex.P119--Letter furnished by Income Tax officer dt.12.11.2010 along with copies of ITRs (1- 29 sheets) Ex.P120--Letter dt.25.6.2007 furnsihed by Addl. Registration authority along with copy of registration certificate. Ex.P121--Household expenditure calculation report contains 5 sheets Ex.P122--Letter dt.1-12-2009 received from Kottam Tulasireddy,MemorialCollegeof Engineering, Itikyala Ex.P123--Household expenditure calculation report contains 4 sheets

Ex.P124--Letterdt.24-1-2010givenby SriB.Ramanjaneyulu,Districtcollector, Guntur Ex.P125--Letter dt.31-8-2010 of Spl.Tahsildar, NSS, Rangareddy District Ex.P126--Letter dt.4-9-2010 of District Collector, Mahaboob Nagar Ex.P127--Letter dt.1-5-2010 of C.C.L.A., A.P., Hyderabad Ex.P128--Letter dt.5-8-2010 of Tahsildar, Balanur Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar District Ex.P129--Letter dt.4-8-2010 from RDO, Kurnool Ex.P130--Letterdt.20-4-2015fromCCLA, A.P.Hyderabad Ex.P131--Letter dt.21-4-2011 from Chennamalleswara and Sri Chennakesava Perumal Devastanam. Ex.P132--Proceedings dt.7-1-2011 of Joint Director, ACB, AP Hyderabad

FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.D1 Receipt –cum-declaration 19-10-2009 Ex.D209-09-2009Rental agreement-cum-Advance receipt Ex.D3--Letter dt.17-1-2012 along with property statement for the year 2003-2004 Ex.D4 --Statement for the years 2006 to 2008 along with covering letter dt.9-10-2009 Ex.D5--Letterdt.04-01-2010 with statement for the year 2009 Ex.D6--Proceedings dt.4-6-2007 with respect to permission order Ex.D7--Explanation of A.O. Ex.D8--G.O.Ms-N0.635 dt.15-10-2008 Ex.D9--Government Memo No.623/Spl.C/A1-2008-1 dt.15-10-2008 Ex.D1017-12-2009Gift settlement Karurunama dt.17-12-2009 (Marked subject to objection) 160

Ex.D111-12-1997Certified copy of registered partition deed bearing Doc.No.3840/1997 dt.1-12-1997 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D124-8-1999Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.4-8- 1999 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D134-8-1999Another Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.4-8-1999 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D144-8-1999Another Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.4-8-1999 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D1510-8-2007Statement dt.10-8-2007 given by mother of D.W.1 Ex.D1629-12-1997 Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.29- 12-1997 bearing doc.No.3988/1997 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D1728-4-1999Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.28- 4-1999 bearing doc.No.1139/1999 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D1820-4-2005Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.20- 4-2005 bearing doc.No.631/2005 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D1924-4-1999Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.28- 4-1999 bearing doc.No.1140/1999 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D204-1-2008Statement of Yasodamma, mother of D.W.1 dt.4-1-2008 regarding presentation of money to daughters of A.O. at the time of Voni function Ex.D21--Property tax receipt and electricity bill Ex.D22--Bills pertaining to sale of gold Ex.D23--Certified copies of registered sale deeds of plots in and around item no.1 property (6 deeds) Ex.D2425-10-2009Nichayatambulam Patrika dt.25-10-2009 of Vandana, dughter of A.O. Ex.D25----Marriage photographs of A.O. with P.W.1 (4 photos) Ex.D264-8-2006Marriage Presentation list of Deeparani daughter of A.O. Ex.D273-12-2002Marriage Presentation list of Veenavani daughter of A.O. Ex.D28-Four photocopy unregistered mortgage karuru dt.1-10-2009 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D297-8-2007Declaration given by father of D.W.3 relevant page No.246 in Ex.D.7 Ex.D3018-10-2009Declaration given by father of D.W.3 at page No.222 in Ex.D.7 Ex.D31--Postdate cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- dt.5-8- 2010 Ex.D32--Another Postdate cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- dt.18-10-2011 Ex.D33--Andhra Bank pass book of D.W.4 showing the transancation of payments to her mother for Rs.3,68,147/- dt.24-12-2008

Ex.D34--Attested photocopy of driving license of 161

D.W.4 Ex.D3518-2-2008Certified copy of registered sale deed vide doc.No.982/2008 dt.18-2-2008 Ex.D3617-3-2008Certified copy of registered sale deed vide doc.No.1453/2008 dt.17-3-2008 Ex.D3717-3-2008Certified copy of registered sale deed vide doc.1501/2008 dt.17-3-2008 Ex.D389-4-2018Certified copy of registered sale deed vide doc.1839/2008 dt.9-4-2018 Ex.D39---Electricity bill Ex.D40--House tax bill Ex.D41--HP Gas bill of flat No.503 Ex.D42----Pension portion part-I of father of D.W.3 Ex.D43--Pension portion part-II of father of D.W.3 Ex.D4423-1-2007Proceedings with regard to insurance policy amount Rs.58,303/- by father of D.W.3 Ex.D45--Bunch of Form-16 5 in number Ex.D46--Photocopy of Aadhar card of D.W.6 Ex.D4726-7-1967Photocopy of registered sale deed vide doc.no.6872/1967 dt.26-7-1967 Ex.D485-6-2003Photocopy of pronote dt.5-6-2003 (Marked subject to objection) Ex.D.48-A10-10-2005Part payment endorsement dt.10-10-2005

Ex.D.48-B8-4-2007Another Part payment endorsement dt.8-4- 2007 for Rs.2,70,000/-

Ex.D4925-2-2008Original statement (declaration) given by D.W.9 on a stamped paper dt.25.2.2008 (marked subject to objection) Ex.D505-3-2001Form 1(B) namuna for Ac.2.00 cents of agricultural wet land of own of D.W.9

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

162

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES, KURNOOL.

C.C.NO.69/2013

1. Date of OffenceDuring check period from 05.12.1978 to 28.10.2009(Prior to 24-10- 2009)

2.Date of Report or Complaint24.10.2009.

3.Date of Appearance of the Accused29-10-2009

4.Date of Release on bail18-11-2009

5.Date of Commencement of trial30-11-2015

6.Date of close of the trial20-09-2021

7.Date of Sentence of Order 15-12-2021

8.Explanation of delay and remarks-- JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO. 65/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES, KURNOOL.

ComplainantState represented by The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range, Kurnool. AccusedBuddi Chandra Mohan, Spl. Gr. Deputy Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool. OffenceA public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income for offence U/Sec. 13(1)(e of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. FindingAccused officer is found not guilty.

Sentence or Accused officer is present. Order Judgment is pronounced in the Open Court (V.S.J.). In the result, the Accused Officer is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years (three years) and shall pay fine of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) in default of payment of fine, Accused

Officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months.

Fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would be set off against the confiscated 163 properties.

Since Accused Officer is convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, confiscation of properties which are acquired by means of offence shall follow the conviction under Sec.452 of Cr.P.C., and under Sec.5(6) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Consequently, immovable properties in item No.1 purchased by Accused Officer in his name and in the name of his wife, Item Nos.2, 5 and 6 purchased by Accused Officer in the name of his wife, Item Nos.3 and 4 of assets purchased by Accused Officer in the name his daughter B.Vasantha, shall stand confiscated to State by conducting public auction and proceeds shall be transferred to the State.

Copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and also Accused Officer forthwith.

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool. Copy submitted to: The Registrar(Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN Code No.522237. The Director of Prosecutions, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram,Vijayawada.

Copy to : The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool, Kurnool Range. The Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B.Court, Kurnool.

164

1

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

CASES, KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bhaskara Rao,

Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

KURNOOL.

Friday, this the 10 th day of December, 2021.

CALENDAR CASE No.8/2018

Between:

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuramu Range, Ananthapuramu.…. Complainant -And-

Mandli Adinarayna, 57 years, Son of late M.Varadappa, Lineman, APSPDCL, Mamillapalli Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. …. Accused Officer

This case is coming for final hearing on 29-11-2021 in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri.A.Vishwanath, and Sri N.Shanmukham, Advocates for accused officer, 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,

Anantapur Range, Anantapur, filed charge sheet against the accused officer, to prosecute him for the offences U/Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the father of

PW1-S.Rammohan Reddy i.e., PW7-S.Nagi Reddy has got Ac.13.7 cents of land in S.Nos.463-1A & 465/1A in Daduluru village, Kanaganapalli

Mandal. About 4 years back, he got dug up a bore in the said land and there was adequate water, to irrigate his land with the bore water, PW1 2 applied for electricity service connection in the name of his father-PW7 under original of Ex.P1. After some time, the then Assistant Engineer of

Kanaganapalli informed PW1 to pay Rs.6360/- to issue service connection accordingly, PW1 paid the required amount. After making payment and after making several rounds to office of Asst.Divisional

Engineer, Dharmavaram, finally, PW5-Asst. Divisional Engineer (herein after referred as ADE in short) informed him that, work order was sanctioned and directed him to meet Asst. Engineer-PW4, (hereinafter referred as AE in short) and accordingly, PW1 met Asst.Enginner-PW4 who informed that, his application was approved and work order was sanctioned and directed PW1 to meet Lineman-Adinarayana i.e.,

Accused Officer in this case, who will draw the current poles and material and then give the service connection at his land.

3.It is alleged that, in the second week of January, 2017, PW1 met Accused Officer regarding his work and Accused Officer stated that work order was sanctioned and he will draw the material, erect the line and give Service Connection for which, he demanded bribe of

Rs.8000/- from PW1, but PW1 not willing to give that much of bribe and returned. Again on 10.02.2017, PW1 met Accused Officer and requested him to give service connection but, Accused Officer reiterated his earlier demand of bribe of Rs.8000/- when, PW1 expressed his inability, Accused Officer reduced the bribe from

Rs.8000/- to Rs.6000/-. As there was no other go, PW1 reluctantly agreed to give the bribe, on that, Accused Officer asked PW1 to pay the bribe amount at electricity Sub Station, Mamillapalli village on 15.02.2017 or at the place directed by him. However, unwilling to give the bribe to Accused Officer, PW1 approached office of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred as DSP in short) ACB,

Anantapur and lodged Ex.P2-Complaint on 14.2.2017 at 10.00 AM, 3

DSP-PW12 endorsed the complaint, to PW13-Inspector, ACB to conduct discreet enquiries and submit the report, accordingly, PW13-Inspector conducted discrete enquiries and submitted report to DSP on 14.2.2017 at 9.00 PM stating that, complaint is genuine and Accused

Officer is carrying bad repetition. Then, DSP registered FIR as a case in

Cr.No.1/RCT-ATP-2017 Under Section.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act on 15.02.2017 at 6.00 AM and laid trap against Accused Officer.

4.During course of investigation, DSP secured mediators

PW2-P.Srinivasulu, LW3-S.Sirajuddin, conducted pre-trap proceedings in the office of ACB, Anantapur on 15.2.2017 in between 6.30 AM and 7.30 AM, in which, DSP got enquired contents of the complaint with

PW1 through mediators and PW1 affirmed the contents of the complaint as true. PW1 produced proposed bribe amount of Rs.6000/-,

DSP got applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes through his Home Guard and kept in the left side shirt pocket of the PW1. Then

DSP demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and explained the significance of phenolphthalein test to PW1 and other trap party members. Later, DSP instructed PW1 not to touch the currency notes till it was given to the Accused Officer on his further demand and further instructed PW1 to give signal by wiping his face with his handkerchief thrice to Inspector, in case, accused officer demands and accepts the bribe amount from him.

5.After completion of pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P4, DSP with trap party members and PW1 boarded in two Government vehicles proceeded to Mamillapalli and reached near vicinity of

M.P.Primary School, Mamillapalli at 8.35 AM where all of them got down from the vehicles and DSP reiterated earlier instructions to PW1 and 4 asked him to stay by the side of the road infront of M.P.Primary School,

Mamillapalli and the trap party took vantage positions in the vicinity.

6.It is further alleged that, at 8.45 AM Accused Officer along with PW3 came one motor cycle and on seeing PW1, Accused Officer stopped the motor cycle at PW1 and on demand by Accused Officer,

PW1 took the amount from his left side shirt pocket and handed over to

Accused Officer who received the same with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept in his right side pant pocket. Later, PW1 gave pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with kerchief thrice to the trap party. On observing signal, DSP with trap party members rushed to the spot, surrounded Accused Officer and the pillion rider i.e., PW3 and initially conducted phenolphthalein test to the hand fingers of Accused Officer, on doing so, both hand fingers wash of Accused Officer turned into pink.

7.Then DSP questioned Accused Officer about the tainted amount on that, Accused Officer produced a wad of currency notes from his right side pant pocket and on verification of currency note numbers by mediators and on comparison with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings, both of them, are tallied. Then

DSP seized the tainted amount of Rs.6000/- i.e., MO3 from Accused

Officer and one RTC Bus Ticket-Ex.P5. Then DSP shifted the proceedings to Mamillapalli electrical sub-station, asked electricity officials i.e., Asst.Enginner, Asst.Divisional Engineer, Divisional

Engineer and shift operator to attend at Mamillapalli Electrical Sub

Station along with connected record pertaining to the work of father of

PW1.

8.Then, DSP also collected the wearing pant from Accused

Officer by providing Lungi and subjected contacted portion of right side 5 pant pocket to the chemical test and it was also yielded into positive result. Then, DSP seized all the resultant solutions and wearing pant, and sample powers i.e, MOs.1 to 8.

9.Then, DSP examined PW1 and recorded his statement, DSP also examined electricity officials i.e., PWs.4 to 6, recorded their statements collected Ex.P6-Duty Chat of Accused Officer, Ex.P7-

Technical Sanction Estimation, Ex.P8-Work order copies, Ex.P9-Camp date of PW3, Junior Assistant in ERO Office and seized all the relevant records, thereafter DSP prepared Ex.P10-Rough Sketch and completed

Ex.P11-Post-trap proceedings at 5.15 PM, thereafter DSP conducted search in the house of Accused Officer, but no incriminating material was found, hence Ex.P12-Nil search list was prepared. Later, DSP arrested Accused Officer at 5.10 PM and produced him before the Court for remand. Thereafter, he handed over further investigation to

Inspector-Khader Basha. PW13 took up further investigation, examined witnesses PWs.3 to 9 secured relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, he submitted draft final report to D.G., ACB.

After receipt of sanction proceedings under Ex.P22 from

Superintending Engineer Operations, Anantapur, PW14-Inspector, ACB,

Anantapur filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer for the offences under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

10.The Learned Predecessor of this court, had taken cognizance of the offence under Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused officer on 16-10-2018.

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

6

12.On 03-06-2019, this Court examined the accused U/S. 239

Cr.P.C., the accused denied the offences hence, charges U/ Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against the accused read over and explained to him in telugu but, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

13.In order to prove the guilt, prosecution cited as many

as 16 witnesses, but examined only 14 witnesses.

14.PW1-S.Rama Mohan Reddy, who is the defact-complainant supported prosecution case in chief-examination intoto by stating demand of bribe by Accused Officer, lodging of complaint, demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.6000/- from him on the trap day for doing his work but, while coming to the cross-examination, he turned hostile and partly deviated from the case.

15.PW2-P.Sreenivasulu, Mediator, fully supported prosecution case by stating all the events that took place in pre and post-trap proceedings, arrest of Accused Officer and seizure of tainted amount of

Rs.6000/- from his possession the trap day and seizure of relevant records from the officials etc., facts.

16.PW3-B.Lakshmana Reddy, Junior Assistant from ERO Office,

Dharmavaram, who is pillion rider of motor cycle driven by Accused

Officer on the trap day, travelled with the Accused Officer to

Chandracharla village for collection of revenue and when they reached

M.P.Primary School, Mamillapalli, on seeing PW1 Accused Officer stopped motor cycle and asked about money and PW1 gave the amount to Accused Officer, who received the same and counted with both the hands and kept in his right side pant pocket, later when they moved to some distance ACB Officials surrounded them and 7 apprehended Accused Officer conducted chemical test to hand fingers of Accused Officer and seized tainted amount from him but, for not stating the words ‘bribe’, instead as money, he was treated as hostile by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

17.PW4-G.Srinivasulula Reddy, Asst. Engineer, APSPDCL,

Kanaganapalli stated that on 15.02.2017 ACB officials telephoned him and informed about the trap of Accused Officer and asked him to produce connected record at Electrical Sub Station Mamillapalli, accordingly, he attended there produced relevant record before DSP and stated about the procedure for giving electricity service connection but for omitting some material particulars stated in his previous statement, he was also treated as hostile by learned Special Public

Prosecutor.

18.PW5-J.Venkata Ramesh, Asst. Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL and PW6-S.Narayana Naik, Divisional Engineer also corroborated evidence of PW4 about receipt of intimation from DSP regarding the trap of Accused Officer and they were asked to produce relevant files connected to father of PW1 at Mamillapalli, Sub Station, accordingly, they went to the Mamillapalli Sub Station and handed over Ex.P7 sanctioned estimates and Ex.P8-Work order and explained about the procedure for drawing of material and issuing service connection by lineman.

19.PW7-S.Nagi Reddy, father of PW1 stated about submitting application for service connection through his son-PW1, but not supported the prosecution case in respect of demand of bribe by

Accused Officer.

8

20.PW8-S.Suryanarayana Reddy, brother of PW1 was examined as circumstantial witness, he also not supported the prosecution case regarding demand and turned hostile.

21.PW9-S.Mutyala Naik, Shift Operator at K.V.Sub Station,

Mamillapalli stated about the proceedings conducted by ACB in their office but he was declared hostile by learned Special Public Prosecutor, for stating the spontaneous explanation by Accused Officer to the ACB

Officials that he received the amount towards electricity charges but not as a bribe.

22.PW10-D.S.Varakumar,SuperintendingEngineer, (hereinafter referred as SE in short), APCPDCL., Anantapur stated about issuance of Ex.P22-Sanction order.

23.PW11-M.Damodar Reddy, Electrical Contractor, stated that he entered into agreement with Superintending Engineer under Ex.P13 and executed the work pertaining to the electrical service connection to the land of PW7 subsequent to the trap on 18.02.2017.

24.PW12-C.Jayarama Raju, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB stated that he received the complaint from PW1, registered FIR, laid trap against Accused Officer, arrested of Accused Officer, seized tainted amount of Rs.6000/- from his possession and seizure of connected records in this case.

25.PW13-Shaik Khadar Basha, Inspector of Police, ACB stated that, he conducted discreet enquiries on the complaint as per the instructions of DSP, accompanied DSP in the trap proceedings assisted him and after completion of trap proceedings, he took up investigation examined witnesses and after completion of investigation, he submitted Draft Final report to the D.G., ACB.

9

26.PW14-R.Prathap Reddy, Inspector of Police ACB stated that, after receipt of sanction proceedings under Ex.P22, he filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer.

27.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P-1 to P-25 and M.Os.1 to 8 are marked.

28.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.

29.Accused filed written statement stating that, he never demanded or accepted any bribe amount from the defacto- complainant at any point of time and that the allegations as mentioned against him in the complaint are false. Assistant Engineer has to collect material drawl of material from district stores by submitting requisition and thereafter he has to handed over sanctioned drawl material to the contractor duly mentioned in in the T note for the execution of the work at the field of the consumer. Line Inspector has to supervise the work of the contractor and after completion of the work, the Line Inspector has to issue the service connection to the field of PW7.

30.He further stated that, PW4-Asst. Engineer did not file any requisition to the District Stores, Ananthapur for drawal of sanctioned material relates to PW7 till the date of alleged trap incident, hence the collection of material from the District Stores by the Line Inspector and handing over the same to the Contractor for execution of work at the field of PW7 simple does not arise.

31.After drawal of sanctioned material relates to PW7 from the

District Stores by PW4, he has to handed over the said material to 10

PW11-Electrial Contractor vide ‘T’ note, duly mentioning the description of each electrical material for section of work in the field of

PW7. After execution of work by the contractor at the field of PW1, the line Inspector can provide agricultural service connection with the permission of the Asst.Enginner. But till the date of alleged trap incident 15.02.2017, PW4 even did not prepare the requisition for drawal of sanctioned electrical material from District Stores,

Ananthapur. Ex.P25-Letter addressed by Accused Officer to the

Investigating Officer would itself establish this fact.

32.There is no official favour to be done by Accused Officer in favour of PW7 or to his son PW1 either by Line Inspector or by Accused

Officer as alleged in the complaint. Further, PW7 did not remit amount to the Department towards development charges and security deposit as per the sanction order of the Asst.Divisional Engineer till the date of alleged trap incident.

33.He further stated that, on the date of alleged trap incident while the Accused Officer going to revenue collections along with

B.Lakshmana Reddy-PW3, on motor cycle towards Chandracherla village as per the order of the Asst. Engineer-PW4, PW1 appeared near

MPP School and stopped motor cycle by raising his hand. PW1 informed that Accused Officer brought demanded amount as per the notice issued by the Asst. Engineer in pursuance of Ex.P7-Sanction proceedings of Asst.Divisional Engineer, so saying he gave bunch of currency notes towards development charges to the paid to the

Department, Accused Officer counted it and found that it is only

Rs.6000/-, he stated him to pay the balance amount of Rs.360/- towards security deposit as per the proceedings of Ex.P7, so that

Accused Officer will give the katcha receipt, but in the meanwhile ACB

Officials who were present by the side of the road suddenly caught 11 hold hands of Accused Officer stating that they are ACB Officials and restricted his moments, by alleging that Accused Officer received bribe amount from the complainant, in this manner, Accused Officer was became a victim in the hands of the ACB Officials, Accused Officer was astonished during that time.

34.He further stated that, out of fear of ACB, PW3 gave evidence by twisting the true facts. But the fact remains, PW1 gave amount of Rs.6000/- to Accused Officer on the date of alleged trap incident, it is towards development charges, as per the demand notice issued by the Asst.Enginner in pursuance of Ex.P7 sanction estimation of the Asst.Divisional Engineer. Had the complainant paid Rs.360/- apart from the above amount towards security deposit, Accused Officer could have issue katcha receipt to him. But the ACB Officers who were present there immediately caught hold his both hands and restricted his moments without giving any time for issuance of katcha receipt, though, Accused Officer have represented to the ACB Officers all these facts, he was asked to kept quiet and directed him to represent the same before the Court.

35.He also stated that Handing over the sketch for providing electrical supply work in the field of PW7, supervising the work of contractor while he was executing at the field of the consumer is not his job. Further after completion of the work, the Accused Officer is not a competent to issue the service connection. Ex.P6 job chart would disclose this fact. Asst. Engineer has to drawn the material and get the work done through contractor. Therefore, Accused Officer submits that there is no truth in the allegations leveled against him by the complainant and the prosecution.

12

36.It is the case of the prosecution that, PW7 has paid amount of Rs.6360/- towards challan before the alleged trap incident, but there is no truth in it, hence, PW7 denied this fact in his evidence. Now the complainant also deposed in his cross-examination that the amount of

Rs.6000/- was paid to Accused Officer is to be paid to the Department towards development charges as per the demand notice issued by the

Asst. Engineer.

37.He further stated that, he represented to the ACB Officers that he did not demand and accept any bribe amount from the complainant and that PW1 gave amount to him by representing that as per the instructions of the Asst. Engineer, Accused Officer made believe his version and took that amount, but his version is not incorporated in mediators report II and the ACB Offices got mentioned contradictory version to suit their case. Accused Officer was asked to sign in the mediators report II and copy of it was given to Accused

Officer along with remand report, just before Accused Officer was produced before the Hon’ble Court.

38.It is lastly stated that, without his fault he was he was made as scapegoat and victim in this case, therefore, charges against him are not sustainable, therefore prayed the Court to acquit him in the above case, since he is totally innocent.

39.No witnesses were examined and no documents marked on the side of the Accused Officer.

40.Heard arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor for

ACB and learned counsel for Accused Officer. Learned Special Public

Prosecutor filed memo with citations whereas, learned counsel for

Accused Officer, filed written arguments.

13

41.Now, the points for determination are:

i)Whether, Accused Officer demanded and accepted of Rs.6000/- from PW1 as gratification, other than legal charges as a motive for collection of electrical material from Asst.Enginner (Operations), Kanaganapalli and for providing agriculture service connection at the fields of PW7 who is father of PW1 ?

ii)Whether, Asst. Engineer has not collected the material from the Stores and not handed over the same to Contractor to execute the work, thereby no official favour is pending with Accused Officer as on the date of the trap?

iii)Whether, PW1 not paid Rs.6360/- towards development charges and security deposit to execute the work by Accused Officer ?

iv)Whether, the accused while discharging his duties as Line man in APSPDCL, Sub-Station, Mamillapalli Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapuramu District, as public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage from P.W-1 by corrupt and illegal means thereby, he committed Criminal Misconduct?

v)Whether, prosecution proved the guilt for the offences U/S.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

ADMITTED FACTS:

42.Admitted facts are that, at the time of alleged occurrence the accused was working as Lineman, APCPDCL., Mamillapalli Village,

Kanaganapalli Mandal, Ananthapur District and by virtue of post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant within the definition of Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which, there was no dispute at all.

43.There is no dispute, that PW7 possessing Ac.13.7 cents of land in S.Nos.463-1A & 465/1A in Daduluru village, Kanaganapalli

Mandal and he dug up bore in his land and as there was adequate water, to irrigate the land with the bore water, he applied to the

Electricity Department, for Service Connection in the month of May, 2013 through his son PW1. It is also an admitted fact that, Ex.P1- 14 application submitted by PW1 in the name of his father i.e., PW7 on 9.5.2013 it was finally approved on 20.08.2016 Asst. Engineer sent the work order application to Asst.Divisional Engineer (O) on 25.11.2016.

On the same day, Asst.Divisional Engineer sent the same to DE,

Anantapur, for budget release and on 30.11.2016 Divisional Engineer released work order.

44. Admittedly, Asst. Engineer has to draw the material from

Asst.Divisional Engineer Stores, Anantapur, by sending requisition in online and after receipt of material, Lineman has to visit the field with the Contractor, fix the points for erecting poles and execute the work through Contractor by supervising the work but, till the date of trap

Asst. Engineer did not send the requisition for drawal of material.

CONTENTION OF PROSECUTION:

45.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, contends that, though PW1 fully supported prosecution case in chief-examination but, while coming to the cross-examination, he turned hostile and partly deviated from case, hence, whatever he deposed in chief-examination is only reliable and his subsequent version in the cross-examination is tainted one, and need not be relied. Prosecution also proved recovery of tainted amount from the accused by examining mediator-PW2 who supported prosecution case. PW3-pillion rider on the motor cycle of

Accused Officer, present at the time of occurrence also partly supported prosecution case with regard to acceptance of amount from

PW1, though official witnesses PWs.4 and 5 partly deviated from their earlier statements but, mostly supported prosecution case, PW6-

Divisional Engineer fully supported prosecution case, PW7 and PW8 though not direct witnesses to the demand and acceptance, but partly supported prosecution case in submitting application for electricity 15

Service Connection payment of required charges, but, PW10-

Superintending Engineer and PW11-Contractor supported prosecution case and their evidence was further corroborated by DSP-PW12, and final Investigating Officers PWs.13 and 14.

