Smt P. Lakshmi Kumari

1 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB CASES,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: SMT.P.LAKSHMI KUMARI,

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

Wednesday, this the 12thday of April,2023

CALENDAR CASE NO. 179 OF 2015

Between:

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

….Complainant.

And

Sri Namilikonda Venkata Ramana S/o Satyanarayana, aged 39 years, Occ: Village Revenue Officer, Thimmapur-I, Thimmapur (V&M), Karimnagar District, R/o H.No. 1-17, Namilikonda village, Kodimial (M), Karimnagar District.

…Accused.

OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13 (1) (d) READ WITH 13 (2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

This Calendar Case is coming before me on 12-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for the accused, upon perusal of material on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.14/ACB- 2 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

KNR/2013 to prosecute him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.01)The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet are that on 04.04.2013 the complainant/PW1/Pendyala Mahipal Reddy PW1 had lodged report stating that he purchased land to an extent of Ac.1-14 gts in Sy.No. 398, 399 situated at Timmapur village from one Vavilala Narayana Reddy in the name of his wife by name Pendyala Nirmala and that the PW1/complainant had also purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts in Sy.No. 425/b situated at

Thimmapur village from one Edla Poolamma on his name and later PW1 got registered the above said land on his name and on the name of his wife respectively and that in the month of August, 2012 he approached the accused who was working as Village Revenue Officer, Thimmapur village and had submitted the photostat copy of the registered documents and requested the accused to mutate the said lands in the revenue records and had submitted application covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively and that

PW1/complainant had several occasions had approached the accused and enquired about his works, but the accused had dodged the matter by assuring

PW1/complainant to complete his work at the earliest and inspite of that, the accused had kept the same pending and that the accused thereafter was transferred to Algunoor village and thereafter PW1/complainant had approached to the new Village Revenue Officer by name Laxma Reddy/PW3, and enquired about his mutation works with PW3 and that PW3/Laxma Reddy had informed the

PW1/complainant that the connected file and concerned mutation register 3 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 pertaining to the year 2011-12 relating to PW1 and his wife is with the accused and had advised PW1 to get his work done through the accused and that on 04.04.2013 during morning hours PW1 had approached to the office of Tahasildar,

Thimmapur and met the accused and enquired about his work at that time the accused had shown the mutation register pertaining to year 2011-2012 covered under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 of Thimmapur village to PW1 in which the entries were already made in the name of PW1 and his wife, but the accused had demanded

Rs.10,000/- towards bribe to complete his mutation work and that PW1 though not willing to pay the bribe amount to the accused had reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- on 06.04.2013 and accused had then told PW1 to get Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 in order to make entries of newly purchased lands of PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and the PW1 returned. Since

PW1/complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- to accused, had approached the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 and had lodged Ex.P1/report on 04.04.2013 against the accused. Basing on the report of PW1/complainant under Ex.P1,

PW7/T. Sudarshan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 had caused discreet enquiry about genuineness of the contents of the report of PW1/complainant and had registered case in crime No. 14/ACB-

KNR/2013 under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Ex.P15 after obtaining permission from the competent authority from 06.04.2013 at 8.00 hours and proceeded to conduct investigation and that during the course of investigation on 06.04.2013 PW7/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had secured the presence of 4 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

PW2/Banda Ramana Reddy mediator and LW3/Ghanukota Sreedhar and had laid trap against the accused on 06.04.2013 at about 10.50 am and had caught the accused red handed in his private rented office room while accused had demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- from PW1/complainant towards illegal gratification and phenolphthalein test conducted on both the fingers of right hand under Mo.5, left hand under Mo.6 of the accused had yielded positive result and that tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.1 was seized in presence of PW2 and LW3/Ghanukota Sreedhar mediators by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 from the right side wearing pant pocket of the accused and that inner flap of front side wearing pant pocket of the accused when subjected to sodium carbonate solution test also yielded positive result under Mo.7 and thereafter PW7 had seized wearing pant of the accused under Mo.8 and also seized the relevant records during the course of post trap proceedings and had effected the arrest of the accused at 14.30 hours and produced him for the judicial remand and that during the course of investigation PW7 had examined and recorded the statement of