46.Learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that, tainted amount was recovered from the possession of Accused Officer, phenolphthalein test conducted to his both hand fingers and contacted portion of righty side pant pocket also yielded positive results.

Contention of Accused Officer that, he received Rs.6000/- from PW1 towards legal charges but not as gratification is found to be false since he is not competent to receive the amount being Lineman and not expected to collect any amount in respect of service connection amount from consumers, hence, amount received by him, is only gratification other than the legal charges, hence, argued to convict the accused officer with the aid of presumption provided to the prosecution under Sec.20(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

PLEA OF ACCUSED:

47.Learned counsel for Accused Officer argued that, the defacto-complainant-PW1, his father-PW7 and his brother-PW8 not supported the prosecution case with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the Accused Officer, PW3 direct witness to the occurrence not supported the prosecution case and official witnesses

PWs.4 and 5 also not fully supported prosecution case, thereby, prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the Accused Officer, which is ‘sin-qua-non’. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that, till the date of the trap, PW4-Asst.

Engineer not drawn the material from District Stores, Ananthapur, hence, there is no possibility to execute the work at the fields of PW7 16 and to issue Service Connection. PW7 did not remit the amount of

Rs.6360/- to the Department towards development charges and security deposit as per the sanction order of Asst.Divisional Engineer till the date of the trap, hence question of pendency of official favour with the Accused Officer does not arise.

48.Learned counsel for the Accused Officer finally argued that, according to Accused Officer, on the date of the trap, PW1 gave

Rs.6000/- to him towards development charges as per the demand notice issued by Asst. Engineer in pursuance of Ex.P7-Memo issued by

Asst.Divisional Engineer, but not as gratification. However, for the latches of Asst.Enginner and Asst.Divisional Engineer, the Accused was made as scapegoat though, he did not commit any offence, hence prayed the Court to acquit him from the charges.

Point No.i:-

49.DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE:

As per the prosecution case, initial demand of a bribe was made by the accused officer in the 2nd week of January, 2017 for doing the work of PW-1.PW-1 clearly stated in his chief-examination that, in the 2nd week of 2017, he met the accused officer for service connection and asked him about his work on that, accused officer demanded him to pay Rs.8,000/- to do his work, but he expressed his inability and returned so, there is no any contradiction or discrepancy with regard to the initial demand made by accused officer in the 2nd week of

January, 2017. As per the prosecution case, second demand was made by the accused officer on 10-02-2017. PW-1 also clearly stated in his chief-examination, that on 10-02-2017 again he met the accused officer for service connection, but the accused officer reiterated the earlier demand of bribe for Rs.8,000/- and when he expressed his 17 inability to pay such huge amount, accused officer reduced the bribe to

Rs.6,000/- to do his work, so, PW-1 also stated the 2nd demand without any contradiction regarding date and place.

50.PW-1 further stated, as there was no other go, he unwillingly agreed to give the bribe amount to accused officer and the accused officer asked him to give the bribe amount to him on 15-02- 2017 at Mamillapalli and he returned to the house and think over the matter for two days but, unwilling to give the bribe, he approached office of ACB., Office Ananthapuramu and met Dy. Superintendent of

Police and lodged Ex.P-2 complaint on 14-02-2017, therefore, PW-1 also stated lodging of complaint against accused officer on 14-02-2017 without any contradiction or discrepancy, regarding the date of giving of complaint.

51.PW-1 also stated about the attending ACB office on 15-02- 2017 with proposed bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- and informed Dy.

Superintendent of Police that on previous night accused officer contacted him on phone and asked him to give the amount at MP

Primary school, Mamillapalli village and handover the amount to him.

PW-1 also stated specifically in his evidence that, mediators enquired him about the contents of the complaint and he affirmed the contents of the complaint as genuine so his subsequent deviation in cross- examination is only false and they also enquired him whether there are any money transactions or disputes with the accused officer, for which, he said ‘no’. He also stated about the pre-trap proceedings conducted in the office of Dy. Superintendent of Police, regarding application of chemical powder to the currency notes, giving instructions as to how he has to give signal in case of demand and acceptance of bribe by accuse officer and demonstration of chemical test and explaining the significance of the test by Dy. Superintendent of Police.

18

52. He further stated that, after completion of pre-trap proceedings in the office of Dy. Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Ananthapuramu he boarded Government vehicles, proceeded to MPP

School, Mamillapalli with ACB officials, where all of them got down from vehicles t 8.40 a.m., and Dy. Superintendent of Police reiterated earlier instructions to him and asked him to wait by the side of th road for arrival of accused officer. After five minutes, accused officer came on a motor cycle along with another person (PW3) and stopped the vehicle near to him and enquired him whether he brought the demanded bribe and on his affirmative reply, accused officer asked him to give the same and he picked up the currency notes from the left side pant packet and handed over the same to the accused officer, who received the same with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept the amount in his right side pant packet and when he asked accused officer about this work, accused officer stated that, he will draw the material, draw the line and give the connection. Then he came forward to some distance and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party and on receiving his signal, Dy. Superintendent of Police with trap party members rushed to the spot and surrounded the motor cycle of accused officer and apprehended him. He also stated about giving statement to the Dy. Superintendent of Police and also before

Magistrate at Ananthapuramu and identified his signatures in 164 Cr.PC

statement and also identified the accused person in the court who demanded and accepted the bribe from him on that day.

53.After completion of chief-examination on 01-07-2019, the learned counsel for accused officer took adjournment on some health grounds, as such, matter was adjourned to 15-07-2019 for cross- examination. PW-1 though not denied earlier version given in chief- examination, but stated a new case that Asst. Engineer issued demand 19 notice to his father to pay Rs.6,000/- towards development charges and Rs.360/- for security deposit and he stated that his father already gave Rs.8,000/- to the previous lineman, but accused officer stated that, he is nothing to do with the said payment and asked him to pay the amount again, as such, he approached ACB and they asked him to give a complaint.

54. He further stated that on the date of the trap, after giving Rs.6,000/- to the accused officer, he asked accused officer to give a receipt, but the accused officer stated that, after payment of balance of Rs.360/- for security deposit, he will give the receipt and as he did not pay the balance, Accused Officer did not issue receipt and meanwhile, ACB officials came and caught hold of accused officer. He further stated that, since accused officer insisted him to pay the development charges and security deposit of Rs.6,360/- and as his father already paid Rs.8,000/- to earlier lineman and as accused officer not considered the said payment, hence he developed grudge against accused officer and also with altercation of Accused Officer, for drawing electricity unauthorizedly, he gave complaint against him, thereby,

PW-1 was declared as hostile by the learned Spl.PP and he was cross- examined at length elaborately and elicited that, earlier his father paid

Rs.6,525/- and only on the said payment registration number was assigned.

55.The learned Spl. P.P. also asked PW-1 to show the demand notice issued by A.E., for payment of development charges and security deposit of Rs.6,360/-, but PW-1 did not show, hence, the payment of Rs.6,000/- by PW-1 to the accused officer on the date of the trap may not be towards development charges. The learned Spl.

P.P. also elicited that, he had no disputes with accused officer or enmity with previous lineman or with Additional Engineer. PW-1 further 20 categorically admitted in the cross-examination by learned Spl. P.P., that, Rs.6,000/- paid by him on the date of the trap is towards bribe amount. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for accused officer, also PW-1 did not deny demand of bribe and payment of

Rs.6,000/- to accused officer as bribe. PW-1 also admitted that, every payment to the Government, should be by way of challan either in

Bank, Treasury or Post office and demand receipt should be given by the officials. So, PW-1 is conscious that, a legal charges to be remitted in the Government office and accused officer is not competent to collect legal charges.

56. In the further cross-examination, learned counsel for accused officer elicited that, as PW-1 is not well educated and studied up to 7th class, as such, A.E,, advised him to give the amount to accused officer and obtain a kacha receipt and accordingly, he gave

Rs.6,000/- to accused officer towards development charges and requested him to give kacha receipt, but no such receipt was issued by accused officer to PW-1, hence in the absence of any receipt, the amount received by accused officer from PW-1 cannot be termed as a legal charges and it has to be treated as gratification only.

57.At this stage, the learned Spl. P.P., argued that, witness supported prosecution case in chief-examination, but turned hostile in cross-examination, hence version given by him under oath during chief examination cannot be disbelieved and his entire evidence cannot be thrown away. To support his contention, he relied on two decisions. One is reported in Deepak Vs. State, judgment dated 03-12-2013 of Hon’ble

Delhi High Court and another Judgment reported inPubi

Satyanarayana Vs. State of A.P., (1995 Crl.L.J 1738). The law on this aspect is very settled, simply because, witness subsequently turned hostile in cross-examination, his entire evidence cannot be 21 rejected. Reliable part of evidence of PW-1 can be taken into consideration and tainted version can be rejected by separating grain from chaff.

58. In this case, subsequent version given by PW-1 in cross- examination that he paid Rs.6,000/- to accused officer towards development charges is false and changed one and that portion only has to be rejected in view of his earlier statement given to the Dy.

Superintendent of Police recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC and the statement given before Magistrate on oath recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC that Rs.6000/- paid to Accused Officer is bribe which has some value in the eye of law can be presumed to be genuine unless and until contrary is proved. If really, the subsequent version given by PW-1 in cross-examination is true, certainly, the same would have been find place in the statement given before Dy. Superintendent of Police and as well as before

Magistrate. In the absence of which, the court need not believe the

subsequent version given by PW-1 in cross-examination with hostile conduct to help the accused officer.

59.Prosecution also examined pillion rider on the motor cycle of accused officer as witness to the occurrence, as PW3. He also mostly supported case of the prosecution stating that on 15-02-2017 while accused was going Chandracharla village for collection of EC charges on his motor cycle and on coming to know, that Accused Officer is also proceeding to that village he contacted accused officer and joined at

Mamillapalli, sat on the motor cycle of accused officer as a pillion rider and when they reached near MPP School, Mamillapalli, on seeing one person, accused officer stopped motor cycle and asked the said person, whether he brought the money asked by him and the said person confirmed and picked up the money from is left side pant packet and gave the same to the accused officer, who received the 22 same, counted the amount with his both hands and kept the same in his right side pant packet and when the said person asked accused officer about the work, accused officer assured him that he will complete his work speedily. Then, the said person moved to some distance and meanwhile ACB officials rushed to the spot and surrounded them, conducted chemical test to the hand fingers of accused officer which turned pink colour and seized amount from accused officer and they seized Ex.P-5 bus ticket from him and recorded his detailed statement.

60.He also stated that, he gave statement before Excise

Magistrate, Ananthapuramu and Ex.P-9 Camp Duty Chart shows on 15-

02-2017 he has to visit Chandracharla village. Though he stated entire story of prosecution, but cleverly omitted the words “bribe amount’ instead of, stated as ‘money’, as such, learned Spl. P.P. declared him as hostile and cross-examined him and elicited that PW-3 stated before

ACB officials that accused officer asked the said person (PW-1) whether he brought the demanded bribe amount, for which, the said person stated, he brought the amount and then accused officer asked him to give the bribe amount, so also, PW-3 admitted that, he stated before

Magistrate that accused officer asked the said person (PW-1) whether

he brought the demanded amount, which means, bribe amount because, accused officer has no right to issue demand notice and has no right to collect any legal charges or remuneration in respect of giving electricity service connection.

61.PW-3 also admitted that, he gave version before the mediators during post-trap proceedings and Ex.P-11 post-trap proceedings contains his signature and he signed Ex.P-11 after going through the contents of his statement. The learned Spl.P.P., further elicited that, at page No.11 of post-trap proceedings, he stated that, 23 accused officer demanded to pay the bribe amount, so also at page

No.6 of Ex.P-11, accordingly, he handed over the bribe amount to accused officer and further forced to admit by seeing pos-trap proceedings signed by him that, due to lapse of three years period, he could not give the above details in his chief-examination, so amount received by accused officer is only as a bribe but, not towards development charges.

62.The learned counsel for accused officer suggested to PW-3 that, due to fear of ACB, he is deposing falsely in support of their file, but this suggestion was denied. On careful scrutinization of evidence of PW-3, who is witness to the occurrence except the word ‘bribe’, remaining statement given by him before ACB officials and also before

Magistrate, was fully admitted by him in the court.

63.Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-12) who is the Trap

Laying Officer also stated in his evidence that all the happenings in the

Trap i.e., accused officer coming with PW-3 came on motor cycle to the scene of offence and meeting PW-1 and had a brief talk and after some time, PW-1 took out tainted currency notes from the left side pant packet and handed over the amount to the accused officer who collected the amount with his right hand and countered the same with his both hands, kept the amount in his right side pant packet, are visible to the trap party who are standing at V1 and V2 vantage positions, since it is a open place. So, even assuming for a moment, witness not supported prosecution case, yet, there is evidence of Trap

Laying Officer (PW-12) and mediator (PW-2) is available on record regarding the occurrence/trap incident. Accused also did not dispute receipt of Rs.6,000/- from PW-1, but he stated that, it is for some other purpose which is found to be false. More PW-1 (defacto-complainant) and PW-3 witness to the occurrence stated demand of bribe and 24 accused officer received the same from PW-1 as a bribe. PW7 father and PW8 brother are not direct witnesses to the occurrence, so also,

PW9 witness for drafting of post trap proceedings at Mamillapalli Sub

Station, for which there was no dispute, even if they turn hostile for some or other their evidence was not help the accused.

64.To believe the demand and acceptance, prosecution also placed other circumstances viz., pendency of official favour in not giving service connection to PW-1, recovery of tainted amount from the right side pant packet of accused officer and positive results of phenolphthalein test yielded to his both hand fingers of Accused Officer and in his right side pant packet. All these circumstances coupled with the reliable part of evidence of PW-1 given in the chief-examination, establish the demand and acceptance of bribe on the part of the accused officer. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

Point Nos.ii and iii)

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

65.Charge against the accused officer is that, he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.6000/- from PW1 for collection of electrical material from Asst. Engineer, Kanaganapalli and to provide agricultural service connection at the fields of father of PW1. As per prosecution case, PW1 on behalf of his father, submitted Ex.P1-Application for agricultural service connection on 9.5.2013. The said application was finally approved on 20.08.2016 and Asst. Engineer sent work order application to Asst.Divisional Engineer on 25.11.2016 under Ex.P8 and on the same day, Asst. Divisional Engineer sent the same to DE

Operations, Anantapur, for budget release and on 30.11.2016 DE released the work order. As per procedure stated by Engineers i.e., 25

Asst. Engineer-PW4, Asst.Divisional Engineer -PW5 and DE-PW6, Asst.

Engineer has to submit the requisition in online to Asst.Divisional

Engineer Stores, Atnantapur for drawal of material and after receipt of material, Lineman has to execute the work by taking Contractor to the site and give marking to fix poles and issue service connection, but in this case on hand, Asst. Engineer did not send requisition for drawal of material, thereby learned counsel for Accused Officer argued that, when the material was not drawn from the Stores, the question of executing the work by Accused Officer and demanding bribe to issue service connection does not arise, thereby argued that no official favour is pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of the trap, so as to make demand of bribe.

66.As seen from Ex.P2-Complaint given by PW1 against

Accused Officer to ACB, it is clearly mentioned that, as per the advice of Asst. Engineer, when PW1 met Accused Officer for his work Accused

Officer stated that work order was sanctioned and “to draw the material and to give electricity service connection”, he demanded bribe of Rs.8000/-, so, it is not at all the case of the prosecution that material was already drawn, but for drawal of material and to issue electrical line only, Accused Officer demanded bribe.

67.PW4-Asst. Engineer admitted his latches in not sending requisition for drawal of material, though budge sanction order was issued by Divisional Engineer on 30.11.2016, but stated that Lineman has to give marking for fixing electricity poles by going to that site along with the Contractor and supervise the work executed by

Contractor and after completion of work, Lineman has to give the service connection, but till the date of the trap, service connection was not given to PW7 and immediately after the trap i.e., on 18.02.2017 26

Contractor executed the work and service connection was given.

Likewise, PW5- Asst.Divisional Engineer stated that, after drawal of material by Asst. Engineer, Lineman has to show the location to the

Contractor and shall execute the work through the Contractor then, he has to give electricity connection but, till the date of the trap, Service

Connection was not given and only after the trap, work of PW1 was completed on 18.02.2017. He also stated that, he questioned Asst.

Engineer-PW4 for delay in drawing the material, no doubt PW4 is also at fault and appears to be hand in glove with Accused Officer, but fact remains that, though nearly 4 years completed from the date of submitting application by PW1, but with the date of trap, service connection was not given to him.

68.PW6-DE also stated about the release of work order on 30.11.2016 by him under Ex.P8 and he also stated that Asst. Engineer has to the drawal material from the Stores and endorse the work to the

Lineman for execution of the work through Contractor and Lineman has to give the markings to fix the poles and give the service connection by supervising the work carried by Contractor. He also mentioned procedure for issuing service connection step by step. So, it cannot be said, no official favour is pending with the accused as on the date of the trap.

69.Prosecution also examined PW11-Contractor, who stated that, he entered into Contract with Superintending Engineer under

Ex.P13-Agreement and executed work in respect of PW7 on 18.02.2017 i.e., subsequent to the trap, so, it cannot be said, that official favour is not pending with the Accused Officer simply because Asst. Engineer has not drawn material from the Stores.

27

70.Learned counsel for Accused Officer raised peculiar contention, basing on Ex.P7 that, PW1 has to pay Rs.6360/- towards development charges and security deposit and same is not paid till the date of the trap, therefore no official favour could be done by Accused

Officer, is totally absurd, because, the application containing the enclosure of test report Part-A, Column No.10 shows that consumer made deposit of Rs.6535/- instead of Investigating Officer inadvertently mentioned as Rs.6360/- in charge sheet in D.No.031034 dt.22.4.2013 i.e., even before submitting application by PW7 on 9.5.2013 with the

Department, as per the rates fixed by the Government for Category-V with connected load of 6HP and application was registered with

No.40613773562 on 9.5.2013 and application was processed and finally approved on 20.08.2016 by Asst. Engineer and he has given work order application to Asst.Divisional Engineer on 25.11.2016 and on the same day Asst.Divisional Engineer sent the work order application to DE, Anantapur for budget release and DE released budget work on 30.11.2016 so, without deposit/payment by consumer, the application of PW1 would not have been processed by Department, therefore, contention of Accused Officer that, PW1 not made any deposit/payment, thereby no official favour could be done to him has no legs stand.

71. Taking advantage of absence of copies of Demand

Draft/Challan to Ex.P1 and mentioning amount as Rs.6360/- instead of

Rs.6535/-, Accused Officer took this much of plea which cannot be taken into consideration, in view of processing the application by various authorities at different levels and release of work order budget by the D.E. Since there were latches on the part of Asst. Engineer/PW4, he supported Accused Officer that material was not drawn from the

Stores and without drawal of material, work cannot be executed, is of 28 no use, because, as per the contents of the complaint to get the material through Asst. Engineer and to give service connection,

Accused Officer demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.6000/- from PW1 on the trap day and as the application of PW1 was processed at various levels, work order was also released by the final authority i.e., DE,

Accused Officer should not collect the amount from PW1 and cannot contend it is towards legal charges but, in my view, Accused Officer is not expected to collect legal charges in cash even after, he collects any amount, he has to pass a receipt but, no such receipt was given for

Rs.6000/- received from PW1, therefore, it can be termed as gratification only, since he did not get the material drawn from stores through Asst. Engineer and did not execute the work and did not give service connection at the lands of PW7, therefore, I hold that, official favour is pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of the trap, hence this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the Accused Officer.

Points iv & v)

Recovery of tainted amount:

72.As per prosecution case, on demand by Accused Officer,

PW1 gave tainted amount of Rs.6000/- (Rs.500x12=Rs.6000/-) marked as MO3 to Accused Officer and he received the same with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept the amount in his right side pant pocket. Prosecution proved recovery of tainted amount from the possession of Accused Officer by examining mediator-

PW2 who clearly stated that, recovery of tainted amount of Rs.6000/- from the possession of Accused Officer during post trap proceedings, he also stated that, he verified numbers of marked currency notes with the numbers already mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings, on doing so, both of them were tallied. Evidence of mediator-PW2 was further corroborated by DSP-PW12 on all material aspects.

29

73.Accused Officer contends that, he received Rs.6000/- from

PW1 towards development charges but not as bribe, as per the orders of Asst.Divisional Engineer dt.20.08.2017 marked as Ex.P7 and security deposit of Rs.360/- to be paid by PW1, as such, no receipt was passed.

But this much of theory now advanced by Accused Officer during course of trial was not spontaneously stated by him during post trap proceedings marked as Ex.P11. Accused Officer also signed post trap proceedings and received copy of proceedings, therefore, he cannot dispute with the contents of Ex.P11-Post Trap Proceedings, which is a contemporaneous document and admissible in evidence. Suggestion given to PW2, that true versions given by the persons examined during post-trap proceedings was twisted and false recitals was got incorporated in post-trap proceedings by DSP was denied by mediator.

Similar suggestions given to the DSP who is a Trap Laying Officer, who recovered the tainted amount from the possession of the Accused

Officer was also denied.

74.At any rate, the Accused Officer admitted receipt of

Rs.6000/- from PW1, but claimed to be received it for some other purpose, so it is for him, to establish the same though Asst.Divisional

Engineer who issued Ex.P7 stating that Rs.6000/- towards development charges in Rs.360/- towards security deposit to be collected from consumer, was not cross-examined on the important aspect and no prosecution witness stated to complete the work of PW1, the said amount of Rs.6360/- has to be paid by PW1. Accused Officer also did not adduce any evidence on that aspect. No clarification was elicited from DSP who laid the trap and investigated the case, material on record reveals that, when DSP questioned Accused Officer about the tainted amount, Accused Officer voluntarily produced tainted amount from his right side pant pocket and handed over the same to the 30 mediators, and on verification of the currency note numbers, they are tallied hence, further proof of recovery of tainted amount is not required in view of peculiar stand taken by the Accused Officer admitting receipt of Rs.6000/- from PW1, thereby, I hold that, prosecution in this case as proved recovery of tainted amount of

Rs.6000/- from the possession of the Accused Officer, hence this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the Accused

Officer.

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

75.As per prosecution case, Accused Officer received tainted amount of Rs.6000/- (MO3) from PW1 with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept the same in his right side pant pocket and on receipt of pre-arranged signal from PW1, DSP with trap party members rushed to the spot surrounded Accused Officer and pillion rider-PW3 and after ascertaining identity particulars of Accused

Officer, DSP got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers through PC.974-Srinivasulu and asked Accused Officer to rinse his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately and on doing so, both right hand and left hand washes of Accused Officer turned pink, MOs.4 and 5 are the resultant solutions of hand fingers of

Accused Officer, proves the said fact.

76.When DSP questioned accused officer about the tainted amount on that, accused officer took out a wad of currency notes from his right side pant pocket and handed over the amount to mediators on the instructions of DSP, PW2-Mediator verified the serial numbers of currency notes compared with the numbers already mentioned in pre- trap proceedings, on doing so, both of them are tallied. M.O-3 is the 31 photocopy of currency notes of Rs.6,000/- (original notes were kept in

F.D.R., after demonetization), proves the said fact.

77. Then DSP collected wearing pant of accused officer by providing a lungi on the instructions of DSP, PC-2276-N.Ramachandra prepared fresh sodium carbonate solution in a separate glass tumbler and dipped inner linings of right side pant pocket of Accused Officer in the sodium carbonate solution and on doing so, solution turned pink.

MO6 is the resultant solution of the contacted portion of pant pocket, to proves the said fact and DSP also seized wearing pant of Accused

Officer, MO7 and also MO8 sample of sodium carbonate solution in a separate cover, prove the said facts.

78.Accused did not dispute with the positive results of the phenolphthalein test conducted to his both hand fingers and also to his pant pocket by advancing defence theory that, he received Rs.6000/- from PW1 towards development charges, but according to the prosecution it is a gratification, which is core issue, will be determined at the end of my conclusion, but prosecution proved positive results of phenolphthalein test yielded to the both hand fingers of Accused

Officer and contacted portion of right side pant pocket of Accused

Officer by examining mediator-PW2 present at the time of conducting phenolphthalein tests to the hand fingers of Accused Officer and contacted portion of right side pant pocket and his evidence is further corroborated by DSP-PW12, on all material particulars.

79. The positive results of phenolphthalein test are one of the strong suspicious circumstances in favour of prosecution indicating prior demand and acceptance of the bribe in proving the charge of demand and acceptance of the bribe by the Accused Officer from PW1 and it is for the accused to prove the amount, so received by him is towards legal remuneration/development charges, but not as 32 gratification, hence this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

DEFENCE THEORY:-

80.Accused strenuously contended that, he did not demand and accept any bribe from PW-1, but received Rs.6,000/- from PW-1 on the date of the trap towards development charges, but not as bribe and though he explained to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, during post-trap proceedings, but the Dy. Superintendent of Police suppressed his true version given by him, since it goes against their case and incorporated false versions to implicate him in this trap case. But, this much of theory suggested to Dy. Superintendent of Police was denied.

Though, PW9 stated about the said explanation, in his evidence, but he was treated as hostile, for not stating the said fact earlier. Admittedly, the defence theory now advanced by the accused officer during trial was not at all find place in Ex.P-11 post-trap proceedings. Ex.P-11 post- trap proceedings shows when Dy. Superintendent of Police questioned accused officer about the demand and acceptance of bribe, the accused officer admitted the receipt of Rs.6,000/- as a bribe, but not towards development charges.

81. The post-trap proceedings was drafted by mediator-PW.2 who is Veterinary Asst. Surgeon, is a Gazetted Officer and independent person, had no acquaintance or enmity with the accused officer, so as to suppress the explanation given by accused officer. At the same time, he is not a stock mediator or any interest in case of the prosecution, therefore, Ex.P-11 post-trap proceedings cannot be held as invalid and fabricated. Since the defence theory now taken by accused officer during the course of trial, not at all stated by accused officer, during post-trap proceedings, hence, I hold that, the defence 33 theory now advanced by the accused is a subsequent development and an afterthought and it need not be considered as per the ratio laid down in leading cases reported in M.Varapraad & Abdul Kafar’s case.

82.The Record further reveals that, as per test report Part-A attached to Ex.P-1 application shows that PW-1 already deposited

Rs.6,535/- vide PCB.No.031034/dated 22-04-2017, hence there is no need to pay development charges again. In my view, the lineman is not expected to receive any cash from the consumer towards development charges and same has to be paid by way of demand draft or challan or through M-seva. Therefore, the contention of accused officer that, he received Rs.6,000/- from PW-1 towards development charges is not at all believable and reliable and the defence theory appears to be false and advanced to escape from the charges, but nothing else, hence, this point is answered against the accused officer and in favour of the prosecution.