PW1/complainant and PW3/Japa Laxma Reddy, Village Revenue Officer,

Thimmapur village and later Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had entrusted the case diary file to the PW9/K. Sathish

Chander Rao, Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and thereafter PW9 had conducted further investigation and during the course of his investigation PW9 had examined PW4/Katakam Varandhan, Tahasildar,

Thimmapur village, Karimnagar district, PW6/Burra Anil Kumar, owner of the private office room of the accused and thereafter a requisition was filed by the 5 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

PW7 for recording the statement of PW1/complainant and PW3/T. Laxma Reddy under section 164 Cr.P.C and the same was recorded by LW7/Learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Karimnagar and thereafter case diary was handed over to the PW8/P. Veerabadram, Inspector of police, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar for further investigation on the transfer of PW9 and that PW8 after receipt of the case diary file from PW9, had conducted further investigation and had secured the sanction order against the accused under Ex.P14 and had filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trap amount of Rs.5,000/- was reimbursed to the PW1/complainant through cheque bearing

No. 129114, dated 19.02.2015.

3)This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and assigned C.C.No. 179 of 2015 to the crime.

4)On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The learned Predecessor of this Court has examined the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and as the accused denied the commission of offences, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which the accused denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

6)In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 and M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of the defence DW1 was examined and got marked Ex.D1 to D10.

7)After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him are recorded separately.

8.01)Accused has filed his Written Statement contending that the

Accused, has been falsely implicated in the above case for no fault on his part and that, he never demanded any bribe amount from the Complainant/PW1 nor accepted the alleged tainted amount under MO.1 as a bribe on the Trap-day i.e.

on 06-04-2013.

8.02)Accused further submit that, the PW1, admitted in the Chief

Examination, that the Village Revenue Officer (AO) was transferred from

Thimmapur to Alugunur, which shows that accused is not concerned with the said allegations.

8.03)Accused further submits that, it is utterly false that PW1 had approached him several times and enquired him about his mutation work and he kept his work pending, as the accused nominated for training from 08-10-2022 to 18-11-2012 to Hyderabad and hence accused had handover the charge to Laxma

Reddy/PW3 on 07-10-2012 and after training, the accused had reported to duty the chief planning officer for further training on 19-11-2012 and had undergone further training upto 26-11-2012 and later the accused had reported to duty 7 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

before the Tahasildar on 27-11-2012 and thereafter the accused was transferred

to Alugnur and worked there from 05-12-2012. It is further submitted by the accused that he never demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 as bribe to issue the Pattedar Passbook or else he will not do work of PW1 since the mutation register of year 2011-2012 is with him only and to which the PW1 had pleaded inability to pay the bribe and had agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- on 06-04-2013 and that the accused had asked the PW1 to bring old passbooks and title deeds covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7, so that he will enter the newly purchased lands in the said passbooks and that on trap day the accused had demanded and accepted the alleged bribe from PW.1.

8.04)Accused further submit that, he neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount from the PW1, he was falsely implicated in this case by the Anti

Corruption Bureau, without proper investigation and the complaint filed by the

PW1 which is marked as Ex.P1 was registered without any preliminary enquiry. It is further submitted by the accused that, the allegation of bribe amount, accepting the amount of Rs.5,000/- towards bribe on the date of trap i.e. on 06- 04-2013 from the PW1 are absolutely false and baseless and the same are invented by PW1 for the purpose of case.