PRESUMPTION:

83.Prosecution in this case is able to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.6,000/- by accused officer from PW-1 by examining complainant as PW-1, witness to the occurrence as PW-3, who supported the prosecution case on material particulars and their reliable part of evidence was further corroborated by other circumstances brought on record. Prosecution also proved recovery of tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- from the possession of accused officer by examining mediator/PW2, whose evidence is corroborated by Dy.

Superintendent of Police (PW-12). Official favour of issuance of electricity service connection is pending by the date of trap. The same was proved by prosecution by examining official witnesses PWs.4,5 and

PW-6 Engineers, thereby, prosecution proved all the foundational 34 aspects to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused officer and entitled to claim mandatory presumption provided U/S.20(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prove the offence U/s 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and shifted the onus on the accused officer.

84. But the accused officer failed to rebut the said presumption by examining any witnesses or marking any documents. The defence theory advanced by him that he received Rs.6,000/- from PW-1 towards development charges, but not as bribe by prevailing on PW.1, but the said theory is found to be false, for not issuing any receipt and he had no authority to collect the amount from the consumer being a lineman, hence, it shall be presumed that, the amount of Rs.6,000/- received by accused officer from PW-1 is only as a gratification other than legal charges, as such, presumption is drawn in favour of prosecution in this case, thereby this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

SANCTION:

85.To prove a valid sanction order to prosecute the

Accused Officer, prosecution rightly examined Superintending

Engineer, APSPDCL, Anantapur who issued sanction order as PW10, he stated that on 5.02.207 their office received radio message from DSP

ACB, Anantapur about the trap of Accused Officer. On 18.02.2017 their office received preliminary report along with copies of mediator reports 1 and 2, FIR and complaint. On that, Accused Officer was kept under suspension by his predecessor on 18.2.2017 w.e.f., 15.02.2017.

86. Later, D.G., ACB., submitted final report to Government seeking sanction orders, who in turn sent file to their Chief Managing

Director, APCPDCL., Tirupathi, recommending for issuance of 35 prosecution orders against the Accused Officer. He further deposed that, on 9.4.2018 their office received Final Report from D.G., ACB along with relevant material and he perused entire material on record i.e., copies of FIR, mediator reports 1 and 2, list of statement of witnesses and documents and he applied his mind and accorded sanction to prosecution the Accused Officer vide proceedings

No.670/2018 dt.3.7.2018, and same is marked as Ex.P22 contains his signature.

87. In the cross-examination, learned counsel for Accused

Officer suggested to PW10 that, he issued Ex.P22-Sanction Order mechanically without applying mind simply basing on the orders on

Chief Managing Director but, it was denied. The other admissions elicited by learned counsel for Accused Officer that, petty cash register has to be maintained in the office of Asst. Engineer, Kanaganapalli containing the details of receipt of D.Ds submitted by customers which was not sent to ACB and other admission that he is not aware whether material was drawn by Asst. Engineer and handed over the same to the Contractor either before the trap or after the trap, but the fact remains that, Service Connection was not provided to PW1 till the date of the trap and Accused Officer was caught red handed while receiving

Rs.6000/- from PW1 on a public road which he is not supposed to receive from a customer, hence, it cannot be termed as legal charges, hence prosecution orders was rightly issued by the competent authority.

88. Accused Officer also not questioned the competence of

PW10 in issuing Ex.P22-Sanction Order to prosecute him. Nothing was brought on record by Accused Officer to show that sanction authority issued Ex.P22 mechanically without applying mind, therefore, I find no defect in Ex.P22 sanction order, so as to hold it, as invalid. From the 36 foregoing discussion, I hold that prosecution proved the Ex.P22-

Sanction order to prosecute the Accused Officer before the Court as per law, hence this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the Accused Officer.

CASE LAW:

89.Since defacto complainant – P.W.1 and witness to the occurrence-P.W.3 were partly treated as hostile by prosecution, Learned counsel for A.O. to support his contentions,relied on following decisions reported in Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1408, wherein it was held that mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which, it was paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantial evidence in the case is not reliable, but in the case on hand, P.W.1 and P.W.3 supported prosecution case in chief examination but supported the accused in cross examination and after treated them as hostile, learned SPP cross examined them with the permission of the court and in the cross examination, they admitted the prosecution case as true.

In C.M.Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin wherein it was held that burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused can rebut the presumption on mere preponderance of probabilities and same was held in Mansingh

Vs. DelhiAdministration.

In V.Suresh Vs. State, wherein it was held that while version in chief examination, favourable to prosecution, version given by him in cross examination, favours accused – It is not safe to convict accused on basis of evidence of such witness. But the material on record shows earlier payment of Rs.6525/- was shown with D.D. number and date.

Hence there is no necessity to make further payment. P.W.1 and his father P.W.7 clearly stated about earlier payment of rs.8,000/- to the 37 then Line man and payment was recorded, hence there is no any question of contradictory statement regarding payment and record also shows immediately after the trap on 18.02.2017 service connection was given to P.W.1. Hence the above two decisions not helpful to A.O.

Regarding spontaneous explanation learned counsel for A.O.

relied on decision in Punjab Rao Vs. State of Maharastra wherein it was held that though accused failed to give spontaneous explanation during course of post trap proceedings, but can offer explanation during course of trial and during course 313 Cr.P.C. examination and it can be taken as successful rebuttance of presumption in favour of the prosecution provided U/sec.20 of P.C. Act, but the explanation offered by accused in the case during 313 Cr.P.C. examination is found to be false and not reliable, hence the above decision is not helpful to A.O.

The next decision relied by learned counsel for accused reported in Mukul Bihari Vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that demand of illegal gratification is sine quo non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act and similar view held in Addala Subramanyam Vs. State.

Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, but in the case on hand, not only the recovery of tainted money from accused demand was also proved by the prosecution through reliable part of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, hence the above decisions are not helpful to A.O.

In T.C.Mourya Vs. State, wherein it was held that when no official favour was pending before accused on the date of demand or on the date of trap and same is doubtful, the presumption U/sec 20 of the Act stands rebutted, but in this case though P.W.1 submitted application in the year 2013, till the date of trap i.e., on 15.02.2017, the electricity service connection was not provided, hence it is 38 abundantly clear that official favour is pending with accused, hence the above decision is not helpful to A.O.

Lastly, learned counsel for A.O. relied on a decision reported in Sujit Biswas Vs State of Assam, wherein it was held that suspicion however it may be strong cannot take place of proof and if two views are possible, benefit of doubt must go to the accused. There is no quarrel with regard to above settle position of law but there is ample material and evidence available on record in proving the guilt against accused, hence above decision will not render any assistance to A.O.

Conclusion:

90.From the foregoing discussion on points 1 to 5 in detail and taking into consideration of reliable part of evidence of PWs.1 and 3,

Mediator-PW2 and official witnesses PWs.4 to 6 and Contractor-PW11,

DSP-PW12 and final investigation officers PWs.13 and 14 coupled with

Exs.P1 to P25 and MOs.1 to 8, I hold that, prosecution in this case proved the guilt against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond all reasonable doubt, hence Accused Officer in this case is liable for conviction for both charges, accordingly.

39

91.Accused was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim).

Accused Officer stated that, that he is aged 60 years and retired from service in the month of October, 2020 and he got wife and three children out of them two are daughters and they are not educated well due to his poverty and doing coolie works. Wife has been suffering from Heart problem. He has been suffering from high blood pressure and diabetics. He got only Ac.2.00 cents of assigned and one

Government schemed house. Entire family is depending upon me, therefore he prayed the Court to take lenient view and reduce the punishment.

[ On the other hand, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, submits that, accused shall be punished properly in view of increase of corruption in all corners of the society day by day without showing any leniency towards accused taking into consideration of gravity of the offences and seriousness of the cases registered by ACB after thorough and deep investigation.

The corruption is a serious offence which affects entire economy of nation, as such, accused cannot escape from the compulsory imprisonment provided under the Act, for the offences proved against him which are classified as socio-economic offences and considered to be grave in nature, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences. The benevolent provisions u/S.360 of Cr.P.C., and Sec. 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders

Act, are also cannot be extended to convicts in these type of cases. In view of the above ‘special reasons’ putforth and as the Accused Officer is charged by ACB under old Act No.49 of 1988 and not under amended

Act No.1 of 2014, he can be sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment 40 for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under each count, which is suffice and will meet the ends of justice, by virtue of Sec. 354(4) of Cr.P.C.

92.In the result, accused officer 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 he is convicted U/S.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Accused officer is sentenced to suffer Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of two Years and shall pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence U/S.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and accused officer is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 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 officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under each count.

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

Remand period undergone by accused i.e.,from 16- 02-2017 to 10-03-2017 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/-(Rupees Ten thousand only).

M.O.3 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand only) (which is in FDR) is ordered to be returned to

Complainant-P.W.1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects M.Os.1, 2 and 4 to 8 shall be destroyed, after appeal time.

93.Since PW1-S.Ram Mohan Reddy turned hostile in cross- examination, hence prosecution shall initiate criminal proceedings against him for perjury. Since official witnesses PW4-AE-G.Srinivasula 41

Reddy and PW5-ADE-J.Venkata Ramesh were also declared as hostile by prosecution, they shall be proceeded departmentally for giving false evidence before the Court.

Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the Superintending

Engineer (Operation), APSPDCL., Anantapur as per Rule 73 of Criminal

Rules of Practice.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 10th day of December, 2021.

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1S.Rama Mohan Reddy. PW2P.Sreenivasulu. PW3B.Lakshmana Reddy. PW4G.Srinivasula Reddy. PW5J.Venkata Ramesh. PW6S.Narayana Naik. PW7S.Nagi Reddy. PW8S.Suryanarayana Reddy. PW9S.Mutyala Naik. PW10D.S.Varakumar. PW11M.Damodar Reddy. PW12C.Jayarama Raju. PW13Shaik Khadar Basha. PW14R.Prathap Reddy.

FOR DEFENCE: None

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P109.05.2013.Application for supply of electricity along with enclosures applied by S.Nagi Reddy.

42 (Attested copy) Ex.P214.02.2017.Complaint drafted by PW1 contains his signature. Ex.P314.02.2017.Copy of complaint. Ex.P415.02.2017.Pre-Trap proceedings. Ex.P515.02.2017Bus ticket of APSRTC. Ex.P615.02.2017.Duty chart of Accused Officer. Ex.P720.08.2016.Technical sanction of estimation along with enclosures. Ex.P825.11.2016.Work order with enclosures. Ex.P915.02.2017.Camp dates of Lakshmana Reddy. Ex.P1015.02.2017.Rough sketch. Ex.P1115.02.2017.Post-Trap proceedings. Ex.P1215.02.2017Nil search list. Ex.P1315.11.2016Agreement entered by Superintending Engineer with Contractor. Ex.P1416.03.2017Relevant underline potion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW4. Ex.P1520.02.2017.Letter. Ex.P1614.03.2017.Letter. Ex.P1722.07.2017Relevant portion of underlined in statement of 161(1) of PW5. Ex.P1816.03.2017.Service particulars and job chat of Accused Officer along with covering letter. Ex.P1922.07.2017Covering letter along with guidelines, agreement with enclosures. Ex.P2015.03.2017.Relevant underlined portion of Sec.161(3) of Cr.P.C., statement of PW7. Ex.P2115.03.2017.Relevant underlined portion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW8. Ex.P2203.07.2018Sanction order issued by PW10. Ex.P2315.02.2017.Original FIR. Ex.P2418.04.2017Agreement No.356/2016-17 along with covering letter by Asst. Engineer (O). Ex.P2518.10.2017.Reply letter dt.18.10.2017.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1A sealed cover contains sample of Sodium Carbonate powder. MO2A sealed cover contains sample of phenolphthalein powder. MO3Cash of Rs.6000/- kept in F.D.R. MO4Resultant Solution pink coloured right hand wash. MO5Resultant solution of left hand wash.

43

MO6Resultant solution of right side pant packet. MO7Wearing pant of Accused Officer. MO8Sample of the Sodium Carbonate powder duly sealed and attested by police officers.

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

1

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

CASES, KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bhaskara Rao,

Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

KURNOOL.

Friday, this the 22 nd day of October, 2021.

CALENDAR CASE No.6/2018

Between:

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

Versus

Shaik Mahaboob Basha, son of Badulia Saheb, Village Revenue Officer, Nelatur Village, Office of Tahasildar, Duvvur Mandal, YSR District. …. Accused Officer

This case is coming for final hearing on 07-10-2021 in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri K.Ravindra

Babu, and Sri N. Shanmukham, Advocates for accused officer, 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, Kadapa

Range, Kadapa, filed charge sheet against the accused officer, to prosecute him for the offences U/S.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the accused officer worked as Village Revenue Officer, Nelaturu village, Office of

Tahasildar, Duvvur Mandal, YSR District from 21.07.2012 to 22.02.2016 and by virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant, within the definition of Sec. 2(c) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

2

3.It is further case of prosecution that, PW1–Eragamreddi

Srinivasulu Reddy is son of PW7–Lingala Nityanuthan Reddy and they are residents of Sanjeevareddipalli Village, Duvvur Mandal, Kurnool

District and they are living by doing cultivation. PW7 has got Ac.1.96 cents in S.No.20-3B and Ac.1.46 cents in S.No.15-2B in Nelaturu village. The land details of S.No.20-3B was already entered in online revenue records, but land details of S.No.15-2B an extent of Ac.1.46 cents was not entered in online revenue records, therefore, on 30.12.2015 PW1 approached Tahsildar, Duvvur Mandal for online entry of the said land Ac.1.46 cents and for issuance of 1-B Adangal.

Tahsildar–PW8 endorsed the application–Ex.P1 submitted by PW1 to

VRO–Accused Officer. Then, PW1 approached Accused Officer and requested him to issue 1-B Adangal by entering the details of the land in online. Accused Officer verified the application and demanded bribe of Rs.6000/- for entering land details in online and to issue 1-B adangal, but, PW1 returned.

4.It is alleged that, subsequently on 16.02.2016 PW1 again approached Accused Officer and requested him to do his work, but

Accused Officer stated that, he should give at least Rs.4000/- of bribe to do this work or otherwise, he will not do his work. As there is no other go, PW1 reluctantly agreed for the same then, Accused Officer asked PW1 to pay the bribe of Rs.4000/- to him on 22.2.2016 either to him or to the person shown by him. Unwilling to give the bribe to the

Accused Officer, PW1 approached Deputy Superintendent of Police, hereinafter referred as DSP “in short”, ACB, Kadapa on 20.02.2016 at 4.30 PM and lodged Ex.P2 complaint.

5.DSP-PW10 endorsed complaint to Inspector, ACB–PW11 to conduct discreet enquiries and report him. Accordingly, PW11 3 conducted discreet enquiries and reported that complaint is genuine and Accused Officer is corrupt and enjoying bad reputation and endorsed his enquires on the back of the complaint on 22.2.2016 on 8.00 A.M. Then, DSP after due verifications, registered the complaint, as a case in Cr.No.1/RCT/KDP/2016 under Sec.7 of PC Act on 22.2.2016 at 8.00 A.M. and laid trap against the accused.

6.Then, DSP secured mediators PW2-Putta Vijaya Reddy and

LW3-Lingala Nityanuthan Reddy, conducted pre-trap proceedings in the office of DSP, ACB, Kadapa on 22.2.2016 at 9.45 AM, in which PW1 attended with proposed bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- (500x8=4000/-)

DSP introduced mediators to PW1 and vice-versa and mediators enquired contents of Ex.P2 complaint with PW1 and PW1 stated that, contents of the complaint are genuine. Mediators noted the currency note numbers. DSP got applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes through his H.C.–A.Ramudu and kept in the left side shirt pocket of the PW1. Then DSP demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and explained the significance of phenolphthalein test to PW1 and other trap party members. Later, DSP instructed PW1 not to touch the currency notes till it was given to the Accused Officer on his further demand and further instructed PW1 to give signal by wiping his face with his handkerchief to Inspector, in case, accused officer demands and accepts the bribe amount from himand completed pre-trap proceedings in the office of DSP by 11.15 a.m., and got drafted pre- trap proceedings under Ex.P4.

7.After completion of pre-trap proceedings, DSP with his staff members, mediators and P.W-1 boarded in two vehicles proceeded to the office of Tahsildar, Duvvur Mandal and reached the vicinity of

Tahsildar Office, Duvvur at 12.20 PM. Then, all of them got down from 4 the vehicles and DSP again after reiterating the earlier instructions, allowed PW1 to go and meet the accused officer. DSP also instructed

P.C.-K.Pratap, to follow PW1 by maintaining distance to receive signal from PW1 and to pass on the same to the trap party who are waiting at vantage positions adjoining the Tahsildar Office, Duvvur. Accordingly,

PW1 entered into the VROs room and came out at 12.30 PM and relayed signal to P.C.-K.Pratap, who is in turn passed on the signal to the trap members. On receiving signal DSP with trap party members rushed to the VROs room and asked PW1 to wait at some distance till he was called. Then, DSP disclosed his identity and tap party members to the person sitting in the VROs room. On that, the said person became stunned. Later, DSP ascertained his identity, the said person revealed his identity as Accused Officer in this case. Then, DSP got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked accused officer to rinse his both hand fingers in the said solution on doing so, both hand washes turned into pink colour. Then, DSP got seized those resultant solutions for further course of investigation.

8.Then, DSP questioned accused officer about the tainted amount, on that, Accused Officer. voluntarily took out the wad of currency notes Rs.4000/- (500x8=4000) from his trousers right side pocket and gave the same currency notes to PW2–mediator, who verified the denomination and currency note numbers, on doing so, both of them were tallied. Later, DSP collected wearing trouser of accused officer by providing alternative trouser and subjected contacted portion of right side trouser pocket of accused officer to the chemical test, on doing so, it was also yielded positive result. DSP also seized the wearing trouser of accused officer and resultant solutions in two separate glass bottles, and they are duly sealed, labeled and attested.

5

9.Then, DSP questioned Accused Officer about the demand and acceptance of the bribe from PW1 and Accused Officer stated that,

PW1 took out a wad of currency notes from his shirt left side upper pocket and voluntarily gave to him and he has taken with his right hand and kept the same in his right trouser pocket and kept silent about the demand. Then, DSP called PW1 who was waiting outside and enquired him what was happened from the time he left the trap party till he relayed signal and what all stated by PW1 was recorded by mediators in the proceedings. Then, DSP questioned Accused Officer to produce official favour documents, on that Accused Officer took out brown colour file from Iron box and produced original application–

Ex.P1, Ex.P12 copy of pattadr passbook and Aadhar card and adangal/pahani of Nelatur village, Duvvur Mandal for the fasali–1421.

Then, DSP secured Tahsildar, examined him about the official favour work of father of PW1 and Tahsildar produced 1-B register, Executive

Staff Movement Register and Casual Leave Register-2016 and DSP seized all the connected records in the presence of mediators.

Thereafter, DSP examined PW4–V.R.O., who was sitting opposite room of Accused Officer and PW5–V.R.A., who was sitting in the room of

Accused Officer and recorded their statements.

10.Later, DSP examined scene of offence and prepared Ex.P9 rough sketch. Then, DSP directed Inspector–PW11, to conduct search in the house of Accused Officer and accordingly Inspector conducted search in the house of Accused Officer at Proddatur at 8.30 PM and returned at 9.20 PM and completed post-trap proceedings at 10.00 PM under Ex.P10. Thereafter, DSP handed over further investigation to

Inspector–PW11 to examine remaining witnesses and also filed a memo to record 164 Cr.P.C., statement of defacto-complainant which was recorded on 27.02.2016. After completion of entire investigation, PW11 6 submitted draft official report to Director of General, ACB, who in turn obtained sanction orders from the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.153 dt.3.4.2018. After receipt of sanction proceedings, successor of PW11–

K.Ramachandra, Inspector, ACB, Kadapa (LW15) filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sec.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

11.The Learned Predecessor of this court, had taken cognizance of the offence U/S.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act,1988 against the accused officer on 22-02-2016.

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

13.On 08-02-2019, this Court examined the accused U/S. 239

Cr.P.C., 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 the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu but, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

14.In order to prove the guilt, prosecution cited as many as 15 witnesses however, examined only 11 witnesses.

15.PW1–Eragamreddi Srinivasulu, is the defacto-complainant, he supported the prosecution case and stated that he submitted Ex.P1–

Application to Tahsildar for online entry of their land and for issuance of 1-B adangal and Tahsildar entrusted his application to the Accused

Officer and when he approached Accused Officer, he demanded bribe of Rs.6000/- and when he expressed his inability, Accused Officer reduced to bribe to Rs.4000/-, but unwilling to give bribe he lodged

Ex.P2-Complaint, ACB and his participation in pre-trap proceedings and 7 demand and acceptance bribe of Rs.4000/- from him by the accused at his office on 22.02.2016 for doing his work etc., facts.

16.PW2–Putta Vijaya Reddy said to be mediator present during pre and post trap proceedings, trap of accused, seizure of contended amount from him and connected record from the possession of

Accused Officer.

17.PW3-Eragamreddy Nageswar Reddy, father of PW1, he corroborated evidence of PW1 with regard to submitting application for online entry of his land and entrustment of the same to the Accused

Officer and demand of bribe, filing of complaint by his son-PW1 and coming to know about trap of Accused Officer and in his evidence

Ex.P12-Photocopy of his pattadar passbook and certified copy of

Ex.P13 is the certified copy of registered sale deed under which, he purchased the said land.

18.PW4-Chinna Reddy Venkata Subba Reddy, VRO of

Machinapalli village sitting opposite to the room of Accused Officer stated that, he observed PW1 and another person entering into the room of Accused Officer on the trap day and after some time he came out. Later, ACB officials rushed to the room of AO, but he was treated as hostile for the reason or stating that, another person accompanied

PW1.

19. PW5-Dudekula Dastagiri, Village Revenue Assistant of

Nelatur village, he also stated that, on the trap day, PW1 entered into the room of AO and came out, at that time, he was outside the room of

AO, thereafter ACB Officials entered into the room of AO but, he was also treated as hostile for not speaking about conducting chemical test in his presence.

8

20.PW6-Nalladimmu Venkata Raman Reddy, Village Revenue

Officer of Neelapuram village present at the Tahsildar Office on the trap day working in his room but, he was also treated as hostile as circumstantial witness to the trap incident for supporting defence theory of accused that, Tahsildar, issued memo to the Village Revenue

Officers for non-collection of water cess.

21.PW7-Keshapuram Chandra Sekhar Rao, another circumstantial witness to the trap incident, Village Revenue Officer of

Duvvur village, also not supported prosecution and he was also treated as hostile by the prosecution for supporting the defence theory of the accused that Accused Officer received amount from PW1 towards water cess dues.

22.PW8-Sree Ramadas Premantha Kumar, Tahsildar, Duvvur

Mandal stated about procedure for online mutation and submitting

Ex.P1-Application by PW1 to him on 30.12.2015 and he endorsed the same to the Accused Officer to attend, but till the date of trap, he did not receive any report from Accused Officer and on the date of the trap while he was in his Chambers, he came to know about the trap of

Accused Officer and ACB Officials seized Exs.P6 to P8 connected records.

23.PW9-N.Prasad, Section Officer from Revenue Department in

A.P. Secretariat, he stated about issuance of Ex.P19 sanction order by

Dr.Manmohan Singh, Special Chief Secretary to the Government to prosecute Accused Officer vide GOMs.No.153 dt.03.04.2018.

24.PW10-N.Nagaraju, DSP, ACB, Kadapa (hereinafter referred as Trap Laying Officer as TLO in short) stated about the receipt of complaint from PW1, conducting preliminary enquiries by Inspector, registration of FIR, lying on trap against Accused Officer, conducting 9 pre-trap proceedings in his Office and post-trap proceedings, apprehension of accused at Village Revenue Officers Office, Duvvur, seizure tainted amount of Rs.4000/- from the side pant pocket of

Accused Officer and other connected records from the possession of

Accused Officer etc., facts.

25.PW11-S.D.Siva Shankar Naik, Inspector of Police, ACB,

Kadapa stated about his conducting discreet enquiries on the complaint, securing mediators and accompanying DSP in the trap proceedings and conducting further investigation in this matter and collection of some more documents and filing of charge sheet by his successor in his office.

26.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P-1 to P-21 and M.Os.1 to 8 are marked.

27.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.

28.Accused filed written statement denying handing over

Ex.P1 application to him by PW1 and demand and acceptance of bribe from PW1 and pendency official favour with him. He further stated that, K.C.Canal is main water source for the land of PW1 and PW1 and his father have to pay water cess dues to a tune of Rs.8000/- and odd,

Revenue Department and Tahsildar issued Ex.D2 orders dt.20.01.2016, directing all the Village Revenue Officers for collection of water cess, same was also admitted by Tahsildar and other Village Revenue

Officers examined by the prosecution and when Accused Officer asked to PW1 to clear water cess dues, as such, PW1 with motive to implicate him gave a false complaint against him to ACB and approached him on 22.02.2016 offered Rs.4000/- towards water cess towards part 10 payment of water cess and he received the same towards water cess only and kept the same in his right side pant pocket and PW1 after giving amount hurriedly went outside and immediately, within no time,

ACB Officials rushed into his room and caught him as if he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.4000/- from PW1 and filed charge sheet against him suppressing the fact that he collected the amount towards water cess dues.

29.He lastly stated that, there is no evidence to show entrustment of Ex.P1-Application by PW1 to him and no official favour pending with him, since no orders are passed by the Joint Collector to make online entries and to issue 1-B Adangal, therefore, stated that, prosecution failed to prove the guilt against him beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, prayed the Court to acquit him from the charges.

30.On the defence side, accused did not examine any witnesses, but marked Ex.D1 e-seva Adangal dt.17.06.2019 to show that PW1 has got only Ac.1.24 cents in S.No.15-2B but not Ac.1.46 cents, Ex.D2 orders issued by Tahsildar for collection of order cess,

Ex.D3 memo issued by Tahsildar to the Village Revenue Officers for taking immediate action in collection of water cess and Ex.D4 is the

Water cess register of Nelatur village, are marked on his behalf.

31.Heard arguments, on either side.

32.Now, the points for determination are:

i)Whether, Accused Officer demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.4000/- from PW1 on 22.02.2016 for doing official favour of entering land details of father of PW1 in online and for issuance of 1-B Adangal ?

ii)Whether, official favour of entering land of father of PW1 in online and issuance of 1-B Adangal is pending with the Accused Officer, as on the date of the trap?

iii)Whether, the accused being public servant while discharging his duties as Village Revenue Officer, in the 11 office of Tahsildar, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District, obtained pecuniary advantage from P.W-1 by corrupt and illegal means thereby, he committed Criminal Misconduct?

iv)Whether, prosecution proved the guilt for the offences U/S.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

ADMITTED FACTS:

33.Admitted facts are that, at the time of alleged occurrence the accused was working as Village Revenue Officer, in the office of

Tahsildar, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District and by virtue of post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant within the definition of Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which, there was no dispute at all.