8.05)Accused further submitted that, PW1 in the cross examination had clearly admitted that Ex.D1/certified copy of sale deed, dated 11-04-2012, is executed by PW1, in favour of V. Ravi, bearing document No. 2236 of 2012 and as per EXD1 document the PW1 had sold away the land 208.33 sq. yards, and he had also admitted that land to an extent, 208.33 square yards was sold to 8 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Rangoju Raghu under, the Ex.D2, is registered sale deed dated 11-04-2012, and he further admitted that he also sold land to an extent of 213-33 Sq. Yards to

Laxminarayana through Ex.D3/registered sale deed dated 11-04-2012 and the

Ex.D1 contains the recital that PW1 had purchased the said land from one Edla

Pullamma vide Doc. No.323/2012, dt: 19-01-2022 and admitted that land purchased by him was mutated in his name and the Ex.D4 is the said relevant entry of mutation register in respect of Ex.D1 at Sl.No.108 and that PW1 had further admitted that after mutation in favour of vendor only, mutation will take place in the name of Vendee in respect of the agriculture land and therefore, it is clear from the above admissions, that the PW1 have already sold away part of the land purchased by the PW1 from his vendors to third parties through Ex.D1 to

D3 and it shows that only after the name of PW1 mutated in the revenue records,

PW1 had sold the said land to third parties and the Ex.D1 clearly shows that it was executed on 11-04-2012 and that when the land had already been mutated in the name of PW1, then the question of demanding for bribe to PW1 by the accused for mutating the said land in revenue records which was already mutated in the name of PW1 after a year will not arise at all and the receiving of the alleged amount is also not true, as such there is no official favour pending with the accused and that accused is falsely implicated in this case.

8.06)Accused further submitted that the PW1, during his course of cross examination, dated 18-04-2022 stated that, he purchased land in Thimmapur village and that suits were filed in Karimnagar Court with regard to the above lands. The PW1 admitted that, for filling the suits, he secured the documents 9 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 from Revenue offices, he further stated that, in the name of PW1, some criminal cases are filed against him in the appropriate court.

8.07)Accused further submitted that, the PW1 in his evidence deposed that he met with Village Revenue Officer/Laxma Reddy, and had not met with accused in the presence of Laxmareddy/Village Revenue Officer and that the accused had shown the mutation register to PW1, further he also seen the mutation proceedings in the register, the entries were not made in the register.

PW1 also testified that Government conducted survey and fixed boundaries in respect of Sy.No. 397 of Thimmapur village.

8.08)Accused further submitted that, as per the evidence of PW2, in Chief

Examination he reiterated the version given by PW1, and testified that PW3, as per the instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau/PW7 came to the office of accused along with connected records and file (11 sheets) and then, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau/PW7 had seized mutation register and took photocopies.

Ex.P11/Photocopies of mutation register of Thimmapur (34 sheets), then the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau/PW7 returned the original registers and files to PW3/Laxmareddy and also returned the original pattedar passbooks and title deed books to PW1 which is clearly shows that, there is no official favour pending with the accused. The mediator's report clearly shows that at the instance of Anti Corruption Bureau officials, a false report was prepared by the mediators, which is baseless report, thus it is clear that, prosecution tried to make out a false case against the accused through PW2.

10 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 8.09)Accused further submitted that, during course of cross-examination,

PW2 testified that the Jamabandi application, Mutation Registers were brought from Thimmapur office by Laxmareddy/PW3, on the day of trap on 06-04-2013 on the instructions issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau/PW7, which clearly shows that accused was falsely implicated in his case.

8.10)Accused further submitted that, when he was questioned by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau official/PW7, he had spontaneously represented that, he neither demanded nor accepted any amount from PW1, and that PW1 had thrusted the tainted amount in the front pant pocket of the accused and it fell down on the floor and when accused tried to lift the same from the floor inorder to return the same to PW1, meanwhile, the Anti

Corruption Bureau officials came and arrested the accused and same was witnessed by Village Revenue Assistant/Ajitha and One Tatipally Vijay who were present in the office. This is clearly shows that PW2, is a stock witness to Anti

Corruption Bureau having acted as mediator in this case.

8.11)Accused further submitted that, PW3, in Chief Examination had testified that after the accused was transferred to Alugunur, the accused did not handover all the books to PW3 but had handed over only some of books and that accused also did not handed over the mutation register for the year 2011-12, however PW3 surprisingly during his cross examination had admitted that Ex.D6 contains the signature of PW3 which is recommending for mutation of above land from Y. Poolamma to PW1 and Ex.D8 is entry made in mutation register at 11 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Sl.No.85 and the same forwarded by Mandal Revenue Inspector/Ramesh and attested by Dy. MRO/Sugunakar Reddy on 05-11- 2012, which clearly shows that mutation process was related to PW3 and he signed on it and forwarded to

Mandal Revenue Inspector and later it was attested by Dy. MRO and that the accused is no way concerned with the said mutation and he is falsely implicated in this case. Moreover, if at all the accused had not handedover all the books, then what made PW3 not to complaint against the accused.

8.12)Accused submitted further that, PW7 & PW9, has testified that, on the day of trap on 06-04-2013, PW9 had assisted during the pre and post trap proceedings under i.e., MR-I and MR-II, to PW7/Deputy Superintendent of police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and that, as per the instructions of the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 took investigation was taken up by PW9 and during course of his investigation, PW9 had examined and recorded the statements of PW4/K. Varandhan, MRO,

Thimmapur and PW6/Anil Kumar, on 10-04-2013, and that the preliminary enquiry reports were not submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau before this

Hon’ble Court, by PW7 & PW9 and that after completion of entire investigation,

PW9 prepared the draft final report, the same report is forwarded to the Director

General, ACB. Hyderabad for sanction of prosecution orders against accused, and hence evidence of PW7 and PW9 shows that mediator report-I & II are, prepared in the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau office, inorder to make out false case against the accused.

12 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 8.13)Accused further submitted that, PW7 & PW9, stated that they verified the mutation register at the time preparing draft final report. Further they admitted that Sy.No.425/B to extent of Ac.0-21 Guntas mutated in the name of

Edla Poolamma on 19-01-2012, under Ex. P11. The accused submitted further that he was not a village revenue officer from 09-01-2013 of Thimmapur Cluster-I and the accused had not demanded and accepted any bribe amount of Rs.5000/- from PW1 on the date of trap on 06-04-2013, for the purpose of mutating the land of PW1, and that Ex.P9, MR-1, Ex.P13/MR-I proceedings were prepared in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar on the dictation of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7.

8.14)Accused further submitted that, the entire M.R.-II, proceedings was prepared in ACB office without relevance to the facts and true events that took place on the date of trap to make out a false case against the accused, and all the aspects relating to conducting of discrete enquiries are absolutely false and baseless.

8.15)Therefore, the accused prayed to consider the written statement dispassionately and acquit him from the charges leveled against him.

9)Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the accused has demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.5,000/-?

2. Whether there was any official work of P.W.1 pending with the 13 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 accused as on the date of the Trap ?

3.Whether the accused by corrupt of illegal means accepted Rs.5,000/- from P.W.1 as gratification by abusing his position as Public Servant ?

4.Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

POINT NO.1

10)It is not in dispute that accused had worked as village revenue officer of Timmapur-I village, Timmapur mandal Karimnagar District from 2008 i.e., 03.08.2008 to 2012 and since then the accused has been working as village revenue officer incharge for the Alugunoor village of Timmapur Mandal and by virtue of post held by him, he is a Public Servant in the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Sanction:

11) PW5 is the senior assistant in the office of District Collector Karimnagar deposed that on 08.04.2013 the office of District Collector, Karimnagar had received radio message from the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 to place the accused under suspension vide C.No. A3/1609/2013

dated 30.04.2013 and accordingly the accused was kept under suspension and

upon the requisition by Director General, ACB, Hyderabad to the Government seeking sanction for the prosecution against the accused, the office of District 14 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Collector, Karimnagar had received the proceedings vide memo No. 13848/VIG-III (2)/2013, dated 21.08.2015 which was received by the office of District Collector,