34.There is no dispute, that PW3 father of PW1, is having

Ac.1.96 cents of land in S.No.20-3B whish was already entered in online, but dispute is only in respect of land an extent of Ac.1.46 cents in S.No.15-2B, it was not entered in online for which, PW3 through his son-PW1 submitted Ex.P1-Application to Tahsildar, Duvvur Mandal-PW8 on 30.12.2015 and Tahsildar endorsed the same to Village Revenue

Officer i.e., Accused Officer. Ex.P1-Application contains the endorsement by Tahsildar, but Accused Officer contends that, he has not received the said application and he also disputed the extent of land in S.No.15-2B owned by PW3 is only Ac.1.24 cents but not Ac.1.46 cents. It is also an admitted fact that K.C.Canal is the water source for the said land and it was maintained by Irrigation Department. PW1 and his father-PW3 also admitted that, they have to pay water cess to the

Revenue Department for using water from the K.C.Canal.

CONTENTION OF PROSECUTION:

12

35.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, argued that, when PW1 approached Accused Officer with Ex.P1-Application, endorsed by Tahsildar, for online entry of land in S.No.15-2B measuring

Ac.1.46 cents and for issuance of 1-B Adangal, Accused Officer demanded bribe of Rs.6000/-, but, PW1 not paid and returned and again he approached Accused Officer on 16.02.2016 for his work at that time also, Accused Officer reiterated earlier demand and when

PW1 expressed his inability, Accused Officer reduced the bribe from

Rs.6000/- to Rs.4000/- but, unwilling to give bribe, PW1 lodged Ex.P1-

Complaint against Accused Officer, to Deputy Superintendent of Police, and in the trap, Accused Officer was caught red handed.

36. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that, PW1 fully supported prosecution case, stated about the demand and acceptance of bribe by Accused Officer, PW2 mediator also supported the prosecution case, stated about recovery of tainted amount and official favour documents from the possession of Accused Officer, chemical test conducted to both the hand fingers of the Accused

Officer and contacted portion of right side pant pocket also yielded positive results, Tahsildar-PW8 also supported prosecution case about pendency of official favour with Accused Officer and other officials who are only circumstantial witnesses, though not supported prosecution case, not becomes fatal to the prosecution case. Evidence of PW1, PW2 and other official witnesses, was fully corroborated by the trap laying officer–PW10 and further corroborated final investigating officer-PW11 and with the aid of presumption provided Under Sec.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution in this case is able to establish charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The defence theory that, he collected Rs.4000/- from PW1 towards water cess dues, is a subsequent development and after thought and in the absence of 13 demand notice or receipt by Accused Officer for the amount collected by him, the defence theory cannot be accepted, thereby, prayed the

Court to convict the accused, for both charges accordingly.

PLEA OF ACCUSED:

37.Learned counsel for accused argued that, there is no evidence to show the entrustment of Ex.P1-Application to Accused

Officer and evidence of PW1 with regard to demand and acceptance is not supported by any other evidence and without independence evidence his interested testimony cannot be relied. Evidence of mediator is routine and does not inspire any confidence, though

Accused Officer allegedly collected the tainted amount with his right hand and kept the amount in his right side pant pocket, but in the chemical test, both hand fingers yielded positive results, hence results of the chemical test cannot be relied, Village Revenue Officers and

Village Revenue Assistant who are present at the scene of offence at the time of alleged occurrence, not supported prosecution case with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe.

38.Learned counsel for Accused Officer further argued that,

Ex.D1 shows PW3 father of PW1 has got only Ac.1.24 cents but not

Ac.1.46 cents in S.No.15-2B. As per Exs.D2 to D4, Accused Officer is authorized to collect water cess dues and on the trap day and he received the amount from PW1 only towards part payment of water cess dues. Tahsildar-PW8 supported defence theory that, he issued orders to Village Revenue Officers to collect water cess dues, therefore,

Rs.4000/- received by Accused Officer from PW1 is not gratification, but only towards water cess dues, hence Accused Officer not liable for the charges.

14

Point No.i:-

DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE:

39.As per prosecution case, initial demand was made by accused on 30.12.2015 for Rs.6000/- for doing work of PW1. PW1 clearly stated in his evidence that, his father-PW3 has got agricultural land Ac.1.96 cents in S.No.20-3B and Ac.1.46 cents in Sy.No.15-2B in

Nelatur village, Duvvur Mandal, though the land Ac.1-96 cents in

S.No.20-3B entered in online, but the land in S.No.1.46 cents was not entered in online and to enter into the said land in online and to obtain 1B extract and adangal for the land, he approached the

Tahsildar,Duvvur-PW8 on 30.12.2015 and submitted Ex.P1-Application and Tahsildar received application and endorsed the same to Village

Revenue Officer of Nelaturu village and asked him to approach Village

Revenue Officer i.e., accused officer.

40.PW1 further stated that, he approached accused officer who is Village Revenue Officer of Nelaturu village along with Ex.P1 and gave the same to him and requested him to do his work, for which, accused officer demanded Rs.6000/- as bribe to do his work or else, he will not do his work. PW8-Tahsildar also corroborated evidence of PW1 that he received Ex.P1 application from PW1 on 30.12.2015 for online entry and to issue 1-B extract and immediately he endorsed the same to Village Revenue Officer and instructed PW1 to hand over the same to Village Revenue Officer-Accused Officer.

41.Accused Officer denied the initial demand and contended that he did not receive application from PW1 at all and challenged prosecution to show his endorsement or signature evidencing receipt of Ex.P1-Application from PW1, but the fact remains that, Ex.P1- 15

Application was seized from the possession of accused officer during post-trap proceedings, therefore, endorsement by accused officer or receipt is not required and evidence of PW1 is clinching with regard to handing over Ex.P1-Application to Accused Officer on the same day and the same is found to be reliable and trustworthy since it was corroborated evidence of Tahsildar-PW8.

42.Accused Officer also disputed the initial demand by him by contending that, time and place is not mentioned in the complaint or in the evidence of PW1, but accused officer did not place any material to show that, on 30.12.2015 he was not in the office and he was at somewhere else. As per Leave Register-Ex.P8 for the year 2016 shows that accused officer was on duty not applied any leave hence, supposed to be in office on the relevant day so, in the absence of any probable evidence and absence of specific plea of alibi, time and place of demand is not required in each and every place, thereby, I hold that, prosecution in this case, has proved initial demand of bribe by accused officer for Rs.6000/- on 30.12.2015.

43.As far as, second demand/further demand is concerned,

PW1 clearly stated that again he approached accused officer on 16.02.2016 in his office room and requested him to do his work but, accused officer reiterated his earlier demand for Rs.6000/- and on his further request, accused officer reduced the bribe from Rs.6000/- to

Rs.4000/- and asked him to pay the said amount or else his work will not be done. PW1 further stated that unwillingly, he agreed to give

Rs.4000/- to the accused officer, then accused officer asked him to give the same to him on 22.02.2016 either to himself or to the person directed by him and unwilling to give the bribe to the accused officer, he approached DSP, ACB, Kadapa on 20.02.2016 and lodged Ex.P2 complaint against the accused.

16

44.Learned counsel for accused officer suggested to PW1 that he did not raise second demand on 16.02.2016 and reduction of bribe from Rs.6000/- to Rs.4000/- but, PW1 categorically denied the said suggestion. The omissions elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 for not mentioning the place of demand second demand is also not material in the absence of any probable evidence from the accused and specific plea of alibi that, he was at somewhere else at the relevant point of time i.e., on 16.02.2016. Admittedly, Ex.P1 application was submitted by PW1 on 30.12.2015. Whereas trap incident was taken place on 22.02.2016, admittedly, till the date of the trap, the said application was not attended by accused officer, is infers prior demand by accused or otherwise, his application would have been processed.

45.The contention of accused officer that, PW3 has got only

Ac.1.24 cents in S.No.15-2B of Nelaturu village, as per Ex.D1 adangal obtained through e-seva, but not Ac.1.46 cents, if that is the case, he should have returned the application of PW1 on the ground of not tallying the extent of the land, but accused officer did not do so and kept the said application with him and his conduct shows that there is no substance in the contention of accused. If really, PW3 had no peace of land in S.No.15-2B then, there is some reason in the contention of accused, but even as per Ex.D1 PW3 has got Ac.1.24 cents in S.No.15- 2B and as per Ex.P-13 sale deed, PW3 has got total Ac.1.44 cents in the said survey number there is only margin of Ac.0-02 cents difference in a different sub division but, in the same survey number hence, there is no much substance in the contention raised by the accused officer for not attending the work of PW1, thereby, I hold that, prosecution also proved second/further demand bribe by accused on 16.02.2016.

17

46.As far as acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.4000/- is concerned, PW1 clearly stated in his evidence that, on completion of pre-trap proceedings, he boarded Government vehicle along with ACB officials and mediators proceeded to Tahsildar Office, Duvvur and as per the earlier instructions by DSP to pay the bribe amount to the accused only on his further demand, he entered into the room of accused officer found the accused sitting in his chair and when he enquired accused officer about his work, Accused Officer reiterated earlier demand of bribe of Rs.4000/- and stated that, if he pays the bribe amount, he will do his work then he has taken currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and handed over the same to accused officer who received the same with his right hand and kept the amount in his right side pant pocket and later assured him that, he will recommend to carry out his work to higher officials, then he came out gave pre-arranged signal to the police constable-Pratap, on observing his signal, DSP and trap party members rushed into the room of accused officer and asked him to wait outside, later he was called inside and DSP enquired him as to what was happened from the time he left the trap party till he relayed the signal then, he narrated entire sequence of events.

47.Since Accused Officer admitted receipt of amount from

PW1 on the trap day in his room, discrepancies pointed out by the

Accused Officer regarding presence of other person i.e., Village

Revenue Assistant-PW5 in his room as per Ex.P10 post-trap proceedings, but as per PW1 and PW10, Accused Officer alone was present in the office room is not material and having no much relevance. Further PW5, in his chief-examination, himself stated that, when PW1 entered into the room of Accused Officer, he came out so at the time of transaction, nobody was present in the room, except 18

Accused Officer and PW1. TLO-PW10 also clearly stated that, when he rushed into the room of Accused Officer, he found Accused Officer alone present in his room.

48.Accused in this case, admitted receipt of Rs.4000/- from

PW1 on the trap day and phenolphthalein test conducted to the hand fingers of accused officer and to the right side pant pocket of accused officer also yielded positive results which indicates that, accused officer handled amount and received the same and kept in his pant pocket thereby, voluntarily accepted the amount from PW1, but his contention that, he received said amount from PW1 towards part payment of water cess dues is found to be false in the absence of any demand notice by him or by Tahsildar or passing a receipt evidencing receipt of the said amount towards part payment of arrears of water cess dues and the same is also not spontaneously stated by accused officer during post-trap proceedings and it was found to be subsequent development and an afterthought thereby, prosecution in this case also proved acceptance of gratification of Rs.4000/- by accused from PW1 for doing his work, hence, this point is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

Point No.ii)

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

49.Ex.P1 is the application submitted by PW3 through his son

PW1 to the Tahsildar-PW8 for online entry of his land admeasuring

Ac.1.46 cents in S.No.50-2B of Nelaturu village and also to issue 1-B extract and Adangal. PW1 submitted to Tahsildar on 30.12.2015 and on the same day, Tahsildar endorsed the same as Village Revenue 19

Officer. Ex.P1 contains the said endorsement “as VRO”. Admittedly,

Accused Officer is Village Revenue Officer of Nelaturu village, has to attend the said work.

50.As per prosecution case, PW1 handed over Ex.P1-

Application along with enclosures i.e., photocopy of pattadar pass book and Aadhar card marked as Ex.P12 to Accused Officer on the same day.

At that time, Accused Officer demanded bribe of Rs.6000/- for doing work of the PW1 and on further request of PW1, Accused Officer reduced bribe amount from Rs.6000/- to Rs.4000/-, but unwilling to give the bribe to Accused Officer, PW1 lodged Ex.P2-Complaint to ACB and in the trap, Accused Officer caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe of rs.4000/- from PW1.

51.It is further case of prosecution, that in post-trap proceedings, when DSP questioned Accused Officer about connected official favour document i.e., Ex.P1-Application. Accused Officer took out a brown colour file from iron box in his room and produced Ex.P1-Application,

Ex.P12 photocopy of pattadar passbook and Adhar Card and DSP seized the same in the presence of mediators under cover of Ex.P10 post-trap proceedings. Though, Accused Officer disputed handing over

Ex.P1-Application to him by PW1, but did not dispute seizure of Ex.P1 from him, so the contention of accused is absurd because, without handing over the application by PW1 to him how, Ex.P1 application came into the iron box maintained by Accused Officer ? so, there is no substance in the contention raised by the Accused Officer with regard to receipt of Ex.P1 application from PW1.

52.Further, prosecution rightly examined Tahsildar-PW8, he fully corroborated evidence of PW1 regarding submission of application by PW1 and making his endorsement as “VRO” and handing over 20 application to PW1 with instructions to hand over the same to Village

Revenue Officer-Accused Officer. Tahsildar further clearly stated that, till the date of trap, he did not receive any report from Accused Officer in respect of the work under Ex.P1, therefore, evidence of Tahsildar is made it clear that official favour is pending with the accused as on the date of trap.

53.The alternative contention raised by Accused Officer that, till the orders passed by Joint Collector for mutation, he has no power to enter the land details in the web land, thereby argued that, no official favour is pending with him. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for accused because, Village Revenue

Officer, being officer at the ground level and who has got as ‘ajamaoshi’ on all kinds of lands in the village, therefore, unless he prepares report by making local inspection at the ground level, orders cannot be passed by the higher authorities, therefore, I find, no substance in the contention of accused.

54.In this case, evidence of PW1 it was corroborated by his father-PW3 and further corroborated by Tahsildar-PW8 regarding pendency of official favour with accused and seizure of official favour document-Ex.P1 with enclosures Ex.P12 from the custody of Accused

Officer on the trap day further strengthens case of the prosecution regarding pendency of official favour with the accused as on date of the trap.

55.Curiously, no suggestion was given by the learned defence counsel either to mediator-PW2 or to the TLO-PW10 that, Ex.P1-

Application was not seized from the possession/custody of Accused

Officer as on the date of the trap. In Ex.P10 post-trap proceedings, it was clearly mentioned that, Ex.P1 official favour document was seized 21 from the iron box in the custody of Accused Officer and Accused Officer only voluntarily produced the same kept in a brown colour file from the iron box.

56.As per the decision relied by learned Special Public

Prosecutor for ACB in Krishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala , the mediators report is a contemporaneous document, hence, the contents of mediator report can be relied by Courts, except confessional statement of accused, if any. Therefore, taking into consideration of evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW8-Tahsildar coupled with Exs.P1, Ex.P12 and P10, I hold that, prosecution in this case has proved pendency of official favour with accused as on the date of trap, hence this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the Accused Officer.

Points iii & iv)

RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT:

57.As per the prosecution case, on demand by accused officer, P.W-1 gave tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- to accused officer and accused officer received the same with his right hand and kept the same in his right side pant pocket and DSP recovered the said amount from the possession of accused officer during trap proceedings in the presence of mediators. Accused contends that, he did not make any demand for bribe, but received the said amount from PW1 towards part payment of arrears of water cess due, but the suggestion given to PW1 that he received Rs.4000/- towards water cess due was denied.

Mediator also denied the suggestion that accused spontaneously stated during post trap proceedings to DSP that, he received Rs.4000/- from PW1 towards water cess dues, but there is no such spontaneous explanation in Ex.P10 post trap proceedings.

22

58.If really accused officer should have given such a spontaneous explanation to DSP certainly, the mediators would have noted/mentioned the same in the post trap proceedings. PW3, father of PW1 also denied defence theory that accused officer received

Rs.4000/- from his son-PW1 towards water cess dues. TLO (DSP)-PW10 also denied the suggestion that Accused Officer spontaneously explained during post-trap proceedings that he received Rs.4000/- from

PW1 toward water cess dues but not as bribe, however, he did not record true version given by accused officer and prepared post trap proceedings with false recitals to suit his case.

59.Whether the accused officer received Rs.4000/- from PW1 towards water cess dues or as bribe is a different aspect, which will be discussed at length under the heading of defence theory in my later discussion, but the fact remains that, the tainted amount of Rs.4000/- was recovered from the possession of Accused Officer i.e., in his right side pant pocket. Prosecution proved the recovery of tainted amount by examining mediator–PW2 who clearly stated in his evidence as to how tainted amount of Rs.4000/- was recovered from the possession of accused officer on the trap day and his evidence was further corroborated trap laying officer (DSP).

60.Accused also admitted receipt of the amount from PW1 but claimed that it is for some other purpose. In the post-trap proceedings when DSP questioned accused officer about the tainted amount,

Accused Officer voluntarily produced the tainted amount from his right side pant pocket and handed over to the mediators and PW2 who verified the currency note numbers with the numbers already mentioned in pre-trap proceedings and on doing so, both of them are tallied. So, further proof of recovery of tainted amount is not required 23 in view of typical stand taken by the accused officer, thereby, I answer this point in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

61.As per prosecution case, accused officer received tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- (M.O-5) from P.W-1, with his right hand and kept the same in his right side trouser pocket and on receipt of pre-arranged signal from P.W-1 through Police Constable-Prathap, DSP with the trap party members rushed into office room of accused officer and apprehended him and DSP initially conducted phenolphthalein test to the both hand fingers of accused officer by preparing sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and asked accused officer to rinse his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately, on doing so, both right hand and left hand washes of accused officer turned pink, M.Os.3 and 4 are the resultant solutions of right hand and left hand wash respectively, proves the said fact.

62.When DSP questioned accused officer about the tainted amount on that, accused officer took out a wad of currency notes from his right side trouser pocket and on the instructions of DSP accused officer handed over the amount to mediator-P.W.2 who verified the denomination and currency note numbers of the said notes and compared with the currency note numbers already mentioned in Ex.P.4- pre trap proceedings and on doing so, both of them are tallied. Then,

DSP seized the tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- (500x8=4000) from the possession of accused officer, M.O-5 is the photocopy of currency notes of Rs.5,000/-, since original trap amount was deposited in F.D.R. after demonetization, proves the said fact.

63. Then DSP collected wearing pant of accused officer and also conducted chemical test to the contacted portion of the tainted 24 amount to the inner linings of right side pant pocket of accused officer to the phenolphthalein test and on doing so, it was also turned into pink, M.O-6 is the resultant solution of the contacted portion of right side pant pocket, M.O-7 is the wearing pant of the accused officer seized by DSP, prove the said facts. Mediator-P.W.2 also stated in his evidence as to the manner of conducting phenolphthalein tests to both hand fingers of accused officer and contacted portion of right side pant pocket of accused officer and yielding of positive results of phenolphthalein tests and his evidence was further corroborated by

Trap Laying Officer-P.W.10.

64.Accused did not disputed with the positive results of the phenolphthalein tests by advancing defence theory that, he received

Rs.4000/- from PW1 towards arrears of water cess dues, but not as a bribe. Learned counsel elicited some discrepancies with regard to the phenolphthalein tests one is that, though accused officer received amount with his right hand and kept the same in his right pant pocket without counting with his both hands but, chemical test conducted to both hand fingers turned pink is improbable.

65.The other discrepancy that, as per the statement given by

PW1 before Magistrate recorded under Sec.164 Cr.P.C., phenolphthalein was conducted after recovery of amount from the accused by dipping currency notes in sodium carbonate solution but not before recovery of the amount, at any rate, in view of admission of receipt of the amount of Rs.4000/- by accused officer from PW1 towards arrears of water cess dues, these discrepancies pointed out by the accused officer have no significance. If the accused officer did not take such a plea of receipt of the amount certainly, these discrepancies will have some affect on the case of the prosecution. Hence, in view of typical defence theory advanced by accused, the discrepancies pointed out by the accused 25 officer with regard to the positive results of the phenolphthalein test are not material, thereby, I hold this point answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

DEFENCE THEORY:

66.Accused officer seriously contended that PW3 owner of the land and some other ryots in Nelaturu village have to pay water cess dues to the revenue Department and Tahsildar issued orders under

Ex.D2 for collection of water cess from the farmers on 20.01.2016 directing all the VROs to collect the water cess from the farmers. Ex.D3 is the memo dt.08.02.2016 issued by Tahsildar to all the VROs to take immediate action in the matter. Ex.D4 is copy of water cess register of

Nelaturu village, shows the details of water cess dues by farmers and as per Ex.D4 register, PW3 has to pay water cess to a tune of Rs.8000/- and odd. Learned counsel for accused officer vehemently argued that, when accused officer insisted PW1 and his father-PW3 to clear water cess dues, as such, PW1 became insulted in the village developed grudge agasint him and falsely implicated him in this trap case, though he did not demand bribe from PW1 and on the trap day, he received

Rs.4000/- from PW1 towards part payment of water cess dues.

67.But the defence theory now taken by the accused during course of trial, was not at all spontaneously stated by him either to the mediators or to the DSP during post trap proceedings, therefore, defence theory now taken by the accused officer is a subsequent development and an afterthought and it need not be considered as per ratio laid down in leading cases M.Varaprasad and Abdul Kafar’s case.

26

68.Further, there was no demand notice either by Tahsildar or the VRO either to PW1 or PW3 calling them to pay water cess dues. If really, the accused officer had taken Rs.4000/- from PW1 towards water cess dues certainly, he would have issued a receipt evidencing collection of water cess dues, therefore, in the absence of any demand notice or a payment receipt, the theory advanced by accused officer during course of trial is not reliable and not probable. The defence theory raised by accused during course of trial, was suggested to defacto-complainant-PW1, his father-PW3, mediator-PW2 and TLO-

PW10, but all of them categorically denied the defence theory suggested to them.

69.Tahsildar-PW8 only stated about issuance of proceedings under Exs.D2 and D3 for collection of the tax which was not in dispute.

He also stated that VRO-Accused Officer is also competent to collect part payments of water cess dues as and when paid by the farmers that’s all. In the re-examination, the learned Special Public Prosecutor clarified the Tahsildar that he has not issued a notice to PW3 for payment of water cess dues. In my view, no prudent person in these hard days, would pay the water cess without demand notice by the

Revenue Department. The other official witnesses i.e., Village Revenue

Officers PW4, PW7, Village Revenue Assistant-PW5 only stated about the orders issued by Tahsildar for collection of water cess dues.

70.PW5-Village Revenue Assistant who is working under accused officer stated in the cross-examination for accused officer that

PW1 might have paid Rs.4000/- to accused officer towards water cess charges is not find place in his earlier statement given to the ACB

Officials or during post-trap proceedings, hence the interested testimony of this hostile witness-PW5 need not be relied.

27

71.Village Revenue Officers-PW4 and PW6 are also colleagues of accused officer interested to save the accused officer from this trap case and their improvised evidence will not render any help to the accused. Suggestions given to mediator-PW2 and TLO-PW10 that inspite of spontaneous explanation by accused officer about the defence theory of receipt of amount from PW1 towards water cess dues, they have not incorporated same in post-trap proceedings and false recitals were incorporated against actual events, was categorically denied by both of them.

72.Admittedly, mediator-PW2 is a Head master have no disputes with the accused, likewise DSP-PW10 have also no differences with the accused officer, so also PW1 is not highly influential person but a poor agriculturist having only Ac.3.50 cents of land. So, he cannot influence ACB officials in the rank of DSP to fabricate a complaint and book a false case against the accused, hence, I find no substance or truth in the suggestions put to the mediator-PW2 and

TLO-PW10.

73.At any rate, in the absence of spontaneous explanation in the post-trap proceedings about the defence theory and in the absence of any demand notice or receipt for the amount received from PW1, it can be taken as gratification other than the legal remuneration because, no public servant is expected to receive amount/cash from any public without issuing any receipt. Therefore, I hold that, the defence theory advanced by accused officer in this case is not at all probable and need not be considered, hence this point is answered against the accused and in favour of prosecution.

PRESUMPTION:

28

74.Prosecution, in this case, has proved the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.4000/- by accused from PW1 by examining complainant as PW1 who fully supported the prosecution case on all material aspects. Prosecution also proved recovery of tainted amount from the possession of accused officer and pendency of official favour with accused by seizure of Ex.P1-Application submitted by PW1 for online entry and issuance of 1-B register, by examining the mediator-

PW2 who fully supported prosecution case and his evidence further corroborated by TLO-PW10 thereby, prosecution proved all the foundational aspects and entitled to claim mandatory presumption provided under Sec.20(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prove the offence under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and shifted the onus on accused, but the accused failed to rebut the said presumption by advancing a probable defence and the defence theory advanced by him that he received Rs.4000/- from PW1 towards water cess dues is found to be the subsequent development and an afterthought and not supported by either demand notice or payment receipt, hence it shall be presumed that the amount of Rs.4000/- received by accused from PW1 is only as gratification other than legal remuneration, hence this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

SANCTION:

75.Though prosecution could not examine sanction issuing authority i.e., the then Prl. Secretary to the Government i.e.,

Sri.Dr.Manmohan Singh, who issued Ex.P.19- sanction order to prosecute the accused, for the offences U/S 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

P.C. Act, 1988 vide G.O.Ms.No.153 dt.03.04.2018, but, examined P.W.9-

Section Officer and marked Ex.P-19 sanction order through him. The

Section Officer brought the connected file from the office and deposed 29

before the court as to how file was circulated and sanction order was

issued by the sanctioning authority after perusal of the entire material on record and after satisfaction, by applying her mind and issued sanction orders. He also stated that, he worked before Sanction issuing

Authority Sri.Dr.Manmohan Singh, thereby, he got acquaintance with the signature of Sri.Dr.Manmohan Singh and thereby, identified her signature in Ex.P-19 sanction order, before the court.

76.The Learned counsel for accused contends that P.W-9

Section Officer had no personal knowledge regarding the file and he was not physically present at the time of issuing sanction order by

Sri.Dr.Manmohan Singh and he further contends that, on the specimen sanction order furnished by DG, ACB, Ex.P-19 was issued, on similar lines mechanically without applying the mind but, this suggestion put to P.W-9 was denied.

77.The record reveals that, after perusing the entire material on record and after satisfaction only, the sanction order was issued by the authority who is competent to remove the accused from service.

As far as, non-examination of Sanctioning Authority is concerned, this court is relying on the following decisions. One is reported in State of

M.P., Vs. Jialal wherein it was held that:

“Non-examination of Sanctioning Authority had no adverse effect on the validity of sanction, since sanction order was passed in discharge of routine official functions.

Hence there is a presumption that same was done in bonafide manner”.

The next decision reported in Public Prosecutor Vs. High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. P.Subhashchandra Reddy, wherein it was held that:

30 “Examination of Sanctioning authority is not necessary, but the examination of the Officer who is acquainted with the signature of Sanctioning Authority is sufficient to prove the sanction”.