Karimnagar on 04.09.2015 to take immediate necessary action against the accused and to furnish the report with regard to action taken in this regard and accordingly basing on the final report and the specimen sanction order and after careful consideration of entire file, the then District Collector, Karim nagar by name Smt Neetu Prasad, IAS has issued sanction proceedings vide proceedings .No. A3/1609/2013 ,dated 20.09.2015 under Ex.P14. PW.5 had identified the signature of the sanctioning authority by name Smt Neetu Prasad,

IAS in the sanction proceedings vide proceedings .No. A3/1609/2013 ,dated 20.09.2015 under Ex.P14.

12)Learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that the accused officer had never received a single charge memo during his entire service and his departmental record is good and false discreet enquiry is conducted by the investigating officer by making table endorsement.

13)Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW5 to say that the sanctioning Authority had not applied her mind before issuing Ex.P14 and that Ex.P14 had caused any injustice or prejudice to the accused.

14)PW.5 has identified the signature of the sanctioning authority by name Smt Neetu Prasad, IAS in the sanction proceedings vide proceedings .No.

A3/1609/2013 ,dated 20.09.2015 under Ex.P14. There is no suggestion given to the PW5 during course of cross examination that Ex.P14/Sanction order was mechanically issued based on only specimen sanction order for prosecution by 15 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 the sanctioning authority without application of mind to the facts of the case and that the same is not valid in the eye of law. There is also no suggestion given to

PW5/L. Srinivas/ Senior Assistant in the office of District Collector, Karim nagar that the sanction proceeding under Ex.P14 has caused the prejudice to the rights of the accused or any in justice is caused to the accused.

15)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal

Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1979 SC 677 has held as under...It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.

16)In the present case, PW5/L. Srinivas/ Senior Assistant in the office of

District Collector, Karimnagar has proved the signature of the Sanctioning

Authority under EXP.14. He had brought the record also. He denied that the

PW5/L. Srinivas/ Senior Assistant in the office of District Collector, Karimnagar has got no acquaintance with the signature of the sanctioning Authority. Sanction order dated 20-09-2015 is a detailed order.

17)The authority to remove the accused is District Collector,

Karimnagar by name Smt Neetu Prasad, IAS and her order granting sanction to prosecute is Ex.P14. This exhibit and the deposition of PW.5 nowhere indicates 16 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 that the authority has not applied his mind or not acted independently . It is not the case of the accused that any injustice is caused to the accused by virtue of

EXP.14. Therefore, it is held that the sanctioning authority had considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of Section 19(3) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the sanction was granted after due application of mind, and in absence of any failure of justice.

18)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined

PWs.1 to 9 though cited eleven witnesses. PW1 is the complainant/Pendayala

Mahipal Reddy. PW2 is the mediator who participated in pre and post trap proceedings. PW3 is the successor of Accused and village revenue officer,

Timmapur village from 09-01-2013 till July 2013, PW.4 is the then Tahasildar,

Timmapur Mandal at the relevant period. PW5 is the Senior Assistant in the office of District collector Karimnagar, through him sanction proceedings vide proceedings No. A3/1609/2013, dated 20.09.2015 was got marked under Ex.P14.

PW6 is the house owner of private office of the accused. PW7 is the Deputy

Superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and is the Trap Laying Officer who also issued first information report under

Ex.P15. PW.8 is the Inspector of police Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar who is one of the investigating officer who received sanction for prosecution order against the accused and filed charge sheet against the accused. PW.9 is is the Inspector of police Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar who is one of the investigating officer and who assisted the trap laying officer/PW7.

17 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

19)PW1 is the complainant/Mahipal Reddy deposed before this Court that he is resident of Thimmapur village and he is an agriculturist and that he purchased land to an extent of Ac.1-04 gts in Sy.No. 398, 399 Thimmapur village from V. Narayana Reddy in the name of his wife Nirmala and that PW1 had also purchased land to an extent of Ac.21-00 gts in Sy.No. 425/B of Thimmapur village from Edla Poolamma in the name of PW1 and later in the month of August, 2012

PW1 had approached the accused while accused was Village Revenue Officer of

Thimmapur village and that PW1 had submitted an application under Ex.P2, and

EXP.3 by enclosing the relevant forms photostat copies of documents for effecting mutation and for making necessary entries in the pattedar passbook and title deed of PW.1 and his wife covered under EXP.4 to EXP.7. Later PW1 on several occasions had approached the accused and requested him to do his work. It is also the evidence of PW1 that he used to pursue and enquire about the application under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 for every 15 days and like wise PW1 had approached the office of village revenue officer for 4 months, but the accused had kept the work of PW1 pending and later PW1 came to know that the accused was transferred from Thimmapur village to Algunoor village and then PW1 had approached the new Village Revenue Officer/PW3 Laxma Reddy and enquired about his work with PW3 upon which, the PW3 had stated to PW1 that the mutation register pertaining to year 2011-2012 covered under EXP.11 and EXD.9 is with the accused only and had told the PW1 to approach the accused to carryout his works and as such, PW1 had approached to the office of Tahasildar,

Thimmapur/PW.4 on 04.04.2013, PW1 had met the accused and enquired about 18 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 his mutation works upon which, the accused had shown the mutation register under Ex.P11 and EXD.9 containing the entries of land purchased by PW1 and his wife by name Nirmala and thereafter accused had demanded the bribe amount of

Rs.10,000/- for causing entries in the old pattedar passbook and title deed of

PW1 and wife of PW1 by name Nirmala covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and had told the PW1 that unless the bribe amount is paid to the accused, the work of

PW1 will not be progressed as the mutation register pertaining to year 2011-2012 covered under EXP.11 and EXD.9 is with the accused only and as such, PW1 had reluctantly agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards bribe on 06.04.2013 and then the accused had asked PW1 to bring the old patta passbook and title deeds of

PW1/complainant and wife of the PW1/complainant by name Nirmala covered under EXP.4 to EXP.7 so that accused will make entries of the newly purchased lands covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 into the said old patta passbooks and title deeds covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 accordingly PW1 had returned and since

PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the accused, had approached the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 at 12.00 noon of 04.04.2023 and lodged Ex.P1/report.

20)PW1 deposed further that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had asked him to attend the office of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 at 5.00 am on 06.04.2013 with proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- and accordingly PW1 had attended the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 at 5.00 am with proposed bribe amount and met the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 who asked 19 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

PW1 to wait outside for some time and after 15 minutes, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had called

PW1 to his chamber and introduced PW1 to two mediators I.e PW.2 and

LW.3/G.Sridhar and viceversa and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had given the copy of report of PW1 under

EXP.8 to the mediators I.e PW.2 and LW.3/G.Sridhar who had gone through the contents of the said report and had ascertained the truth of contents of the Ex.P1 with PW1 for which the PW1 had affirmed the contents of the report under Ex.P1 as true and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 had asked PW1 to produce the proposed bribe amount of rupees 5000/- and upon the affirmative reply given by PW1, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had asked PW1 to handover the proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (100x50=5000) to mediators i.e., the

PW.2 and LW.3/G.Sridhar and upon the said instructions of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7, PW1 had accordingly handed over the said proposed bribe amount to one of the mediators who had noted down the denomination and currency note numbers on a paper and thereafter Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 had called one of the police constable and directed the mediators to handover the said proposed bribe amount to the said constable to smear the entire currency notes of rupees 5000/- with phenolphthalein powder and accordingly the said police constable had smeared the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and had kept the same in the left side empty shirt pocket of PW1/complainant after ensuring nothing else inside the said shirt 20 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 pocket of the PW.1 and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had instructed PW1 to give the tainted amount of rupees 5000/- only upon the further demand of the accused and not otherwise and not to shake hands with the accused either before or after demand and acceptance of tainted amount and in case, the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount, to give signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief.