78.In this case, except putting a bald suggestion that, sanction was issued mechanically without verifying the record and without application of mind but, this suggestion was denied however, nothing was elicited in the evidence of P.W-9. No instances or circumstances are elicited or brought on record, to show non application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Further, accused did not place any material to show what was the prejudice that was caused to him while, granting sanctioning orders by the competent authority and therefore, contention of the accused that, sanction was issued mechanically without application of mind and non-examination of

Sanctioning Authority, is of no consequence in the light ratio laid down in the above said decisions, thereby, I hold that, prosecution in this case duly proved the sanction order-Ex.P.19 as per law to prosecute the accused for the offences U/S.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt hence, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

CASE LAW:

79.The Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB relied a decision reported in Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, it was held that, sole evidence of complainant is sufficient, corroboration need not be direct and can be by way of circumstantial evidence also.

In B.Nagul Sharief Vs State of A.P.,wherein, it was held that, discrepancy regarding part of prosecution story does not go to the root of the case.

31

In Raghubir Singh Vs State of Haryana,wherein, it was held that, acceptance of illegal gratification is Res ipsa loquitor.

In C.M.Sarma Vs State of A.P.,wherein, it was held that, complainant is not an accomplice, hence corroboration is not necessary.

In Shiv Raj Singh Vs Delhi Administration,wherein, it was held that, no official favour or intention to do any official favour also, case made out under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

In Shankar bhai Laljibhai Rot Vs State of Gujarat, wherein, it was held that, discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution is immaterial, when the substance of the case of the prosecution is not disturbed, thereby, minor discrepancies cannot be magnifies.

In C.K.Damodarana Nair Vs Government of India,wherein, it was held that, when recovery of marked currency notes from possession of

Accused Officer not disputed, presumption will come into play and non- rebuttable of presumption, accused can be convicted.

80.All the above decisions, relied by learned Special Public

Prosecutor for ACB, definitely gives support to prosecution case, in establishing the guilt against the accused for demanding bribe under

Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and accepting bribe by corrupt and illegal means which attracts Criminal Mis-conduct under Sec.13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

81.The Accused Officer did not dispute the ratio laid down in the above said decisions and did not place any authorities in support of his contention that, he received the amount from PW1 towards part payment of water cess dues, but not as gratification and will not attract the charges, but the material placed by the prosecution only show that, 32

Accused Officer received Rs.4000/- from PW1 as a gratification other than the legal remuneration because, he did not issue any demand notice and did not pass any receipt to complainant after receipt of amount from him. Therefore, Accused Officer liable to be convicted for both the charges.

Conclusion:

82.From the foregoing discussion on point Nos. i to iv in detail and taking into consideration of evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 and reliable part of evidence of PWs.4 to 7 and Tahsildar-PW8, Section

Officer-PW9, TLO-PW10 and Final Investigation Officer-PW11 coupled with Exs.P1 to P21 I hold that, the prosecution in this case, proved the guilt against the accused for the offences U/S.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, beyond all reasonable doubt hence, accused in this case is liable for conviction for both charges accordingly.

83.Accused was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim).

Accused Officer stated that, he is aged 47 years. He got wife and four children, out of which, two are male and two are female and they are prosecuting their studies. His parents are no more. At present, he is working as Village Revenue Officer in Undadi Village, Chinnamandem

Mandal, Kadapa District. He had no own house or landed property. He further stated that, he has been suffering from high blood pressure and his health is not good and entire family is depending upon him. If he is sentenced to jail, there will be none to look after them and entire family will be on roads, thereby requested the Court to take lenient view and reduce the punishment.

[ 33

On the other hand, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, submits that, accused shall be punished properly in view of increase of corruption in all corners of the society day by day without showing any leniency towards accused taking into consideration of gravity of the offences and seriousness of the cases registered by ACB after thorough and deep investigation.

The corruption is a serious offence which affects entire economy of nation, as such, accused cannot escape from the compulsory imprisonment provided under the Act, for the offences proved against him which are classified as socio-economic offences and considered to be grave in nature, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences. The benevolent provisions u/S.360 of Cr.P.C., and Sec. 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders

Act, are also cannot be extended to convicts in these type of cases. In view of the above ‘special reasons’ putforth and as the Accused Officer is charged by ACB under old Act No.49 of 1988 and not under amended

Act No.1 of 2014, he can be sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under each count, which is suffice and will meet the ends of justice, by virtue of Sec. 354(4) of Cr.P.C.

84.In the result, accused officer 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 he is convicted U/S.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Accused officer is sentenced to suffer Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and shall pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- for the offence U/S.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and accused officer is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence U/S.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, in 34 default of payment of fine, accused officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under each count.

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

Remand period undergone by accused i.e.,from 23- 02-2016 to 16-03-2016 shall be set off U/S.428 Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount payable by accused is Rs.10,000/- +

Rs.10,000/- = Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only).

M.O.5 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.4,000/-(which is in FDR) is ordered to be returned to Complainant-P.W.1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the

Government Treasury and rest of the material objects M.Os. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 shall be destroyed, after appeal time.

Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the District Collector,

Kadapa, as per Rule 73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 22nd day of October, 2021.

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1E.Srinivasulu Reddy. PW2P.Vijaya Reddy. PW3E.Nageswar Reddy. PW4C.Venkata Subba Reddy.

35

PW5D.Dastagiri. PW6N.Venkata Raman Reddy. PW7K.Chandra Sekhar Rao. PW8Sree Ramdas Premantha Kumar. PW9N.Pradad. PW10N.Nagaraju. PW11S.D.Siva Shankar Naik.

FOR DEFENCE: None

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P130.12.2015Application of PW1 to Tahsildar, Duvvur. (3 sheets) Ex.P220.02.2016Original complaint. Ex.P320.02.2016Copy of complaint with FIR. Ex.P422.02.2016Pre-trap proceedings. (M.R.I.) Ex.P523.02.2016Adangal/Pahani of Nelaturu village, Duvvur Mandal for fasali 1421. Ex.P622.02.20161-B register of Nelaturu village, Duvvur Mandal for fasali 1421. Ex.P722.02.2016Executive Staff Movement Register. Ex.P822.02.2016Casual Leave Register for the year 2016. Ex.P922.02.2016Rough sketch. Ex.P1022-02-2016Post-trap proceedings. Ex.P1122.02.2016Search list along with search proceedings. Ex.P12Photocopy of pattadar passbook. Ex.P1322.07.1982.Certified copy of registration copy of sale deed. Ex.P1425.03.2016Relevant portion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW4. Ex.P1525.03.2016Relevant portion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW5. Ex.P1625.03.2016Relevant portion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW6. Ex.P1725.03.2016Relevant underlined portion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW7. Ex.P1816.11.2020.Authorization letter for Section Officer. Ex.P1903.04.2018.Sanction order vide GOMs.No.153. Ex.P20Original F.I.R. Ex.P2129.02.2016Photocopy of service particulars and job chart of A.O.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D117.06.20191-B namuna (ROR) issued by e-seva. Ex.D220.01.2016Order issued by PW8 vide Ref.No.16/2016. Ex.D308.02.2016Memo issued by PW8. Ex.D426.04.2019True copy of Water Cess Register showing water Cess dues.

36

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1One sealed cover contains sample of Sodium Carbonate powder. MO2One sealed cover contains sample of phenolphthalein powder. MO3Resultant Solution of right hand wash of A.O. MO4Resultant Solution of left hand wash of A.O. MO5Photocopy of currency notes. MO6Resultant solution of the contacted portion of pant pocket. MO7Pant of A.O. MO8Cover containing Sodium Carbonate powder.

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

37

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

KURNOOL.

C.C.NO.06/2018

1. Date of OffencePrior to 20-02-2016

2.Date of Report or Complaint20-02-2016

3.Date of Appearance of the 11-12-2018 Accused

4.Date of Release on bail16-03-2016

5.Date of Commencement of trial22-03-2019

6.Date of close of the trial23-02-2021

7.Date of Sentence of Order 22-10-2021

8.Explanation of delay and - remarks

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO. 18/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES, KURNOOL.

ComplainantThe State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kadapa Range, Kadapa. AccusedShaik Mahaboob Basha, son of Badulia Saheb, Village Revenue Officer, Nelatur Village, Office of Tahasildar, Duvvur Mandal, YSR District. Anantapur District. OffencePublic servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for offence punishable U/Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. FindingAccused officer is found guilty.

Sentence orIn the result, accused officer is found guilty for the offences punishable U/S.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Order Act,1988 and he is convicted U/S.248(2) Cr.P.C. Accused officer is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence U/S.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and accused officer is also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- 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 officer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under each count. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against accused shall run concurrently. Remand period undergone by accused i.e.,from 23-02-2016 to 16-03-2016 shall be set off U/S.428 Cr.P.C. Total fine amount payable by accused is Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only).

M.O.5 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.4,000/-(which is in FDR) is ordered to be returned to Complainant-P.W.1 if not reimbursed 38 earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects M.Os. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 shall be destroyed, after appeal time.

Copy of the judgment shall be marked to the District Collector, Kadapa, as per Rule 73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

Kurnool.

Copy submitted to:

The Registrar(Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN Code No.522237.

The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau Headquarters, 2nd floor, A.P.Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada.

Copy to:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kadapa Range, Kadapa.

The Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B.Court, Kadapa.

1

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

CASES, KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bhaskara Rao,

Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

KURNOOL.

Friday, the 8 th day of April, 2022.

CALENDAR CASE No.26/2017

Between:

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range, Kurnool.…. Complainant -And-

Guddeti Viswanath, son of G.Chandrasekhar, 28 years, Asst. Executive Engineer, (R&B), Town Section, Office of the Dy.E.E. R&B, Building Sub-Division, Kurnool…Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing on 30-3-2022 in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri.K.Ravindra

Babu, and Sri N.Shanmukham, Advocates for accused officer, 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 case of the prosecution in brief, is that, at the time of alleged occurrence, Accused Officer (hereinafter referred as ‘AO’ in short) worked as Assistant Executive Engineer (hereinafter referred as ‘AEE’ in short), Kurnool and is a public servant within the definition of

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

2

2.It is further case of prosecution is that, PW1-K.Pullaiah, licensed Class-V R&B Contactor in Kurnool. During month of June, 2015, PW1 was awarded contract work worth Rs.4,18,500/- in general tenders to effect repairs for 19 A type quarters in Fisheries compound,

Kurnool PW1 commenced work in the first week of September,2015 and completed by second week of October, 2015. After completion of work, AO who was working as AEE and PW8-Deputy Executive Engineer (hereinafter referred ‘Dy.E.E.’ inspected the work and took measurements. As there was left over in the estimated amount of work, R&B officials directed PW1 to fix number plates to the

Government Quarters in A, B and C Camps, Kurnool. PW1 also completed the said work in the month of October, 2015 itself. The AO inspected all the works executed by him.

3.It is alleged that, in the first week of November, 2015, PW1 met AO at his office and requested him to record the work executed by him in M-Book, prepare work estimate bills and forward the same to

Dy.E.E. To attend the said work, AO demanded bribe of Rs.45,000/- from PW1, but PW1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount.

Again PW1 met AO in the last week of November, 2015 requested AO to attend his work, but AO reiterated his earlier demand and when PW1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, AO reduced the bribe to Rs.40,000/-. As there was no other go PW1 reluctantly agreed to give the demanded bribe amount to AO. In the first week of

December, 2015, AO took Rs.25,000/- bribe by getting pressure on

PW1 and informed PW1 to pay balance of Rs.15,000/- within 3 or 4 days, then, PW1 requested AO to forward his bills to Dy.E.E. first, thereafter, he will pay the balance amount and returned.

3

4.It is further alleged that, again on 23.12.2015 PW1 met AO in his office and enquired about his bills and M-Book and AO stated that, only on payment of balance of Rs.15,000/- bribe, he will forward his bills and M-Book to Dy.E.E. or else, he will not send them. As there was no other go, PW1 agreed to pay the balance amount, on that, AO asked PW1 to pay balance amount within 5 or 6 days either to him or to the person directed by him either in his office or at the place choosen by him, but unwilling to give the bribe amount, PW1 approached Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred as ‘DSP’ in short), ACB, Kurnool and lodged a complaint against the AO on 26.12.2015 at 5.00 PM.

5.DSP–PW11 received complaint from PW1 and got conducted discreet enquiries through his Inspector of Police-PW13 and after due verifications, he registered the complaint as a case in

Cr.12/RCT/KUR/2015 under Secs.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 29.12.2015 at 10.00 AM and took up investigation.

6.During course of investigation, DSP secured mediators-

PW2, LW3-B.Ravi conducted pre-trap proceedings in the office of DSP,

ACB, Kurnool under Ex.P7 in between 10.45 AM to 11.30 AM, in which,

DSP got verified contents of the complaint with PW1 by mediators, got applied phenolphthalein powder to the proposed bribe amount of

Rs.15,000/- produced by PW1, later kept the amount in the left side shift pocket of PW1, demonstrated phenolphthalein test and explained significance of the test. Later, gave instructions to PW1 to give bribe amount to AO only on his further demand, but not otherwise and further instructed to PW1 to give signal to the Inspector-Seetha Rama

Rao, by wiping his face with hand kerchief thrice.

4

7.It is further alleged that, after completion of pre-trap proceedings in the office of DSP, ACB, Kurnool, DSP-PW11 along with his staff, mediators and PW1 boarded in two Government vehicles reached vicinity of office of Dy.E.E., C-Camp, Kurnool town at 11.35 AM.

Then, DSP reiterated earlier to instructions to PW1 allowed him to go and meet AO and trap party took vantage positions in the vicinity of the office. PW1 entered into the office of Dy.E.E., R&B, Kurnool at 11.45

AM and came out at 11.55 AM and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party. On observing signal, DSP with trap party members rushed into the Chambers of Dy.E.E. from which, PW1 came out and before entering into the Chambers of Dy.E.E., PW1 informed DSP, that he handed over bribe amount to AO who received the same with his right hand and kept the same on the surface of the table of the Dy.E.E.

underneath 2 M-Books laying on the table. Then, DSP asked PW1 to wait outside for some time but, PW1 complained headache and omitting sensation, hence DSP asked PW1 to take rest at his house and attend before him as and when he was called.

8.At 12:00 noon DSP with trap party members entered into the office chambers of Dy.E.E. found Dy.E.E. in his seat and AO sitting opposite to him and one Contractor-PW7 was present along with them.

DSP after disclosing his identity and after ascertaining identity particulars of the said persons, conducted phenolphthalein test to the hand fingers of AO, on doing so, both right hand and left hand washes turned into pink. Then, DSP questioned AO about tainted amount-MO3 received from PW1, AO denied the same, but shown bunch of currency notes underneath the M-Books on the top of table. On instructions of DSP, PW2 took the currency notes counted and verified the numbers compared with the numbers in pre-trap proceedings, on doing so, both of them were tallied, then DSP seized tainted amount of 5

Rs.15,000/-. Later, DSP conducted chemical test to the contacted portion of office table of Dy.E.E. by swabbing with a cotton and dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, on doing so, it was also turned pink,

DSP seized all the resultant solutions duly sealed, labeled and affixed identity slips. On verification of M-Books found on the table, relates to contract work of KVR Government Degree College for Women but, not relates to this case, hence DSP returned the same to PW8.

9.Then, DSP questioned AO about the demand and acceptance of bribe from PW1, but AO denied the same. Then DSP asked AO about the official favour of records, on that, AO stated that they are with work Inspector-PW9 and then DSP called Work Inspector through PW8 along with the connected records and after 5 minutes,

PW9 produced 2 M-Books-Exs.P8 and P9 and the work estimates bills-

Ex.P10. Ex.P11-Attested copy of account bill-C. DSP seized all the records. Later, DSP examined Dy.E.E., Contractor and some other lower cadre staff present in the office, later drawn rough sketch and arrested

AO at 9.00 PM and concluded post-trap proceedings at 9:15 PM under

Ex.P13. On the next day, DSP produced AO before the Court for remand. Subsequently, DSP examined PW1, PWs.3 to 6 and recorded their detailed statements. Thereafter, he handed over further investigation to Inspector of Police-PW13 who examined remaining witnesses and after completion of entire investigation, he submitted

Draft final report to DG, ACB, and after receipt of sanction proceedings,

PW12-Inspector of Police, ACB, Kurnool filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Accused Officer and took up investigation.

10.The Learned Predecessor of this court, had taken cognizance of the offence under Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of 6

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused officer on 13-11-2017.

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

12.On 22-01-2019,this Court examined the accused U/S. 239

Cr.P.C., the accused denied the offences hence, charges U/ Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against the accused read over and explained to them in Telugu but, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

13.In order to prove the guilt, prosecution cited as many

as 15 witnesses, but examined only 13 witnesses.

14.PW1-K.Pullaiah who is defacto-complainant in this case but he did not support prosecution case and turned hostile.

15.PW2-Dr.Nese Bandika Loka Raju, said to be mediator present during pre and post trap proceedings stated about apprehension of Accused, seizure of tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- from AO and official favour records from the office of Accused.

16.PW3-S.Gresamma, Attender working in the office of Dy.EE,

R&B Office, Kurnool stated that, she did not observe any transaction between PW1 and AO.

17.PW4-Mohd. Shamshuddin, Helper, working in the office of

Dy.EE, R&B Office, Kurnool stated that he did not observe any transaction between PW1 and AO.

7

18.PW5-G.Chinna Madhaiah, Retired Gang Mazdur, previously worked in the office of Dy.EE, R&B Office, Kurnool stated that he did not observe any transaction between PW1 and AO.

19.PW6-K.Jeevaratnam, Plumber working in the office of

Dy.EE, R&B Office, Kurnool also stated that he did not observe any transaction between PW1 and AO.

20.PW7-E.Sreenivasula Reddy, Contractor, said to have present in the chambers of Dy.E.E. at the time of alleged occurrence stated that, while he was in the chambers of Dy.E.E. along with AO,

PW1 entered the room and made brief talk with AO and AO questioned why he came again, then PW1 kept some amount by the side of M-

Books on the table and immediately left the room, at that time, some police officials entered the room of Dy.E.E., questioned AO about the amount and AO handed over the same to police, thereby, PW7 was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

21.PW8-K.Krishna Reddy, Dy.E.E., in the office of R&B, Kurnool stated about work allotted to PW1 and execution of the same by him entering divisional agreement by PW1 with Executive Engineer (hereinafter referred as ‘EE’ in short) under Ex.P15, completion of work by PW1 and necessity of supplemental agreement for additional work or deviations by contractor with EE, additional work attended by PW1, procedure for preparation of estimates by AE taking measurements by

AE and check measurements by him, preparation of abstract of the bill and account bill-C by the Work Inspector sending the same to Dy.E.E.

for approval and from EE the bills will go to PAO. He further stated that, in this case, PW1 recorded measurements in Exs.P8 and P9-M-

Books preparation of bill extract by Work Inspector and his conducting check measurements. He further stated that, on the trap day while 8

PW1 and PW7 were in his chambers, PW1 entered his chambers had some conversation with AO, on that, AO stated to PW1 why he came again, on that, PW1 took out some amount from his pocket kept on his table underneath M-Books and left the room and immediately ACB officials entered his room questioned AO about demand and acceptance, but AO denied the same then, ACB officials asked AO to lift the amount on the table and handover the same to him and accordingly, AO took out the amount from the table and handed over the same to the ACB officials, thereby PW8 was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

22.PW9-A.Subramanyam, Work Inspector in the office of AAE,

R&B, Kurnool, he also corroborated evidence of Dy.E.E.-PW8 regarding allotment of contract work to PW1 entering into agreement by PW1 with EE estimation of the work, execution of work by PW1, taking measurements by AO and check measurements by Dy.E.E. as per orders of AO, he prepared work estimates and bill-C amount-Exs.P10 and P11 and AO sent Ex.P10 work estimate to PW8 and asked him to prepare abstract of bill and keep with him and handover the same after receipt of supplementary agreement from the office of EE, therefore, he kept Exs.P8 to P10 with him. While so, on 29.12.2015 he received phone call from PW8 to bring M-Books and other connected documents to his office, accordingly he has taken all the records and handed over to PW8. At that time, he came to know about trap of AO, but on some urgent personal work he left the office of Dy.E.E., thereby, he was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

23.PW10-Y.Bhargavi, Section Officer stated about issuance of sanction proceedings by the then Prl. Secretary to the Government

Sumita Dawraunder Ex.P27 vide G.O.Ms.No.51 dt.26.9.2017 and she identified signature of Sumita Dawra in Ex.P27.

9

24.PW11-M.Mahaboob Basha, DSP, ACB, Kurnool, stated about receipt of complaint from PW1, conducted discreet enquiries through his Inspector-PW13, Registration of FIR, laying trap against AO, arrest of AO and seizure of tainted amount of Rs.15,000/-, conducting seizure of connected records, conducting part of investigation and handing over further investigation to Inspector-PW13.

25.PW12-S.D.Tejeswara Rao, Inspector, ACB, Kurnool, stated about filing of charge sheet in this case.

26.PW13-G.Seetha Rama Rao, Inspector, ACB stated about his conducting discreet enquiries, assisting DSP in trap proceedings, examination of witnesses and seizure of relevant records.

27.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P-1 to P-31 and M.Os.1 to 8 are marked.

28.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.

29.AO filed written statement by denying the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.15,000/- for preparation of work estimate bill and to forward the same to Dy.E.E. and also to get the bills passed by his superior officers.

30.He further stated that, PW1 clearly stated in his evidence that, Subramanyam, Work Inspector-PW9 used to demand amount from

PW1 under pretext to be given to the officials but, officials never demanded amount from him and that AO also never demanded bribe amount while he was visiting the place at any time and therefore, he 10 gave complaint against Subramanyam-Work Inspector-PW9 to ACB

Officials on 26.12.2015 but it was not registered till 29.12.2015.

31.He further stated that, he recorded the work executed by

PW1 in M-Book and for the additional work PW1 have to enter into supplementary work with Executive Officer and the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that he entered supplementary agreement on 31.12.2015. The evidence of PW8 clearly discloses that basing on

Comparative Statement-Ex.D3, a supplementary agreement has to be entered by contractor with Executive Engineer and as on the date of trap, supplementary agreement was not entered by PW1 with

Executive Engineer and that, there is no official work pertaining to PW1 was pending as on the date of complaint-Ex.P1, since, AO forwarded the detailed abstract of working estimate along with comparative statement. PW8 categorically stated in his evidence that subsequent to the trap, supplementary agreement was entered in between PW1 and Executive Engineer later, abstract bill and account bill-C was sent to Office of Executive Engineer for passing the bill and neither AO nor

PW8 are competent to pass the bill. There is corroboration of evidence of PW1, PW8 and PW9 regarding the supplementary agreement was entered into between PW1 and Executive Engineer and there is no official favour pending with AO since did not receive supplementary agreement.

32.He also stated that, PW11-DSP also admitted in evidence that, bill passing authority is Executive Engineer and PW1 did

additional work i.e., fixing of number plates, for which, supplementary

agreement has to be entered with Executive Engineer by PW1, then only, passing of bills of PW1 will arise.

11

33.He also stated that, during course of trial, PW1 clearly admitted in his evidence that on 29.12.2015 AO did not demand bribe of Rs.15,000/- and accepted the same. His evidence disclosed that, first he went to the chambers of AO but, Subramanyam, Work

Inspecotr-PW9 was not there in this chambers. As per the direction of the DSP, ACB, PW1 gave amount to the AO with a request to hand over the same to Subramanyam-Work Inspecotr-PW9 but, the AO refused the same with his both hands and he waited outside the office till 11:50

AM, meanwhile, ACB officials entered into the compound of Dy.E.E.

office. In the meanwhile, AO went to the chambers of Dy.E.E.. On seeing the same, PW1 again requested AO to receive the amount but, he scolded PW1 why he was offering amount inspite of his refusal, then

PW1 kept the amount underneath two M-Books on the table and went out and on observing the same, ACB officials immediately entered the room and recovered the amount underneath the M-Books. This much of evidence clearly shows that, AO never demanded and accepted any bribe of Rs.15,000/- on 29.12.2015 and prosecution failed to prove the above mentioned fact. The AO gave spontaneous explanation during the course of post-trap proceedings that, he never demanded and accepted any bribe from PW1.

34.He lastly stated that, prosecution in this case failed to prove charge against him beyond reasonable doubt and there is no material before Court to prove charges against him, hence prayed the

Court to acquit him from the charges in the interest of justice.

35.AO did not examine any witnesses on his behalf, but marked Exs.D1 to D4 on his side.

36.Heard arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor for

ACB and learned counsel for AO.

12

37.Now, the points for determination are:

i)Whether, Accused Officer demanded and accepted Rs.15000/- from PW1 as gratification, other than legal remuneration for doing official favour of ‘for recording measurements of contract work executed by PW1 in M- Books, to prepare work estimate bill and to forward the same to Dy.E.E. and get the bills passed’ ?

ii)Whether, official favour of ‘for recording measurements of contract work executed by PW1 in M-Books, to prepare work estimate bill and to forward the same to Dy.E.E. and get the bills passed’ is pending with Accused Officer as on the date of the trap?

iii)Whether, Accused Officer while discharging his duties as AEE, as public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage from P.W-1 by corrupt and illegal means thereby, he committed Criminal Misconduct?

iv)Whether, prosecution proved the guilt for the offences U/S.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused officer beyond reasonable doubt ?

ADMITTED FACTS:

38.At the time of alleged occurrence, Accused Officer was working as AEE, (R&B), Town Section, Office of the Dy.E.E. R&B, Building Sub-

Division, Kurnool and by virtue of post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant within the definition of Section 2(c) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which, there was no dispute at all.

39. It is also an admitted fact that, PW1 is a Licensed R & B

Contractor and got contract work worth Rs.4,18,500/- in open tenders to effect repairs to 19/A type quarters in Fisheries Compound, Kurnool.

PW1 started work in the first week of September, 2015 and completed the work by second week of October, 2015. After completion of work executed by PW1, AO who was working as AEE in R&B Department,

Kurnool and PW8- Dy.E.E., R&B, Kurnool inspected the work and took measurements. It is also an admitted fact that, as there was left over in 13 the estimated work, R&B Officials, Kurnool directed PW1 to fix number plates to the Government Quarters located in A, B and C camps,

Kurnool. PW1 also completed the said work in the month of October, 2015. The AO also inspected all the works executed by PW1 and recorded in M-Books-Exs.P8 and P9.

CONTENTION OF PROSECUTION:

40.Learned Sp. Public Prosecutor for ACB argued that, though

PW1-complainant did not support prosecution case during trial and did not state demand acceptance of bribe by accused, but there is other evidence available on record to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, though tainted amount was not recovered from the hands of AO but it was recovered at his instance from the surface of the table in the chambers of Dy.E.E. which was kept underneath the M-Books by AO soon after acceptance of bribe from PW1, hence chemical test conducted to his hand fingers turned pink. Official favour records i.e.,

M-Books-Exs.P8 & P9 work estimate-Ex.P10 and Ex.P11-Account bill-C were seized from possession of Work Inspector-PW9, at the instance of

AO shows that official favour is pending with the AO as on the date of the trap and to attend the said work only, AO demanded bribe from

PW1 and in the trap, he was caught red handed, hence prosecution proved the charges against the AO with the aid of presumption Sec.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, since defence theory advanced by AO in this case is not believable and he failed to rebut the said presumption as required by law, hence liable for conviction for the charges accordingly.

PLEA OF ACCUSED:

41.Learned counsel for AO submits that, defacto-complainant-

PW1 who is crucial and material witness to the prosecution case did 14 not support prosecution case on any aspect and did not state demand and acceptance of bribe by AO and there is no evidence available on record to prove important aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe by the AO, tainted amount was not recovered from the physical possession of AO and it was shown to be recovered from the surface of table of PW8- Dy.E.E. underneath the M-Books, which are not connected with this case since AO was asked to lift the amount from the table, chemical test conducted to his hand fingers yielded positive result for which, he cannot be blamed. Official favour records are not seized from the possession of AO but, shown to be seized from possession of Work Inspector-PW9, AO already recorded the measurements and prepared work estimate bill in the M-Books and for want of supplemental agreement, for the additional works executed by

PW1 the bills of PW1 could not be processed and soon after the trap only, PW1 entered the supplemental agreement with EE as per Ex.D4, hence it cannot be said that, official favour is pending with the AO as on the date of the trap.

42.Learned counsel for AO further submits that, actually, PW1 gave complaint against Work Inspector-PW9 but, DSP suppressed the original complaint and obtained the fresh complaint from PW1 against

AO, thereby, PW1 withdrawn in the middle of the trap proceedings and went away which was evidenced by Ex.D1 paper clipping. The evidence of DSP is interested and not convincing, AO probablised his defence by eliciting admissions from the evidence of PW1, PW7-

Contractor present in the chambers of PW8, thereby, accused probablised his defence as required by law and rebutted the presumption thereby, argued that, prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the AO beyond all reasonable doubt, hence prayed the Court to extend benefit of doubt to the AO.

15

Point No.i):-

DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE:

43.It is settled law that, demand and acceptance of bribe is sine qua non and indispensible essentiality to sustain conviction under

Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but, in this case on hand unfortunately, complainant/PW1 did not support prosecution case on any aspect. He disowned the contents of the complaint and also contents of mediators reports I and II and stated that, Ex.P1-Complainat is not the original complaint given by him on 26.12.2015 which was suppressed by DSP and subsequently DSP taken

Ex.P1 from him on 28.12.2015 which was written by him as per the directions of DSP and accordingly he obtained his signature in

Ex.P2/FIR. He also denied avouching contents of the complaint before mediators by stating that, there are no mediators at that time.

44.He denied the demand and acceptance of bribe by the AO in the chief-examination itself and stated that Work Inspector only demanded bribe of Rs.30,000/- and received Rs.15,000/- from him as advance and agreed to pay balance of Rs.15,000/- to him, but not to the AO. He also denied the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the AO on the date of the trap and stated that on the date of the trap as per the instructions of DSP, he went to the office of Dy.E.E., R&B,

Kurnool and went to the room of AO found sitting in his seat but Work

Inspector/PW9 was not present then, he informed AO that Work

Inspector demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- and requested AO to receive and hand over the amount to Work Inspector after his arrival and when he is above to give amount to AO, he refused to receive the amount with his right hand by saying that give the amount to Work Inspector only after his arrival. He again requested AO to receive the amount, but 16

AO reiterated his earlier word, then he came out from the room of AO and was waiting outside the room of Dy.E.E. noticed AO entering the room of Dy.E.E., then he entered into the room of Dy.E.E. and again requested AO to receive the amount at that time Contractor-PW7,

Dy.E.E.-PW8 were present, but AO questioned him why he came again there, on that, he kept the amount underneath the two M-Books on the table of Dy.E.E., in visible condition and came out.

45.Later, ACB officials entered into the room of Dy.E.E. and one Inspector called him inside and he found AO was weeping. At that time, he stated that, he gave complaint against Work Inspector but not against AO then, Inspector ACB shouted at him that he does not know anything then, DSP, pacified the situation, then he came out returned to house. He further stated that, after one hour, Inspector of police,

ACB called him over phone asked him to come there to sign some papers, but he refused to attend the office of Dy.E.E. and also refused to attend office of DSP and did not give any statement, as such, PW1 was declared as hostile by the prosecution and learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor cross-examined PW1 at length and marked his earlier statement-Ex.P3, further statements Exs.P4 and P5.

46.But, strangely no 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 was got recorded in this case. Invariably, in all trap cases, ACB will get the 164

Cr.P.C., statements of defacto-complainant be recorded before

Magistrate. But in this case on hand as PW1 withdrawn from the

proceedings on the date of the trap proceedings in the middle itself, gave statement openly that he gave complaint against Work Inspector but not against AO which was came in local news papers and it was marked as Ex.D1 on the very next day of trap on 30.12.2015.

47.It appears that as PW1 withdrawn from trap proceedings itself and he may not support prosecution case even before Magistrate, 17 as such, they did not venture to get the statement of PW1 recorded by the Magistrate. Even Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of defacto-complainant was also not recorded on the date of the trap and prosecution putforth a story that after the trap incident, PW1 complained severe headache and omitting sensation, as such, DSP allowed him to go to his house and take rest and accordingly PW1 initially went to Hospital in Kurnool, later went to Hyderabad and took further treatment, as such, Sec.161

Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 could not be recorded immediately but could be recorded on 3.1.2016 i.e., on the 5th day of the trap. But no medical certificate or prescriptions are filed by the prosecution to believe its version. Investigation Officer also did not examine concerned Doctor who treated PW1. On the other hand, PW1 denied the sickness projected by the prosecution. If really prosecution story is true is true, how can PW1 who allegedly fell sick till 3.1.2016, could enter supplemental agreement with EE on 31.12.2015, so sickness story putforth by prosecution is not true. In my view, if really AO is at fault, he should become panic but story of prosecution that PW1 became panic by complaining headache and omitting sensation is strange, thereby creates a doubt on entire trap.

48.In the cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW1 admitted entire defence theory that, AO recorded work executed by him in the M-Books and for additional works executed by him, he has to enter into the supplemental agreement with E.E. and after entering into supplemental agreement then only, his bill will be processed but, by the date of the trap he did not enter into supplemental agreement with E.E. and only after the trap, he entered supplemental agreement with E.E. on 31.12.2015. Later, his bill was processed and he received the bill amount. He further categorically admitted that, he gave a complaint against Work Inspector who demanded bribe from him on 18 the pretext that, he has to give the amount to the higher officials, but,

AO never demanded any bribe from him and when he offered the amount to AO to hand over the same to Work Inspector, AO refused the same with his right hand, as such, he kept the amount from the table of Dy.E.E. and came out and informed the same to the ACB officials but they asked him to give statement as if AO demanded bribe from him but he refused to give the statement against AO.

49.There is no other evidence like accompanying witness or shadow witness to speak about the demand by the AO. The witnesses present at the time of occurrence namely PW7-Contractor and PW8-

Dy.E.E. also not supported prosecution case and they were also declared as hostile, except marking their earlier statements, Ex.P14 in the evidence of PW7-Contractor and Exs.P24 and P25 in the evidence of PW8, no worthy information was elicited in their cross-examination.

The other circumstantial witnesses i.e., Class-IV employees working in the office of Dy.E.E. namely PWs.3, 4, 5 and 6 also did not state anything against AO and all of them stated one voice that they did not observe any transaction between PW1 and AO on that day, so, absolutely, there is no evidence available on record, with regard to the demand by the AO.

50.As far as acceptance of bribe is concerned, tainted amount was not recovered from the physical possession of the AO like from his hands or from his pant pocket or from his office table or from his table drawer and it was shown to be recovered from the table of his superior officer- Dy.E.E., so it cannot be said that, AO demanded and accepted the bribe from PW1, official favour books are not seized from the possession of the AO, so as to infer prior demand and it was shown to be recovered from the possession of Work Inspector against whom PW1 alleged to have been given complaint but not against AO. Since official 19 favour books are seized from possession of Work Inspector, contention of AO that PW1 had grievance against Work Inspector that’s why right from beginning, PW1 pointing his finger towards Work Inspector only hence, the defence plea that, Work Inspector only demanded bribe can be probable in the above circumstances.

51.PW7-Contractor present in the chambers of Dy.E.E. and

PW8-Dy.E.E. also supported theory advanced by AO that, inspite of refusal by AO, PW1 only kept the amount on the table underneath the

M-Books and left the chambers of Dy.E.E. So, defence theory advanced by AO can be accepted in view of evidence of prosecution own witnesses PWs.7 and 8.

52.There is also another improbability elicited by learned defence counsel that, demand made by AO in the presence of his superior officer i.e., Dy.E.E.-PW8 and in the presence of third party-

PW7, is highly improbable. Unless there is a collusion between subordinate and senior officer which was not proved in this case, the subordinate official however may be corrupt, may not demand bribe in the presence of his superior officer so, in view of the above infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as pointed above and not supporting the case of the prosecution especially by the complainant right from the date of the trap itself and witnesses present at the time of occurrence i.e., PW7-Contractor and

PW8-Dy.E.E. and non-seizure of tainted amount from the hands of the

AO and connected records I hold that, prosecution in this case failed to prove essential requirements of demand and acceptance on the part of the AO, hence this point is answered against prosecution and in favour of AO.

20

Point No.ii):-

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

53.Learned counsel for AO contends that, AO recorded the work executed by PW1 in M-Books. Ex.P8 M-Book pages 84 to 95 and

Ex.P9-M.Book pages 34 to 53 reveals recording of work by AO and it is duty of Work Inspector to prepare abstract of bill and Account Bill-C, then AO will send the same to Dy.E.E. for check measurements, who will send the same to EE for approval. Learned counsel further contends that, PW1 also did additional works by fixing number plates to the Government Quarters in Fisheries Department for which, supplemental agreement is required to be entered by PW1 with EE but, same was not done in this case till the date of the trap, hence bills of

PW1 could not be processed in this case, thereby no official favour is pending with the AO. To support his contention, learned counsel relied on Ex.D2-Certified copy of original agreement, Ex.D3-Certified copy of comparative statement basing on comparative statement only, supplemental agreement will be entered by Contractor with E.E. and in this case Ex.D4 supplementary agreement was entered by PW1 with EE subsequent to the trap i.e., on 31.12.2015 which supports the contention of AO that no official favour is pending with him.

54.Learned counsel for AO marked Exs.D2 to D4 in the cross- examination of Dy.E.E.-PW8 which substantiated his contention. On the other hand, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor argued that, AO is not concerned with supplemental agreement it is in between Contractor and EE and same is not necessary for passing of the bill that is the case, why supplementary agreement was entered into subsequent to the trap on 31.12.2015? so, establish this aspect, Investigating Officer should have examined EE to know whether official favour is pending with the AO as on the date of the trap or not since, he is best person to 21 speak about the supplementary agreement. But in this case,

Investigating Officer did not examine EE, thereby contention raised by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor was not clarified by adducing proper evidence.

55.DSP-PW11 clearly admitted the said fact in his evidence that, bill passing authority is EE but, he did not examine EE during trap proceedings to enquire about pendency of official favour with AO. He also admitted the case of the AO that, PW1 did additional works i.e., fixing of number plates to Government Quarters in Fisheries

Department for which, supplemental agreement has to be entered with

EE by Contractor. He further categorically admitted that, to pass bills for additional works the supplemental agreement has to be sent to EE

Office for forwarding the bills though he stated in re-examination that same is not necessary for forwarding the bill by AEE to higher authorities but, in further cross-examination, he admitted that, no one stated before him that supplemental agreement is not necessary for forwarding the bill by AEE to higher officials, so, examination of EE is necessary in this case but same is not done either knowingly or unknowingly.

56.Admittedly, official favour books i.e., M-Books-Exs.P8, P9 and P10 working estimates and Ex.P11 Account bill-C are not seized from the possession of AO but they are seized from the possession of

Work Inspector-PW9. Prosecution examined Work Inspector as PW9, he stated that he prepared bill abstract and kept with him till receipt of supplemental agreement from the office of EE and on the trap day he handed over Exs.P8 to P11 to the ACB Officials but, Investigating

Officer even did not examine the Work Inspector who is crucial witness as on the date of the trap and his version also not recorded during post-trap proceedings.

22

57.He also did not support prosecution case, but in cross- examination, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor elicited that, as per the instructions of AO, he kept the Exs.P8 to P11 with him and according to

AO he requires supplemental agreement. In the cross-examination,

Work Inspector admitted that, AO prepared comparative statement and same was forwarded along with Ex.P10-Bill abstract to EE. He further stated that after verifying comparative statement then only, supplemental agreement will be entered by Contractor with EE. He further clearly stated that, unless they receives supplemental agreement, their office not entitled to send the bill abstract to EE’s

Office through Dy.E.E.

58.Since they have not received supplemental agreement from E.E. office, the bill was not sent to EE through Dy.E.E. He further clearly admitted that, there is no official favour is pending with AO to process the bill since he did not receive supplemental agreement. He further stated that, in this case supplemental agreement was entered by PW1 with EE on 31.12.2015 in the re-examination learned Spl.

Public Prosecutor elicited that, AEE is not concerned with supplemental agreement but, in the further cross-examination PW9 stated that till receipt of supplemental bill from EE office, the bill will not be sent to EE through DE for payment, so, as per evidence of PW9 also supplemental agreement is required.

59.Contractor-PW1 also admitted that, for additional work did by him he has enter into supplemental agreement work with EE and only after entering into supplemental agreement, the bill will be processed. He further admitted that, by 26.12.2015 supplemental agreement was not entered with E.E. Dy.E.E. sent working estimates for Rs.4,18,500/- and forwarded the same to EE for preparation of supplemental agreement and it was pending in the office of EE. He 23 lastly admitted that, the supplemental agreement was entered by him with EE subsequent to the trap on 31.12.2015 and thereafter only, his bill was processed and he received bill amount.

60.So, in view of different versions given by witnesses at the different stages examination of EE is highly required in this case for more clarity on this point but, prosecution failed to clarify this aspect by examining EE who is competent person to speak on this aspect thereby, benefit of doubt definitely will goes to the AO in the absence of plausible or cogent evidence on record. In view of non-seizure of official records from the possession of AO and non entering supplemental agreement by Contractor/PW1 with EE before trap and shown to be entered subsequent to the trap, thereby, I hold that, prosecution failed to prove pendency of official favour with AO, hence this point is answered against the prosecution.

Point No.iii)

RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT:

61.Admittedly, tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- was not recovered from the physical possession of AO, but it was shown to be recovered from the surface of office table of Dy.E.E. underneath M-

Books not pertaining to this case. Case of prosecution is that, AO demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.15,000/- from PW1 with his right hand while he was in the chambers of Dy.E.E.-PW8 and kept the amount on the table underneath the M.Books but, Prosecution version not supported by complainant/PW1. He stated that, he requested AO to receive amount and handover the same to Work Inspector and when

AO refused the same with his right hand, he kept the amount on the table and left the chambers, if really AO would have demanded and accepted bribe from PW1, he would not have kept the amount on the 24 table and would have immediately pocketed or secreted and would not have left it on the table till arrival of ACB officials from the vantage positions.

62.AO also probablised his defence that, DSP with trap party members after entering into the chambers of Dy.E.E. found the tainted amount on the table of Dy.E.E. in the visible condition underneath the

M-Books and asked AO to lift the amount and handover the same and accordingly he took the amount and handover the same to the ACB

Officials. This theory advanced by AO was admitted by complainant himself and admitted by prosecution own witnesses i.e., PW7-

Contractor present in the chambers of Dy.E.E. and also PW8-Dy.E.E.

who is superior officer of AOso, in view of the above infirmities in the case of prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that, tainted amount was recovered from his physical possession or at his instance. Since tainted amount was not recovered from physical possession of AO or from his chambers and it was shown to be recovered from the chambers of Dy.E.E. and from the surface of the table of Dy.E.E., it will not incriminate the accused in the absence of evidence from PW1 and other witnesses present at the spot. Hence, I hold that, prosecution failed to prove recovery of tainted amount from the physical possession of the AO in this case, hence this point is answered against prosecution and in favour of AO.

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

63.As per prosecution case, when PW1 entered into the chambers of Dy.E.E.-PW8, he found AO with Dy.E.E.-PW8 and

Contractor-PW7 and on seeing PW1, AO demanded bribe from PW1, on that, PW1 gave tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- to AO who received the same with his right hand and kept the amount on the table of Dy.E.E.- 25

PW8 underneath two M-Books then, PW1 came out and gave pre- arrange signal to the trap party. On observing signal from PW1, DSP and trap party entered into the chambers of Dy.E.E.-PW8 and initially he conducted phenolphthalein test to both hand fingers of AO by preparing sodium carbonate solutions in two glass tumblers and on the instructions of DSP, AO rinsed his hand fingers in sodium carbonate solutions separately, on doing so, both right hand and left hand solutions turned into pink. MOs.4 and 5 are resultant solutions of right hand and left hand washes of AO, proves the said fact.

64.It is further case of prosecution is that, when DSP questioned AO about the just demand and acceptance of bribe from

PW1, AO denied the demand and acceptance but shown bunch of currency notes lying on the table of Dy.E.E.-PW8 underneath two M-

Books then, on the instructions of DSP, Mediator-PW2 took the currency from the table counted and verified currency note numbers and compared the currency note numbers with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings-Ex.P7, on doing so, both of them are tallied.

Then DSP seized tainted amount of Rs.15,000/-, MO3-Photocaopy of currency notes (original notes were deposited in bank and obtained

FDR after demonetization) proves the said fact.

65.It is further case of prosecution is that, DSP conducted chemical test to the contacted portion of currency notes to the surface of the table by rubbing contacted portion of table with a cotton swab and dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, on doing so, the said solution also turned into pink. MO6 is resultant solution and MO7 is the cotton swab kept in a cover, proves the said fact.

66.AO pointed out two discrepancies, one is that, as per prosecution case, AO received tainted amount from pw1 with his right 26 hand and kept on the table underneath M-Books, but it is not the case of the prosecution that, AO counted the currency notes with his both hands but, when chemical test conducted to his hand fingers curiously, both hand fingers wash turned into pink, though AO did not touch amount with his left hand at all, thereby, argued that, these chemical tests are stage managed and fabricated by the DSP.

67.The other discrepancy pointed out by learned counsel for

AO is that, after entering into the chambers of Dy.E.E.-PW8 with trap party and DSP asked AO where is the amount and as the amount is visible on the table, ACB officials asked AO to hand over the amount to them and accordingly, AO took out the amount from the table and handed over the same to the ACB Officials and thereafter, chemical test was conducted to the hand fingers of AO as such, it was yielded positive result and the same was admitted by Contractor-PW7 present at that time and similarly, Dy.E.E.-PW8 also stated that, ACB Officials asked AO to lift the amount from the table and accordingly, AO picked up the amount from the table underneath the M-Books and handed over the same to the trap party people and in that way also, there is every chance of yielding positive result to the hand fingers of AO.

DSP-PW11 also admitted that, if a person did not touch the tainted amount with other hand, there is no possibility of yielding positive result. Similarly PW2-mediator admitted the said fact. DSP also admitted that, there is no mention in Ex.P13-post-trap proceedings that, AO counted cash with his both hands so, yielding positive result to the left hand fingers of AO when he did not touch the amount becomes improbable. Further, as per defence theory, when PW1 offered amount to AO to handover the same to Work Inspector, AO pushed the amount with his right hand, so in that course also, there is every possibility of yielding positive result.

27

68.In view of the above discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the positive results of phenolphthalein test yielded to the hand fingers of AO and table of

Dy.E.E. cannot become conclusive evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, but it can form as one of the surrounding circumstances and corroborating evidence in favour of the prosecution subject to proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by the AO as acquired by law, hence this point is answered accordingly.

DEFENCE THEORY:

69.AO advanced defence theory that, he never demanded or accepted any bribe from PW1 and grievance of PW1 is against Work

Inspector-PW9 and on the trap day, while he was in his office room

PW1 approached him on finding Work Inspector is not available in his office, he offered bribe amount to hand over the same to the Work

Inspector but, he refused and when he entered into the chambers of

Dy.E.E-PW8 and while he was talking with him in connection with other contract works in the presence of Contractor-PW7, PW1 entered the chambers of Dy.E.E. again requested him to receive the amount, but questioned him why he came when he already told that he will not receive amount and give the amount to Work Inspector only.

70.On that, PW1 kept the amount on the table of Dy.E.E.

underneath M-Books and went out and immediately ACB officials entered the chambers of Dy.E.E. and questioned AO about demand and acceptance of bribe, but he denied the same and on finding currency notes on the table of Dy.E.E., ACB Officials asked him to lift the amount and hand over the same to them and when he did so, he was falsely implicated in this case as if he demanded and accepted bribe from

PW1, as such, PW1 withdrawn from the trap proceedings in the middle, 28 returned to his house even without giving statement to ACB Officials and also refused to give statement before the Magistrate. Entire defence theory advanced by AO was admitted by PW1 by withdrawing from trap proceedings and gave open statement in the public that, he complained against Work Inspector but not against A.E. and reporting the said episode in the print media, as evidenced by Ex.D1 probablises the defence theory in this case.

71.Further, PW7-Contractor, PW8-Dy.E.E. who is superior officer of AO also supported the defence theory of placement of amount on the table by PW1 insptie of refusal by AO and ACB Officials entering into his chambers asking AO to take the amount and hand over the same to them. Prosecution made efforts by filing CDR of cell phone of PW8 to prove that, at that time, he was talking with his wife on phone, but PW8 denied the same, the CDR marked as Ex.P31 subject to objection for want of 65-B certificate, cannot be looked into for any purpose.

72.Investigation Officer admitted in cross-examination that, when he questioned AO about the demand and acceptance twice AO denied the same. He also admitted that, AO explained spontaneously during post-trap proceedings that, PW1 forcibly kept the tainted amount underneath M-Books lying on the table and meanwhile ACB

Officials entered into the chambers of Dy.E.E., so the defence theory advanced by the AO, cannot be said as subsequent development and afterthought. In view of the admissions by PW1,PW7 and PW8 coupled with Ex.D1, I hold that, AO probablised his defence as required by law, hence this point is answered in favour of the AO.

PRESUMPTION:

29

73.It is settled law that, in order to claim presumption by the prosecution, prosecution bound to prove the foundational aspects namely, demand and acceptance of bribe by the AO and pendency of official favour with AO as on the date of the trap. But, in this case on hand, prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by

AO since complainant/PW1 did not support prosecution case on any aspect. Even he withdrawn from the trap proceedings on the date of the trap itself in the middle. AO probablised his defence that, he already recorded the measurements in M-Books and handed over to

Work Inspector to prepare bill and forward the same to higher authorities and official favour records are not seized from him, but seized from possession of Work Inspector. Tainted amount not recovered from his physical possession, but shown to be recovered from the office table of Dy.E.E-PW8. Though AO did not count tainted amount with his both hands, did not touch the same with his left hand, but yielding of positive results to the both hand fingers of AO becomes improbable, thereby prosecution failed to prove foundational aspects in this case, so as to draw the presumption in its favour.

74.Even otherwise, the said presumption under Sec.20 is only rebuttable presumption and AO in this case is able to rebut the said presumption by probablising his defence theory that while he was in the Chambers of Dy.E.E. PW1 requested him to hand over the amount to Work Inspector and when he refused the request of PW1, he kept the amount on the table of Dy.E.E. and went away and this theory was admitted by PW1 and supported by other prosecution witnesses i.e.,

PW7-Contractor and PW8-Dy.E.E present in the chamber at the time of occurrence thereby, even if presumption is drawn in favour of the prosecution, AO is able to rebut the said presumption by eliciting favourable answers from the evidence of Complainant/PW1, 30

Contractor/PW7 and Dy.E.E.-PW8, hence this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the AO.

SANCTION:

75.Though prosecution could not examine sanction issuing authority i.e., the then Prl. Secretary to the Government-Sumita Dawra, who issued Ex.P.27- sanction order to prosecute the AO, for the offences U/S 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 vide

G.O.Ms.No.51, dt.26.9.2017 but, examined P.W.10-Section Officer in A.P.

Secretariat and marked Ex.P-27 sanction order through her. The

Section Officer brought the connected file from the office and deposed

before the court as to how file was circulated and sanction order was

issued by the sanctioning authority after perusal of the entire material on record and after satisfaction, by applying her mind and issued sanction orders. She also stated that, she worked before Sanction issuing Authority-Sumita Dawra thereby, she got acquaintance with the signature of Sumita Dawra and thereby, identified her signature in

Ex.P-27 sanction order before the court.

76.Accused raised technical contentions that, prosecution not examined sanction issuing authority-Sumita Dawra but, simply marked

Ex.P27-Sanction order through Section Officer-PW10 who had no personal knowledge regarding circulation of file thereby, argued that, prosecution failed to prove sanction before the Court as per law.

77.Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB argued that PW10-

Section Officer was authorized to give evidence before the Court by virtue of Ex.P26-Authorization Letter dt.22.12.2021 and he also produced entire file pertaining to this case before this Court on the 31 date of his giving evidence in the Court. Section Officer clearly stated in his evidence that, Sanctioning Authority-Sumita Dawra perused entire file and the material placed on record and applied her mind, then only, issued sanction order to prosecute AO vide G.O.Ms.No.51 dt.26.9.2017. She further stated that, she can identify signature of

Sumita Dawra since, she had acquaintance with the signatures available in their office records and identified signature of Sumita

Dawra in Ex.P27 before the Court.

78.On this point, there is direct decision in favour of the prosecution reported in Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. P.Subhashchandra Reddy, wherein it was held that:

“Examination of Sanctioning authority is not necessary, but the examination of the Officer who is acquainted with the signature of Sanctioning Authority is sufficient to prove the sanction”.