21)PW1 deposed further that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had ascertained with PW1 as to whether

PW1 has got any financial transactions with the accused for which PW1 had stated that there are no any kind of financial transactions with the accused and later Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had demonstrated the process of phenolphthalein test and explained the significance of the phenolphthalein test to the mediators and the

PW.1/complainant and thereafter all the trap party members washed their respective hands with the soap and the entire proceedings were incorporated in the pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P9/Mediator Report-I.

22)PW1 deposed further that all the trap party members had thereafter proceeded from the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 in one TATA sumo and in one private hired vehicle at 10.45 am to go to Algunoor private office of the accused and accordingly all the trap party members reached their at 10.20 am and Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 stopped the vehicle by the side of the road near the private office of the accused and had permitted PW1 to go to 21 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 the office of accused by reiterating the previous instructions to the

PW1/complainant and meanwhile the trap party had taken the vantage positions in and around the private office of the accused.

23)PW1 deposed further that he entered in the private office of the accused by crossing the road at 10.35 am and had found the accused in his seat doing his work and PW1 had greeted the accused, upon which, the accused had ascertained from PW1 as to whether PW1 brought the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- or not and on affirmative reply given by PW1, the accused had demanded PW1 to pay the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- and accordingly the accused had collected the said bribe amount with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept in his right side front pant pocket of the accused and then PW1 had handed over the old pattedar passbooks and title deeds covered under Ex.P4 to EXP.7 to the accused and the accused had asked PW1 to come after one week and thereafter PW1 came out of the private office of the accused at 10.45 am and had given pre-arranged signal to the trap party members by wiping his face with hand kerchief and on receipt of the pre-arranged signal of the PW1, the trap party members immediately rushed to the spot and the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had asked PW1 to disclose the identity of the accused and accordingly PW1 had shown the accused to the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 had apprehended the accused and asked the PW1 to stay outside for some time and after some time, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 called the PW1 inside and had enquired 22 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 as to what had happened and then PW1 had narrated the entire incidents and the same was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 and thereafter PW1 had given his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile

Court, Karimnagar and that the statement of PW1 under 164 Cr.P.C contains his signature and then PW1 had identified the accused in the Court hall on the date of his evidence.

24)PW1 during the course of cross examination admitted that he had executed registered sale deed in respect of Ac.0-21 gts infavour of the vendees by name Akanandam and Venkatreddy inrespect of Sy.No. 425/B of Thimmapur village and had expressed ignorance about total extent in Sy.No. 425/B. PW1 also deposed that after selling the said land infavour of the said vendees by name

Akanandam and Venkatreddy, PW1 had no land left except the land purchased from Edla Poolamma. PW1 further admitted that he had sold away the land in

Sy.No. 425/B under Ex.D1 on 11.04.2012 to an extent of 208.33 sq.yds and under

Ex.D2 to an extent of 208.33 sq.yds and under Ex.D3 to an extent of 213.33 sq.yds. PW1 deposed that he had not applied for any mutation before the

PW3/Laxma Reddy and that the relevant entry under Ex.D7 at Sl.No. 1651 which disclosing the mutation effected infavour of PW1 was struck off.

25)PW1 admitted that as per Ex.D6 his name is mutated on 04.01.2013 having purchased the land in Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts from one

Edla Poolamma vide registered sale deed document No. 323/2012 dated 23 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 19.01.2012 and the name of his vendees covered under Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 also mutated covered under Ex.D4 and Ex.D5.