79.Therefore, in view of the above decision and in view of specific authorization given to PW10, it cannot be said that, PW10 is not competent to speak about sanction order before the Court, thereby

I hold that, prosecution in this case properly proved Ex.P26-Sanction order as per law to prosecute the accused officer for the offences

U/S.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hence, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

CASE LAW:

80.The law on the aspect of hostility of complainant in a trap case was well settled by various Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India held that, demand and acceptance is sine quo 32 non, indispensible essentiality and gravamen of the offence. Mere suspicion and recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence and not sufficient to raise presumption under Sec.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it is sufficient if the accused offers probable explanation and strict proof is not necessary. Mere recovery of amount and chemical test proved positive not sufficient to invoke presumption under Sec.20 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

81.In the recent decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., reported in Akurathi Yelamanda Vs The State of ACB dt.19.2.2021 and

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in N.Vijay Kumar Vs State of

Taminalandu dt.2.3.2021, in which also, complainant not supported prosecution case and turned hostile, prosecution not examined any other witnesses, complainant disowned his own statement and own complaint, thereby, lordships held that evidence of PW1 and contents of complaint cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that, the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by accused and further held that, the only other material available is the recovery of tainted currency notes from possession of accused in the said case even recovery was accepted even then, lordships held that mere possession or recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Sec.7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

82.The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot held to be established. Lordships of Apex Court further held in 33 so far as presumption permissible to be drawn under Sec.20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. In view of the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in a similar case, the AO in this case cannot be held as guilty for the offence under Sec.7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

Point No.iv)

Conclusion:-

83.In view of my findings on points i to iii, as defacto- complainant-PW1 did not support prosecution case on any aspect and withdrawn from the trap proceedings in the middle, denied contents of the complaint and the statement alleged to have given by him to the

ACB Officials and there was no 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 in this case to believe his earlier version as true. There are no other witnesses like shadow witness or accompanying witness to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the AO. Witnesses present at the time of occurrence PWs.7 and 8 also not supported prosecution case, circumstantial witnesses PWs.3 to 6 also did not state anything against

AO, tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of AO and there were discrepancies regarding phenolphthalein tests, connected records also not seized from possession of AO, therefore, I hold that, prosecution in this case failed to prove the guilt against AO for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt hence, the AO in this case is entitled the benefit of doubt.

84.In the result, Accused Officer found not guilty for the offences U/S.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 34 1988, hence acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of AO shall stand cancelled.

M.O.3 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in F.D.R. if not reimbursed earlier to Complainant-P.W.1 shall be returned to him after appeal time.

MOs.1, 2 and 4 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Since, defacto-complainant-K.Pullaiah-PW1, not supported prosecution case and resiled from his earlier statements said to have given to ACB officials and was declared as hostile by the prosecution, hence prosecution is directed to initiate Criminal proceedings against

PW1 for perjury that appears to have been committed by him.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 8TH day of April, 2022.

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1K.Pullaiah. PW2Dr.Nese Bandika Loka Raju. PW3S.Gresamma. PW4Mohd. Shamshuddin. PW5G.Chinna Madhaiah. PW6K.Jeevaratnam. PW7E.Sreenivasula Reddy. PW8K.Krishna Reddy. PW9A.Subramanyam. PW10Y.Bhargavi.

35

PW11M.Mahaboob Basha. PW12S.D.Tejeswar Rao. PW13G.Seetha Rama Rao.

FOR DEFENCE: None

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P126.12.2015.Signature of PW1 on the complaint. (marked subject to objection) Ex.P226.12.2015.Signature of PW1 on the FIR. Ex.P303.01.2016.Relevant portion underlined in Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW1. Ex.P403.01.2016.Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW1. Ex.P503.01.2016.Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., further statement of PW1. Ex.P628.12.2015.Copy of complaint. Ex.P729.12.2015Mediator report-I Ex.P829.2.2016.Attested copy of M-Book bearing No.340-A. Ex.P929.2.2016.Attested copy of M-Book bearing No.157-A. Ex.P1029.2.2016.Attested copy of work estimate for urgent repairs to residential quarters of A-type Fisheries compound, Kurnool. Ex.P1129.2.2016.Attested copy of Account Bill-C for work urgent repairs to residential quarters of A-type Fisheries compound, Kurnool. Ex.P1229.12.2015Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P1329.12.2015Post trap proceedings. Ex.P1429.12.2015Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW7. Ex.P157.8.2015Attested copy of original divisional agreement. Ex.P1615.5.2015Registration certificate. Ex.P17---Specification reports accompanying the estimated work for the urgent repairs to residential quarters of A type quarters in Fisheries Compound of Kurnool. Ex.P18---Detailed-cum-Abstract estimates. Ex.P1929.2.2016.Forwarding slip accompanied to Divisional lumpsum agreement. Ex.P2029.2.2016.Schedule-A of urgent repairs. Ex.P2129.2.2016.Forwarding slip to accompanying the L.S. supplemental divisional agreement. Ex.P2229.2.2016.Schedule-A supplemental slip for additional item of work to be carried out by Contractor. Ex.P2329.2.2016.Detailed working estimate. Ex.P248.5.2016.Relevant portion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW8. Ex.P2529.12.2015.Relevant portion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW8. Ex.P2622.12.2021Authorization letter. Ex.P2726.9.2017Sanction order vide G.O.Ms.No.51. Ex.P2830.12.2015Original FIR. Ex.P298.1.2016Job chat and Service particulars of A.O.

36

Ex.P3026.10.2017Memo of D.G. ACB, Vijayawada. Ex.P31---CDR from 29.12.2015 to 29.12.2015 of mobile No.9440818392 (marked subject to objection)

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D130.12.2015News paper clipping. Ex.D2---Certified copy of Articles of agreement. Ex.D3---Certified copy of Comparative statement. Ex.D431.12.2015Supplementary agreement.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1One sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder. MO2One sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder. MO3Tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- MO4Resultant solutions of AO right hand fingers wash. MO5Resultant solutions of AO left hand fingers wash. MO6Pink coloured resultant solution of contacted portion cotton swab. MO7Cotton Swab. MO8Sample of sodium carbonate powder used in the Post-trap proceedings.

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

1

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

CASES, KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bhaskara Rao,

Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

KURNOOL.

Thursday, this the 31 st day of March, 2022.

CALENDAR CASE No.24/2017

Between:

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ananthapuramu Range, Ananthapuramu. …. Complainant -And-

1. Sri.Gosampalli Mahaboob Peera, Son of Sri.G.M.Subhan, 42 years,

AAE (O),

APSPDCL, Rayadurg, Ananthapuramu District. …AO1.

2. Sri.Achukatla Baba Fakruddin, @ Baba son of Sri.A.Allabakash, 30 years, Outsourcing Shift Operator, 33/11 KV Sub-Station,Chadam, Rayadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. …AO2.

This case is coming for final hearing on 23-3-2022 in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for State and of

Sri.A.Vishwanath and Sri N.Shanmukham, Advocates for accused officer, 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 case of the prosecution in brief is that, at the time of alleged occurrence, Accused Officer No.1 (hereinafter referred as ‘AO1’ in short) worked as Additional Assistant Engineer (hereinafter referred as ‘AAE’ in short) (O), APSPDCL, at Rayadurg, Ananthapuramu District and is a public servant and Accused Officer No.2 (hereinafter referred 2 as ‘AO2’ in short) worked as Shift Operator on Outsourcing at Chadam,

Rayadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

2.It is further case of prosecution is that, PW1-K.Gangadhar is only son to his parents and his father K.Somappa (LW6) is having

Ac.8.00 cents of agricultural land and his mother Anjanamma (LW7) is having Ac.5.31 cents of land in Nagireddypalli Village, so also, his junior paternal uncle K.Anjaneya (LW8) is also having land adjacent to the lands of his parents. When they dug bores in their lands, they found sufficient water and to draw the water they require electricity service connection, as such, father of PW1 applied for two electricity service connections and another connection in the name of his mother and 4th one in the name of his paternal uncle in the month of January, 2016, in customer service centre, by paying required fee of Rs.25/- for each application to get agricultural electricity service connection and

DT. Thereafter, those applications were given in the office of Electrical

Assistant Engineer at Rayadurg. As parents of PW1 and his paternal uncle are aged, PW1 used to look after the said work on their behalf.

3.It is further case of prosecution is that, PW1 met AO1 in connection with agricultural electricity service connections and AO1 informed PW1 that for preparing estimates and forwarding the same to higher officials, he demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- from PW1 but PW1 stated that, if he gets electricity service connections early, he would give the bribe amount after sanction of service connections and asked

AO1 to prepare estimates and forward the same to the higher authorities. Subsequently, in the month of May, 2016, AO1 informed to

PW1 to pay an amount of Rs.29,920/- for each connection for getting agricultural service connection and accordingly PW1 paid Rs.29,920/- in the month of May for each service connection. Later, four service 3 connections were sanctioned in the name of parents of PW1 and his paternal uncle.

4.While matter stood thus, AO1 was transferred from

Rayadurg to D.Hirehal Mandal but, he was kept as in charge A.E., of

Rayadurg and on coming to know about the same, PW1 met AO1 on 15.11.2016 and requested him to erect DT and issue electricity service connections, on that, AO1 stated that earlier he promised to pay bribe amount but till date, he did not pay the bribe amount, and informed

PW1 that for erecting DT and issuing electricity service connections, he has to pay bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- as demanded earlier and if he did not pay the demanded bribe, he will not issue electricity service connections, but PW1 not interested to give bribe and returned to the village.

5.It is further alleged that, as electricity service connections were not issued, he again met AO1 on 23.11.2016 and enquired about sanction of material for electricity service connection, but AO1 stated that unless demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- is paid, he will not give electricity service connections to his fields and when PW1 expressed his inability to pay huge bribe of Rs.15,000/- stating that he poor person, on that AO1 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/-, as there is no other go, PW1 reluctantly agreed to give the bribe of Rs.10,000/- and AO1 asked PW1 to give the bribe amount on 25.11.2016 either to him or to the person directed by him.

6.Then, PW1 returned to the village but unwilling to give the bribe to the AO1, he went to the Office of Deputy Superintendent of

Police (hereinafter referred as ‘DSP’ in short), ACB, Anantapuram and gave the complaint against AO1 on 23.11.2016 at 5.00 PM. DSP-PW8 endorsed the complaint to the Inspector of Police-PW9, to conduct 4 discreet enquiries and accordingly Inspector conducted discreet enquiries and gave his report to DSP stating that compliant is genuine and AO1 is carrying bad reputation. Then, after due verifications, DSP-

PW8 registered complaint as a case in Cr.No.06/RCT-ATP/2016 under

Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO1 on 25.11.2016 at 7.00 AM and took up investigation.

7.During course of investigation, DSP secured mediators conducted pre-trap proceedings in ACB Office, Anantapuram, under

Ex.P10 from 7.15 AM to 9.15 AM, in which, DSP got verified contents of the complaint with PW1 by mediators, got applied phenolphthalein powder to the proposed bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- produced by PW1, later kept the amount in the left side shift pocket of PW1, demonstrated phenolphthalein test and explained significance of the test. Later, gave instructions to PW1 to give bribe amount to AO1 only on his further demand but not otherwise and further instructed to PW1 to give signal to the Inspector-Khader Basha, by wiping his face with his dhoti thrice.

8.It is further alleged that, after completion of pre-trap proceedings in the office of DSP, ACB, Anantapuramu, DSP-PW8 along with his staff, mediators and PW1 boarded in two Government vehicles proceeded to Rayadurg ADE Office and reached vicinity of ADE office

Rayadurg at 11.30 AM. Thereafter, DSP reiterated earlier instructions to PW1 and allowed him to go and met AO1 and they took vantage positions in the vicinity. PW1 entered into the ADE Office at 11.45 AM and met AO1 sitting in a chair and AO2 was standing infront of him, and on demand by AO1, he offered tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- and

AO1 asked PW1 to hand over the amount to AO2 and accordingly PW1 handed over the amount to AO2 who received the same and counted the amount with his both hands kept the amount in his left side shirt 5 pocket. Then PW1 came out at 11.50 AM and gave pre-arranged signal to Inspector-Khader Basha, who in turn passed on the signal to the DSP and on receiving signal DSP with trap party members rushed into the chambers of AE-AO1.

9.Then, DSP apprehended Accused Officers 1 and 2, initially, he conducted phenolphthalein test to the hand fingers of AO1, but they did not give positive result then, DSP questioned AO1 about tainted amount and on information given by AO1, DSP conducted phenolphthalein test to the hand fringes of AO2, which yielded positive result, then, DSP questioned AO2 about tainted amount, on that, AO2 produced wad of currency from his left side shirt pocket and DSP got verified the currency note numbers with the numbers mentioned in pre-trap proceedings, on doing so, both of them were tallied, then DSP seized tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- (MO5) from possession of AO2.

Later, he also conducted chemical test to the left side shift pocket of

AO2, which was also yielded positive result, DSP seized all the resultant solutions-MOs.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, MO9 wearing shirt of AO2 and MO10 is the sample of sodium carbonate powder, thereafter, DSP questioned

AO2 and his version was recorded.

10.Then DSP questioned AO1 about connected documents, he stated that they all in customer service centre and led the trap party to the said place, DSP took out photocopies of the applications of PW1 of his family members i.e., Exs.P5 to P8, when DSP questioned about estimations etc., AO1 stated that they are with higher authorities, then

DSP took out print outs of estimations-Ex.P11 from the Computers.

Thereafter, DSP examined ADE and DE and recorded their versions and seized Ex.P14 and other relevant documents, thereafter, DSP prepared

Ex.P12-Rough sketch, later DSP arrested Accused Officers 1 and 2 at 8.40 PM after due formalities and seized incriminating material under 6

Ex.P13-Post trap proceedings. Thereafter, DSP also conducted search in the house of AO1 seized made up files, later he produced Accused

Officers 1 and 2 before the Court for remand on 26.11.2016.

11.Later, he handed over further investigation to Inspector-

PW9 who examined some of the witnesses collected service particulars and job chart of AO1 secured further information from DE-PW4 and after completion of entire investigation, he submitted draft final report to DG., ACB., A.P., Hyderabad and after receipt of sanction proceedings in respect of AO1 under Ex.P20, his successor-R.Prathap Reddy filed charge sheet against Accused Officers 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Sec.12 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

12.The Learned Predecessor of this court, had taken cognizance of the offence under Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and

Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the AO1 and 2 on 16-11-2017.

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

14.On 29-04-2019, this Court examined the accused U/S. 239

Cr.P.C., the accused denied the offences hence, charges U/ Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against AO1 and under Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO2, read over and explained to them in Telugu but, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

15.In order to prove the guilt, prosecution cited as many as 15 witnesses, but examined only 9 witnesses.

7

16.PW1-Kavali Gangadhara, who is the defact-complainant, in this case, but he did not support prosecution case and turned hostile.

17.PW2-J.P.Durgesh said to be mediator present during pre and post trap proceedings stated about apprehension of Accused, seizure of tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- from AO2 and official favour records from the office of Accused.

18.PW3-C.R.Balasimha Rao, Asst. Divisional Engineer (hereinafter referred as ‘ADE’ in short) immediate superior officer of

AO1 stated about submitting applications by family members of PW1 for electricity service connections through customer service centre in the month of January, 2016 preparation of estimates by AO1 in the month of February, 2016 and forwarding the estimates by him to

Divisional Engineer (hereinafter referred as ‘DE’ in short) for approval, approval of estimates by DE and issuance of demand notice to the parties for payment, remittance of amount by parties in the month of

May, 2016. He also stated that, in view of increase of cost of material,

DE asked AAE/AO1 to send fresh estimates and accordingly Assistant

Engineer prepared fresh estimates by increasing Rs.300/- reach applications and forwarding the same to DE through him in the month of June, 2016 for approval of the same on 8.7.2016 and sending second estimations to DE and generating the demand notice automatically in the systems, but parties are not required to pay any amount since total amount is less than Rs.2,00,000/-.

19.PW4-T.Srinivasu,DEOperationsinAPSPDCL.,

Kalyanadurgam stated that he came to know about trap of Accused

Officers 1 and 2 but did not give the details, as such, he was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

8

20.PW5-B.Purushotham, Shift Operator of B.N.Halli stated that on the trap day he came to Rayadurg to attend meeting in Assistant

Engineer’s office and came to now that one customer trapped AO2 by thrusting amount in his pocket but AO2 thrown away the amount on the floor and meanwhile ACB Officials caught hold AO2, thereby, he was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

21.PW6-C.Prasad, Deputy General Manager in APSPDCL.,

Thirupathi, stated about issuance of sanction proceedings to prosecute

AO1 vide Ex.P20 by the then Chairman and Managing Director

Sri.H.Y.Dora and identified signature of Sri.H.Y.Dora in Ex.P20.

22.PW7-C.V.Manjunatha, another Shift Operator from Chadam village corroborating evidence of PW5 stating that he came to

Rayadurg on the trap day to attend meeting in the Assistant Engineer’s

Office and he came to know that one person thrusting the amount in the pocket of AO2 but, AO2 thrown away the amount and meanwhile, police caught hold AO2, thereby he was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

23.PW8-C.Bhaskara Reddy, DSP, ACB, Ananthapuramu stated about receipt of complaint from PW1, registration of FIR, laying on trap, apprehension of Accused Officers 1 and 2, seizure of tainted amount of

Rs.10,000/-, seizure of official records and conducting part of investigation in this case and handing over remaining investigation to

Inspector of Police-Khader Basha.

24.PW9-S.Khader Basha, Anantapuramu, stated about discreet enquiries conducted by him assisting DSP in the trap proceedings, taking up further investigation in this case, examination of witnesses and collection of relevant material and after completion of 9 investigation submitting Draft Final Report to D.G., ACB., A.P.,

Hyderabad and filing of charge sheet by his successor in office.

25.On the side of the prosecution, Exs.P-1 to P-24 and M.Os.1 to 11 are marked.

26.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C., and the answers given by them to the questions put to them, were recorded separately.

27.AO1 filed written statement by denying demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 through AO2 for preparation and forwarding of estimates pertain to family members of

PW1 and provide agricultural service connections by erecting distribution transformer in their fields.

28.It is further stated that, he prepared estimations in respect of four applications after receipt of filed verification report and L.T.

Sketch from concerned line Inspector of Nagireddypally Village. He forwarded the above estimations to the Asst. DE for taking further action on 29.2.2016, who in turn forwarded the same to the DE for approval, DE approved the above estimation on 28.4.2016.

29.It is further stated that, in view of the increase of cost material, he was asked to prepare fresh estimation, hence again he prepared estimations for an amount of Rs.1,89,404/- and that on 1.5.2016 he sent them to the Asst. DE, the said estimates was approved by the DE on 8.7.2016. But, DE did not issue work order and did not sanction of required material in favour of L.Ws.6 to 8 till the date of alleged trap incident, hence he discharged his official duty by 1.5.2016 and no official faovur is pending with him so as to demand any bribe but the trap incident said to have taken place on 25.11.2016.

10

30.It is further stated that, he was not working in the office of

Assistant Engineer, Rayadurg either as regular Assistant Engineer from 2.7.2016 to 6.10.2016. Ex.P15 letter dt.31.01.2017 addressed by PW4 to the DSP, ACB, would disclose this fact. Para No.3 of said letter, the

AO1 was kept in charge from 6.10.2016. Thus, he did not work in the above section office from 3.7.2016 to 5.10.2016. Even as on 25.11.2016 he is not a regular AAE of Rayadurgam Section and that his original working place is D.Hirehal Section from 1.8.2015.

31.It is further stated that, coming to the process of delivery of sanctioned electrical material and providing agricultural service connections be erecting the Distribution Transformer in the fields of complainant’s parents and his junior paternal uncle, he respectfully submit that unless the DE issue work order in favour of the applicants i.e., LWs.6 to 8 and sanctioned the electrical material and etc., the

Asst. DE District Stores, Anantapur did not issue/deliver sanctioned electrical materials including distribution transformer for providing agricultural service connection in the fields of the applicants to the contractor.

32.It is further stated that, the DE/PW4 did not issue Work order and did not sanction electrical material including distribution transformer till the date of 25.11.2016 i.e., the alleged date of trap incident, therefore, he submit that he had no role to further play in favour of LWs.6 to 8 in the absence of work order and he cannot do any favour to the applicants, as alleged by the ACB Officers in the charge sheet.

33.It is further stated that, PW1 himself deposed before the

Hon’ble Court that, neither he demanded any bribe amount nor he

accepted the same through AO2. He deposed in his evidence that 11 under what circumstances he was taken to the ACB office and how he implicated the AO2, under misguidance of ACB P.C.Venkataramudu. He further asserted the fact in his evidence that even AO2 did not demand or accept amount of Rs.10,000/- and when he suddenly kept the amount in his shirt pocket, AO2 took out the same from his shirt pocket and threw it on the ground. PW1 testified entire true facts before the

Hon’ble Court on oath, which were truly happened including on the

date of alleged trap incident at the Asst. Engineer office, Rayadurg. On the date of alleged trap incident, he represented to the DSP ACB that he did not demand or accept any bribe amount from PW1. False recovery has been shown by the ACB officers in the mediators reports as if AO2 produced the amount from his shirt pocket, to suit their case.

34.It is further stated that, a mention is also necessary with regard to the sanction proceedings covered under Ex.P20 marked by

PW6-Dy. General Manager. It is clear from the evidence of PW6 that

DE/PW4 did not issue work order in favour of the applicants till 25.11.2016. He further deposed in his evidence that, on 24.8.2017 their office received draft sanction order and that there is no difference in between draft sanction order sent by DG, ACB under Ex.P20.

35.It is further stated that, Ex.P20 Sanction proceedings was issued by the Chairman on 24.8.2017 itself, i.e., without taking single day to read the material documents in order to come to a fair conclusion. This itself would establish that the issuance of sanction proceedings in routine manner without application of mind. It was issued basing upon the draft sanction order which was sent by the ACB

Officer, which resulted in unnecessarily victimization and irreparable loss and suffering to him.

12

36.He lastly stated that, though ne never demanded and accepted any bribe from PW1, but he was falsely implicated by the ACB officials for no fault of him and for the mistake committed by higher officials he was made as a scapegoat and victimized in this case hence, the charges against him are not sustainable, hence prayed the Court to acquit him from charges by extending benefit of doubt.

37.AO2 filed separate written statement stating that, he never demanded and accepted any bribe from PW1 nor he abetted AO1 in commission of the offence under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

38.It is further stated that, AO2 had been working as

Outsourcing employee in the Department and he worked as Shift

Operator, 33/11 KV Sub Station, Chadam Village, Rayadurg Mandal from 1.4.2007 and after this alleged trap incident i.e., on 25.11.2016, later he was immediately removed from service.

39.It is further stated that, there is no truth in the case of the prosecution and it is out and out concocted one. The AO2 did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. DSP,

ACB dictated the mediator report II to the mediators against to the actual representation made by him to DSP, ACB that he did not demand or accept any bribe amount from the complaint, much less

AO1 did not ask him to take any amount from PW1. He also represented to the ACB officers that, when PW1 tried to keep the wad of currency notes in his shirt pocket he refused to take it and when

PW1 kept the amount in his shift pocket immediately, he took out and thrown on the floor but within no time two persons caught hold his both hands by restricting moments and taken inside the office room of

AO1, but incriminating version was incorporated against him in 13 mediator report II to suit their case, by deliberately suppressing his above truthful representations.

40.He further stated that, PW1 categorically deposed in his evidence that neither AO1 instructed PW1 to give the amount to him, nor instructed him to take amount from PW1. He testified the entire true facts before the Hon’ble Court on oath, which were truly happened on the date of alleged trap incident at the office of Assistant Engineer,

Rayadurg.PW1 further asserted in his cross-examination that, at the instance of P.C.-Venkataramudu, himself kept the amount in his shirt pocket though he refused to take it and that he took out the amount and thrown away on the floor and that immediately PC-Venkataramudu and another constable caught hold his both hands and he was taken to inside the office. He removed from service and at present he is doing daily labour work for his livelihood, hence, he prayed the Court to take lenient view in his favour. He lastly submits that, he was made as a scapegoat and victimized in this case hence, the charges against him are sustainable, hence prayed the Court to acquit him from charges by extending benefit of doubt.

41.Accused Officers 1 and 2 did not examine any witnesses on their behalf, but marked Ex.D1 is the copy of the proceedings issued by

DE dt.9.7.2016 and Ex.D2 is the earlier proceedings issued by DE dt.28.4.2016.

42.Heard arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor for

ACB and learned counsel for Accused Officers 1 and 2.

43.Now, the points for determination are:

i)Whether, AO1 demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.10000/- from PW1 through AO2 as gratification, other than legal remuneration to discharge his official duties ?

14 ii)Whether, official favour of preparation of work estimates and forwarding the applications filed for sanction of 4 agricultural service connections pertain to family members of PW1 and process of delivery sanctioned electrical material and providing agricultural service connections by erecting distribution transformers in the fields of family members of PW1 is pending with AO1 as on the date of the trap?

iii)Whether, AO2 abetted or aided AO1 in obtaining gratification from PW1 as on the date of the trap by collecting bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW1?

iv)Whether, AO1 while discharging his duties as AAE (O), APSPDCL, Rayadurg, Ananthapuramu District, as public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage from P.W-1 by corrupt and illegal means thereby, he committed Criminal Misconduct?

v)Whether, prosecution proved the guilt for the offences U/S.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against AO1 and under Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO2 beyond reasonable doubt ?

ADMITTED FACTS:

44.At the time of alleged occurrence, AO1 was working as AAE (O),

APSPCDL., D.Hiremal and he was also in charge AAE, Rayadurg,

Anantapur District and by virtue of post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant within the definition of Section 2(c) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which, there was no dispute at all.

45.AO2 was working as Shift Operator, at 33/11 KV Sub

Station, Chadam village, Rayadurg Mandal, on Outsourcing basis, hence he was not a public servant.

46. It is also an admitted fact that, LW8-Kavali Somappa, who is father, LW7-K.Anjanamma, who is mother and LW8-Kavali Anjaiah, who is paternal uncle of PW1. Pending case, Somappa and Anjaiah died and mother Anjanamma was bedridden due to old age, hence prosecution could not examine them. Admittedly, Somappa was owning Ac.8.00 15 cents of land, Anjanamma was owning Ac.5.31 cents of land and paternal uncle of PW1-K.Anjaneyulu also owning land adjacent to the lands of Somappa and Anjanamma in Nagireddypalli Village. They dug up bores in their lands and as there is sufficient water they decided to apply electricity service connection to draw the water to irrigate their lands. Accordingly, Somappa applied for two connections in his name,

Anjanamma applied for one connection and junior paternal uncle

Anjaneyulu applied one connection in his name. Ex.P5 is the two applications in the name of Somappa, Ex.P6 is one application in the name of Anjanamma and Ex.P7 is one application in the name of junior paternal uncle of PW1, proves the said fact. Those applications were submitted through consumer service centre Rayadurg in the month of

January, 2016.

47.Admittedly, in the month of February, 2016 AO1 prepared estimates for four applications at Rs.1,89,147/- and sent the same to

Assistant DE/PW3. In the month of March, 2016 Assistant DE forwarded to the same to DE for approval. In the month of May DE approved the estimates and issued demand notice. Ex.P11 is estimation of demand notice. Admittedly, the amount was paid by family members of PW1 on 5.5.2016. Ex.P8 computerized statement shown details of payment. It is also an admitted fact that, since cost of material was increased, again DE asked Assistant Engineer to send fresh estimations and accordingly Assistant Engineer i.e., AO1 prepared fresh estimates by increasing Rs.300/- and forwarded the same to DE through Assistant

DE in the month of June, 2016. DE approved the same on 8.7.2016 and raised demand notice by generating in all systems including the

Assistant Engineer. Ex.D1 is the copy of proceedings issued by DE on 9.7.2016 and Ex.D2 is the earlier proceedings issued by DE dt.28.4.2016 proves the said fact.

16

48.It is also an admitted fact that, DE did not issue work order in respect of the applications of family members of PW1 till date of the trap i.e., on 25.11.2016. As per procedure stated by prosecution witnesses, only after issuance of work order by DE material would be sanctioned in favour of applicants. Admittedly, material was also not sanctioned and work order was also not issued by DE.

CONTENTION OF PROSECUTION:

49.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, argued that, though complainant-PW1 did not support prosecution case during trial and did not state demand and acceptance of bribe of the accused, but in the Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement given by him at the earliest point of time, he stated about demand and acceptance. Though, tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of AO1 but, it was recovered from the possession of AO2 who collected the same from

PW1 on the directions of AO1 and mediator stated about recovery of tainted amount from AO2, though phenolphthalein test conducted to the hand fingers of AO1 did not yield positive result, but chemical test conducted to the hand fingers of AO2 yielded positive result, connected official favour documents was also seized from the office of

AO1 and also from the computer system and prosecution proved the same by examining Asst. DE/PW3, DE/PW4.

50.Though, PWs.5 and 7 colleague shift operators of AO2, not supported prosecution case, but with the evidence of DSP-PW8, mediator-PW2 and with the evidence of final investigating officer-PW9, prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of presumption under Sec.20 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hence prayed the Court to convict the accused 1 and 2, accordingly.

17

PLEA OF ACCUSED:

51.Learned counsel for Accused submits that, the defacto- complainant-PW1 who is crucial and material witness to the prosecution case, did not support prosecution case on any aspect and did not state demand and acceptance of bribe by the AO1 through AO2 and there is no other evidence available on record to prove the demand and acceptance. Demand and acceptance stated in Sec.164

Cr.P.C., statement earlier is not in evidence. Tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of AO1 and accused probablised the defence theory and thrusting the amount by PW1 in the hands of AO2 on the date of the trap at the instance of one Venkataramudu P.C. of

ACB, but AO2 thrown out the amount on the floor by eliciting admissions from PW1 and Shift Operators-PWs.5 and 7.

52.Learned counsel for accused further submits that, no official favour is pending with AO1 as on the date of trap, since he already submitted estimates, so also the revised estimates and they are approved by DE as evidenced by Exs.D1 and D2, but work order and material was not sanctioned by DE, therefore, he could not do anything, hence no scope to demand any bribe from PW1 since prosecution failed to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe by AO1 from PW1, hence prosecution not entitled to claim presumption under Sec.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Evidence of PW8-DSP and PW9-Final Investigating Officer is interested and not corroborated by PW1 and thereby, argued that prosecution failed to prove charges against Accused Officers 1 and 2 beyond all 18 reasonable doubt, hence prayed the Court to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Point No.i:-

53.DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE:

It is settled law that, demand and acceptance of bribe is sine qua non and indispensible essentiality to sustain conviction under

Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but, in this case on hand unfortunately, complainant/PW1 did not support prosecution case on any aspect. He disowned the contents of the complaint and also contents of mediator reports I and II, thereby his signature in the complaint only was marked as Ex.P1 and complaint was marked with DSP as Ex.P22 which is crucial document to know the complicity of the accused in a trap. He clearly admitted in cross- examination that, AO1 did not demand any bribe amount from him and did not accept any bribe from him and did not ask him to pay ORC amount at any point of time but, ADE asked him to pay ORC amount to the Department in view of increase of material cost. In chief- examination itself he stated that, on the trap day, when he met AO1 in his office and on seeing him AO1 asked him why he came since he already remitted amount to the Department and he need not pay any amount.

54.There is no other evidence like accompanying witness or shadow witness to speak about demand by AO1, mediator-PW2 stated that, he does not know what was transpired inside the office room of

AO1. Though, learned Special Public Prosecutor declared PW1 as hostile and cross-examined him at length, but nothing was elicited from his evidence for resiling from his earlier statements given to DSP,

ACB officials recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement marked as

Ex.P1 and Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement recorded by learned Magistrate, 19 except marking signature of PW1 in Ex.P2-FIR and Ex.P3-Sec.164

Cr.P.C., statement, nothing useful information elicited from PW1 in the cross-examination. Except to initiate perjury proceedings against PW1, the 164 Cr.P.C. statement, will lend any support to prosecution.

Regarding Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement, learned defence counsel elicited from PW1 in cross-examination that, one ACB Constable-Venkata

Ramudu accompanied PW1 to the Magistrate Court and asked him to sit in the Court Hall on a bench and that he only narrated entire story

before the Court and he simply signed in Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement at

the end and learned counsel draw the attention of the Court to the

Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement, in which, the name of the deponent was initially written as Venaktaramudu, but subsequently it was struck off and its place, name of PW1 was typed, strengthens the contention of the accused.

55.Learned counsel for accused also elicited another improbability regarding demand by AO1 by arguing that, PW1 did not state date, time and place of demand in his evidence which is crucial in this case because, on the date of the trap, he is actually working as

AAE at D-Hirehal and supposed to stay and work at D-Hirehal and he is only in charge AAE for Rayadurg, where trap incident was allegedly taken place but, not at his regular posting place, thereby, date, time and place of demand is essential in this case as per the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukhtiyar Singh and others Vs State of

Punjab but, same is lacking in this case. So, it can be held that, prosecution in this case failed to prove essential requirements of demand, to prove the offences.

56.As far as acceptance is concerned admittedly, tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of AO1 it was shown to be recovered from the possession of AO2. Admittedly, AO2 is not 20 working in the office of AO1 either in his regular posting place at D-

Hirehal or in charge place of posting at Rayadurg and he is working at different place as Shift Operator i.e., 33/11 KV Sub Station, Chadam village and there is no other material produced by the prosecution like

CDR, etc., to prove the connection in between AO1 and AO2.

57.Further, there is no evidence before the court that, AO1 asked PW1 to give the bribe amount to AO2 and AO2 collected the amount from PW1 on the instructions of AO1. PW1 in chief- examination itself stated that, when he met AO1, he stated he need not be any amount since he already paid amount for electricity service connections when he came out from the room of AO1, Venkata

Ramudu-Police Constable, asked him to hand over the amount to AO2 stating that, he is working in Electricity Department, so that his work will be done and when he hand over the amount to AO2 but, he refused to receive the amount and when he tried to keep the amount in his shirt pocket he pushed away the amount which was fell on the ground and immediately ACB officials came to the spot and collected the amount from the ground and caught hold AO2 and went inside the room of AO1. So, PW1 stated the theory of accused in the chief examination itself and further probablised defence theory.

58.Learned counsel for Accused to draw the attention of the

Court to the cross-examination of mediator-PW2 who also admitted that, AO2 was taken to the room of AO1 from outside. So, the alleged acceptance of amount was not made in the presence of AO1 so as to hold that, AO1 had knowledge and conscious about acceptance of the bribe. AO2 probablised his thrusting theory by cross-examining PW1 by eliciting favourable answers from Shift Operators-PWs.5 and 7 stated that, the thrusting theory in chief examination itself and stated that they observed AO2 outside the room of AO1 and PW7 stated that, 21 he observed police caught hold both hands of AO2, so there is every chance of transfer of phenolphthalein particles from the hands of police to the AO2.

59.Mediator-PW2 also admitted that, he acted as mediator in two ACB cases, hence he is a stock witness and his evidence cannot be relied without further corroboration as per the decision relied by

Accused in K.Giri Vs State of A.P. He also admitted that, he did not bring copy of the requisition given by ACB officials and did not mention the fact that their General Manager instructed him and LW3-other mediator to attend ACB office, so it cannot be said that, PW2 acted independently. At any rate, the absence of link between Accused

Officers 1 and 2 it cannot be held that, AO1 accepted the bribe amount through AO2 since AO2 is not working in the office of AO1 and the absence of any connecting material like CDRs etc., it cannot be held that, AO2 received the amount from PW1 knowing it as bribe amount, therefore, I hold that, prosecution also failed to prove acceptance of bribe amount by AO1 through AO2, hence this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.ii)

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

60.The main contention of AO1 is that, he prepared estimates in respect of four applications of family members of PW1after receipt of field verification report and L.T. sketch from the concerned land

Inspector of Nagireddypalli village and also forwarded the estimations to his superior i.e., ADE for taking further action on 29.2.2016 who in turn forwarded the same to DE for approval. DE also approved the estimations on 28.4.2016, but in view of increase of cost of material, he was asked to prepare fresh estimations, hence he again prepared 22 fresh estimations for an amount of Rs.1,89,404/- and sent the same to

ADE on 1.5.2006 and the said estimations was also approved by DE on 8.7.2016, but DE did not issue work order and did not sanction required material to the applicants till the date of trap hence, learned counsel argued that, he discharged his official duties after preparation of estimates and nothing is pending with him as on the date of the trap.

61.Learned counsel further argued that, he is only in-charge of

AAE of Rayadurg but, his original posting is at D.Hirehal and unless the

DE issues work order in favour of applicants and sanction the electrical material etc., and issuance of delivery of sanctioned material including distribution transformers by ADE for providing agricultural service connections in the fields of family members of PW1, he cannot do any work.

62.As seen from the evidence of DE, who is crucial witness to speak about work order categorically admitted in cross-examination that, he did not issue work order in respect of applications covered by

Exs.P5 to p8 till 25.11.2016 i.e., alleged date of trap incident.

Similarly, PW3-ADE also admitted that, DE did not issue work order in respect of Exs.P5 to P8 till 25.11.2016. He further admitted that, only after issuance of work order by DE, material would be sanctioned in favour of the applications. He further categorically admitted that, either himself or AO1 cannot do anything in favour of applicants for want of work order and sanction of material from the office of DE,

Kalyanadarugam.

63.PW9-Official Investigation Officer also clearly admitted in cross-examination that, till the date of the trap PW4-DE did not issue work order and after issuance of work/order then only, ADE Districts

Stores, Anantapur will issue required material including transformers in 23 favour of applicants, so in view of the evidences of higher officials of

AO1 including Investigating Officer, it can be said that, no official favour is pending with the AO1 on the date of trap so as to make a demand of bribe from PW1. If really, he asked PW1 to pay the bribe for preparation of estimates he would not have sent the estimates to the higher authorities and also the revised estimates and would have kept pending, but in this case on hand, AO1 prepared estimates sent the same, again revised estimates were called by DE, and same was also prepared and sent the same to DE through ADE but, DE only did not issue work order and did not sanction the material, so, fault is with DE not with AO1, hence I hold that, no official favour is pending with AO1 as on the date of trap, hence this point is answered in favour of the accused and against prosecution.

Point No.iii):

RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT:-

64. Admittedly, tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of AO1 and it was shown to be recovered from the possession of AO2. As per prosecution case, when PW1 approached

AO1 with proposed bribe amount on the trap day, he asked PW1 to hand over the amount to AO2 for safe custody and he will collect the same after lunch and accordingly, PW1 handed over the amount to

AO2 and came out and gave signal to the trap party and immediately,

DSP rushed to the room of AO1 caught hold of the accused and recovered tainted amount from the left side shirt pocket of AO2 but,

PW1 did not state in his evidence that AO1 demanded bribe and when he offered the same, AO1 asked him to hand over the amount to AO2 and there is no other evidence available on record to prove this important aspect, and there is no evidence that AO1 instigated or 24 abetted AO2 and AO2 had knowledge that amount allegedly received by him from PW1 is a bribe amount or gratification.

65.As far as recovery of amount from the possession of AO2 is concerned, AO2 advanced thrusting theory that, on the trap day, he came to the AE office to attend a meeting and before commencing meeting he along with his colleagues-PWs.5 and 7 went outside and had some Tiffin and while he was returning to AE office in the corridor,

PW1 tried to thrust some wad of currency notes in his shirt but he took out and thrown away the amount on the floor and within no time, ACB officials caught hold of his both hands, PW1 admitted the thrusting of amount at the instance of P.C.-Venkataramudu. PWs.5 and 7-other shift operators also supported theory of accused perhaps all of them were declared as hostile but, in the absence of any material elicited in the cross-examination for speaking falsehood against prosecution, their evidence cannot be thrown away totally.

66.Apart from the above discrepancies and infirmities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, mediator PW2 also admitted that

AO2 was taken to the room of AO1 from outside so, at the time of alleged demand by AO1, AO2 is not in the room of AO1 to attribute knowledge to AO2. Even assuming for a movement, prosecution proved recovery of tainted amount from possession of AO2, it cannot be said that, tainted amount was recovered at the instance of AO1 in the absence of link evidence between Accused Officers 1 and 2, hence this point is answered accordingly.

PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST:

67.As prosecution case, though AO1 demanded bribe from

PW1 and when offered the amount by PW1, he did not receive the same and asked PW1 to hand over the amount to AO2 and accordingly 25

PW1 gave the amount to AO2 who received the same with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept the amount in his left side shirt pocket. On receipt of signal from PW1, DSP entered into the room of AO1 and initially conducted phenolphthalein test to the both hand fingers of AO1, but they did not yield positive result and did not change the colour. MOs.3 and 4 are the resultant solutions prove the said fact.

68.It is further case of the prosecution, when DSP questioned

AO1 about tainted amount, he stated that, the amount is with AO2.

Then, DSP conducted phenolphthalein test to the hand fingers of AO2 and on doing so, both hand washes turned pink and yielded positive result. MOs.6 and 7 are the resultant solutions are both hand fingers of

AO2, prove the said fact. Later, DSP also conducted chemical test to the contacted portion of tainted amount to the left side shirt pocket of

AO2, it was also yielded positive result. MO8 is the resultant solution and MO9 is the wearing shirt of AO2. MO10 is the sample solution carbonate powder, prove the said facts. Mediator-PW2 and DSP-PW8 stated about the phenolphthalein test conducted to the hand fingers of

Accused Officers 1 and 2 and yielding of positive results from the hand fingers of AO2, and to his shirt pocket and recovery of tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- (MO5) from the possession of AO2.

69.Accused did not dispute positive results of the phenolphthalein test yielded to the hand fingers of AO2 by advancing trusting theory, and contents that by thrusting amount also there is chance of yielding positive result. Ultimately, if the accused is able to probablise his defence of thrusting theory, this positive result of phenolphthalein test may not help the prosecution in proving the guilt against the accused. Any rate, positive results of phenolphthalein test is one of the circumstances in favour of the prosecution, but it will not 26 become conclusive evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe but, can form as one of the corroborating circumstances in favour of the prosecution, hence this point is answered accordingly.

DEFENCE THEORY:

70.Learned counsel for accused argued that, though PW1 remitted required fees demanded under Ex.D2 proceedings by DE, but again fresh estimates were called for and AO1 also prepared fresh estimates sent the same to the higher authorities and again fresh demand was made by increasing some amount and issued Ex.D1-

Proceedings and it was also generated in the computers and copies of proceedings were also marked to the AO1 and all the concerned and after issuance of Ex.D1 when PW1 approached ADE he was asked to pay the amount again though he already remitted the amount and as there was delay in issuance of service connections to his fields, PW1 became frustrated, at that time, he was contacted by ACB constable-

Venkata Ramudu, who misguided him to lodge complaint against AO1, so that, his work will be attended immediately.

71.PW1 admitted the said defence theory in his cross- examination and also admitted thrusting of amount in the hands of

AO2 at the instance of Venkata Ramudu and he was all through followed by Venkata Ramudu even while giving Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement before the Magistrate. Defence theory was further strengthened by appearing name of Venkata Ramudu in Sec.164

Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 at first instance, later, it was struck of and name of PW1 was mentioned. Other Shift Operators i.e., PWs.5 and 7 who came on the trap day to the office of AE to attend some meeting also supported theory of accused, thereby, accused probablised his 27 defence as required by law and they are not required to prove their theory beyond reasonable doubt as required by the prosecution.

72.Apart from that, the accused also elicited in the evidence of higher authorities of accused that, there were no complaints or remarks against the accused earlier PW3-ADE admitted that, there were no complaints against accused 1 and 2 on any aspect and AO2 was working on Outsourcing basis. He further categorically admitted that, AO1 is sincere and hardworking, PW4-DE also admitted in the cross-examination that, there are no complaints against Accused

Officers 1 and 2, thereby their demand and acceptance of bribe from

PW1 also creates doubt. In law, when two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused be taken in the circumstances of the case, therefore, in view of the above defence theory advanced by the accused in this case can be taken as possible view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence, this point is answered in favour of the accused.

Point No.iv)

PRESUMPTION:

73.It is settled law that, in order to claim presumption by the prosecution, prosecution is bound to prove the foundational aspects namely, demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and pendency of official favour with accused as on the date of the trap.

But, in this case on hand, prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by AO1 through AO2 since complainant/PW1 did not support prosecution case. Evidence adduced by prosecution also shows that, no official favour is pending with AO1 as on the date of the trap since, DE did not issue work order and did not sanction the material, tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of 28

AO1 who allegedly made demand but shown to be recovered from possession of AO2 but prosecution failed to prove the link in between

AO1 and AO2. Phenolphthalein test conducted to the hand fingers of

AO1 did not yield positive result and positive results from the hand fingers of AO2, is of no consequence in the absence of link between

AO1 and AO2 so, it can be held that, prosecution failed to prove the foundational aspects in this case, so as to draw presumption against the accused.

74.Even otherwise, the said presumption under Sec.20 is only rebuttable presumption and accused in this case are able to rebut the said presumption by probablising their defence theory of trusting the amount by PW1 at the instance of PC-Venkata Ramudu. Therefore, in view of the above aspects, prosecution in this case is not entitled to claim presumption under Sec.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hence, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

SANCTION:

75.Though prosecution could not examine sanction issuing authority i.e., the then Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL,

Tirupati, who issued Ex.P.20- sanction order to prosecute the AO1, for the offences U/S 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 vide proceedings No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/JS(HR)GM(HR)DGM-VI/PO(DC)/ F.89-ATP in Dis.No.1519/2017 dt.24.08.2017, but, examined P.W.6-Deputy

General Manager and marked Ex.P-20 sanction order through him. The

Deputy General Manager brought the connected file from the office and deposed before the court as to how file was circulated and sanction order was issued by the sanctioning authority after perusal of the entire material on record and after satisfaction, by applying his 29 mind and issued sanction orders. He also stated that, he worked before

Sanction issuing Authority Sri.H.Y.Dora, thereby, he got acquaintance with the signature of Sri.H.Y.Dora and thereby, identified his signature in Ex.P-20 sanction order, before the court.

76.Accused raised similar technical contentions that, ACB sent draft sanction order along with draft final report seeking prosecution orders and Ex.P20-Sanction proceedings was issued on the same lines of draft sanction order, thereby, argued that, Ex.P20 was issued mechanically without application of mind. But, Ex.P20 shows at Para

No.6 the sanctioning authority clearly stated that, after fully and carefully examining the material namely copies of FIR, copies of statements of witnesses, copies of documents, official report of D.G.,

ACB., and other material placed before him in respect of the said allegation and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, he considered that, AO1 be prosecuted in a Court of Law for the above said offences, therefore, it cannot be said that sanctioning authority did not apply his mind.

77.The other technical contention raised by Accused that, though sanctioning authority Sri.H.Y.Dora, Retired from services, but alive, hence prosecution has to examine sanctioning authority

Sri.H.Y.Dora, but PW6 Deputy General Manager in the office of

APSPDCL, Thirupathi from the office of Chairman and Managing

Director, APSPDCL is not competent to speak about the sanction orders, but prosecution rightly marked Ex.P19-Authorization letter dt.31.12.2021 who also identified signature of sanctioning authority,

Sri.H.Y.Dora in Ex.P20, therefore, it cannot be said that, PW6 is not competent to speak about Ex.P20. On this point, there is direct decision in favour of the prosecution reported in Public Prosecutor, 30

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. P.Subhashchandra

Reddy, wherein it was held that:

“Examination of Sanctioning authority is not necessary, but the examination of the Officer who is acquainted with the signature of Sanctioning Authority is sufficient to prove the sanction”.

78.Therefore, in view of the above decision and in view of specific authorization given to PW6, it cannot be said that, PW6 is not competent to speak about sanction order before the Court thereby, I hold that, prosecution in this case proved Ex.P20-Sanction order as per law to prosecute the AO1 for the offences U/S.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt hence, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

CASE LAW:

79.Learned counsel for accused relied on the following decisions on the aspect of requirement of proof of demand and acceptances of bribe in a trap case;

1) In P.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs The District Inspector of Police and another reported in 2015(4) ALCLR 955 (S.C.) = 2015 10

SCC 152;

2) In N.Sunkanna Vs State of A.P., reported in 2015(4) ALCLR 768

S.C.;

3) In Punjab Rao Vs State of Maharastra, (2004 SCC (Crl.) 1130);

4) In Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 1408;

5) In C.M.Girish Babu Vs C.B.I. Cochin (2009 (2) ALT (Crl) 65 (SC);

6) In Banshilal Yadav Vs State of Bihar reported in AIR 1981 SC 1235;

7) In V.Venkata Subba Rao Vs State reported in 2007(1) ALD (Crl.) 209 = 2007 Crl.L.J.754; 31

8) In Man Singh Vs Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1979 SC 1455;

9) In State of M.P. Vs J.B.Singh reported in 2000 Crl.L.J.459;

10)In B.Jayaraj Vs State of A.P., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 = 2014(2) ALCLR (S.C.) 8;

11)In K.Giri Vs State of A.P., reported in 2008(2) ALD (Crl), 821 A.P.,

12)In Trilok Chandra Maurya (T.C.Maurya) Vs State 2011(2) reported in ALD (Crl.), 672 (AP); and

13)In Nutalapati Singhaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2001(1) A.L.D. 30 A.P.

80.I have gone through all those judgments carefully in which, lordships of various Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India held that, demand and acceptance is sine quo non, indispensible essentiality and gravamen of the offence. Mere suspicion and recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence and not sufficient to raise presumption under Sec.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it is sufficient if the accused offers probable explanation and strict proof is not necessary. Mere recovery of amount and chemical test proved positive not sufficient to invoke presumption under Sec.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

81.In the recent decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., reported in Akurathi Yelamanda Vs The State of ACB dt.19.2.2021 and

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in N.Vijay Kumar Vs State of

Taminalandu dt.2.3.2021, in which also, complainant not supported prosecution case and turned hostile, prosecution not examined any other witnesses, complainant disowned his own statement and own complaint, thereby, lordships held that evidence of PW1 and contents of complaint cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that, the 32 above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by accused and further held that, the only other material available is the recovery of tainted currency notes from possession of accused in the said case even recovery was accepted even then, lordships held that mere possession or recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Sec.7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

82.The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot held to be established. Lordships of Apex Court further held in so far as presumption permissible to be drawn under Sec.20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. In view of the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in a similar case, the AO1 in this case cannot be held as guilty for the offence under Sec.7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and AO2 also cannot be held as guilty for the offence under Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of link evidence and both of them are entitled the benefit of doubt.

Point No.v)

Conclusion:

83.In view of my findings on points i to iv as defacto- complainant-PW1 did not support prosecution case on any aspect, circumstantial witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e., shift 33 operators-PWs.5 and 7 also not supported prosecution case and no official favour was pending with AO1 as on the date of the trap as DE did not issue work order and material was also not sanctioned so as to attend the work of PW1, tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of AO1 and phenolphthalein test conducted to his hand fingers not yield positive result. Though amount shown to be recovered from the possession of AO2, but prosecution failed to show the link evidence between AO1 and AO2, thereby, I hold that, prosecution in this case failed to prove the guilt for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO1 and for the offence under Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO2, beyond reasonable doubt hence, these accused are entitled the benefit of doubt.

84.In the result, AO1 is found not guilty for the offences

U/S.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) r/w of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

AO2 also found not guilty for the offence under Sec.12 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, hence they are acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of AO1 and AO2 shall stand cancelled.

M.O.5 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- if not reimbursed earlier to Complainant-P.W.1 as per the orders of DG, ACB, Hyderabad dt.23.01.2017, shall be returned to him after appeal time.

MOs.1 to 4 and 6 to 10 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MO11 cash of Rs.30,000/- in FDR seized from AO2 during post- trap proceedings, which are not connected with this case, on which no action was taken till date, shall be returned to him after appeal time is over.

34

Since, defacto-complainant-Kavali Gangadhara-PW1, not supported prosecution case and resiled from his earlier statements and was declared as hostile by the prosecution, hence prosecution is directed to initiate Criminal proceedings against PW1 for perjury that appears to have been committed by him.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 31st day of March, 2022.

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1Kavali Gangadhara PW2J.P.Durgesh PW3C.R.Balasimha Rao PW4T.Srinivasu PW5B.Purushotham PW6C.Prasad PW7C.V.Manjunatha PW8C.Bhaskara Reddy PW9S.Khader Basha

FOR DEFENCE: None

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P123.11.2016.Signature of PW1 on the complaint. Ex.P223.11.2016.Signature of PW1 on the FIR. Ex.P303.12.2016Signature of PW1 in Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1. Ex.P428.11.2016Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P5-----Two applications submitted in the name of father of PW1 with enclosures. Ex.P6-----Application of mother of PW1 with enclosures. Ex.P7-----Application of paternal uncle of PW1 Ex.P85.5.2016Computer statement. Ex.P923.11.2016Copy of complaint. Ex.P1025.11.2016Pre-trap proceedings. Ex.P11-----Report accompany to the estimates contains 7 35 sheets. Ex.P1225.11.2016Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P1325.11.2016Post trap proceedings. Ex.P1428.4.2016Demand notice served from LW4-Bala Narasimha Rao. Ex.P1531.1.2017Service particulars of AO1 along with letter. Ex.P16-----Job chart of AO1 issued by PW4. Ex.P1714.3.2017Letter issued by PW4 furnishing the information of ORC amounts, delegation powers, ADE, DE and SE. Ex.P182.1.2017Relevant portion of Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW5. Ex.P1931.12.2021Authorization letter Ex.P2024.08.2017.Sanction order vide proceedings Dis.No.1519/2017. Ex.P212.1.2017Sec.161 cr.P.C., statement of PW7. Ex.P2225.11.2016Complaint endorsed by DSP, ACB, Anantapur. Ex.P2323.11.2016Original FIR Ex.P2429.11.2016Letter issued by DEE, Operation, APSPDCL, Kalyanadurg containing 16 pages

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D19.7.2016Copy of the proceedings issued by DE. Ex.D228.4.2016.Earlier proceedings issued by DE.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1A sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder. MO2A sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder. MO3A sealed bottle containing colourless right hand wash of sodium carbonate solution of AO1. MO4A sealed bottle containing colourless left hand wash of sodium carbonate solution of AO1. MO5Cash of Rs.10,000/-, MO6A sealed bottle containing resultant right hand solution of sodium carbonate of AO2. MO7A sealed bottle containing resultant right hand solution of sodium carbonate of AO2. MO8A sealed bottle containing resultant solution of inner things of left front shirt pocket of AO2. MO9Shirt. MO10A sealed cover containing the sampel of sodium carbonate pwoeder during post trap proceedings. MO11Unaccounted cash of Rs.30,000/- seized during post-trap proceedings from AO2. (kept in FDR)

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