26)PW1 further deposed that when he entered into the private office of the accused he did not observe as to how many rooms available in the office of the accused however PW1 stated that there were files available and the accused was sitting facing towards east and had taken the old passbooks and title deed covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 from the PW1 and then accused had shown the mutation register under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 to PW1. However, the entries were not made in the passbooks in presence of PW1 though old passbooks were handedover to the accused at that time. PW1 denied that at the time of said visit of PW1 in the private office of the accused on 06.04.2013, the village revenue assistant by name T. Ajitha and one Tatipally vijay were also present and that

PW1 in collusion with PW3/Laxma Reddy, Village Revenue Officer had thrusted the tainted amount Mo.1 in the front pant pocket of the accused and at that time, the tainted amount under Mo.1 had fell down on the ground and when the accused was picking up the amount from the ground at that time, the ACB officials came and apprehended the accused.

27)The learned counsel for the accused has argued that as per the report under Ex.P1, the official favour pending as per the case of prosecution is with respect to mutation process which was already completed and the prosecution with an after thought in order to cover up the lacunae has made an improvement in the previous statement of PW1 under section 161 (3)Cr.P.C to that of report under Ex.P1 with regard to the official favour for issuance of patta 24 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 passbook or to make entries into the patta passbooks and title deeds covered under EXP.4 to EXP.7.

28) It is argued further that as per the evidence of PW1 it clearly discloses that he sold the land through the registered sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts in favour of Ekanandam and one

Venkat Reddy and that the land is shown as open land as such it does not falls under the category of agricultural land and the execution of the above said document had taken place much prior to the trap of the accused in this case and apart from that PW1 had also executed registered sale deed covered under Ex.D1 vide document No. 2236/2012 dated 11.04.2012 for land admeasuring 208.33 sq.yds in Sy.No. 425/B in favour of one V. Ravi under Ex.D1 and that PW1 had also executed registered sale deed dated 11.04.2012 executed by PW1 in favour of one Rangoji Raghu covered under Ex.D2 and PW1 had also sold land in Sy.NO.

425/B to an extent of 213.33 sq.yds in favour of R. Laxminarayana covered under

Ex.D3 and hence the execution of Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 by PW1 reveals that the above lands covered under Ex.D1 to D3 are converted into plots and were sold to the above vendees of Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 and the said transaction had taken place much prior to the date of trap of the accused.

29)It is further argued by the learned counsel that as per the Telangana

Rights in pattadar passbook act 1971 which clearly states under section 4 of the

Act the land means which is used or is capable of being used for purpose of agricultural including horticulture but does not include land used exclusively for non agricultural purpose and therefore, the non agricultural lands does not fall 25 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 under the above act and no patta passbook can be issued in respect of non agricultural lands and that as per Section 6 (D) (2) of Telangana Rights in land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971 which clearly states that the registering authority shall not register any document relating to a transaction of the nature referred to in sub (1) without production of the title deed and passbook by both the parties to the transaction and that the version of the prosecution that the

PW1 not issued with passbook and it was the official favour pending with the accused and if really PW1 was not issued with any patta passbook then how PW1 had executed Ex.D1 to D3 infavour of third parties without production of title deed and passbook by PW1 before the registering authority and therefore it clearly denotes that the registering authority shall not register any document without production of the title deed and passbook by both the parties to the transaction and there raises a suspicion as to the issuance of patta passbook and that as per the evidence of PW4/Tahasildar the village revenue officer in due process of mutation after handing over the pattadar passbook to the applicant should take the signature of the applicant in Form NO. 17, but no document under form No.17 is seized by the prosecution.

30)The above said contention of learned counsel for the accused regarding pendency of official favour for issuance of patta passbook and title deed in the name of PW1 and his wife is unfounded as per the evidence of PW1 to PW4 since

PW1 to PW3 had categorically deposed that the officaial favour is pending for mutation of land in the name of PW1 and in the name of wife of PW1 by name

Nirmala is in respect of newly purchased lands covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively and as per the evidence of PW4/Tahasildar, he also testified before 26 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 this Court about the procedure for mutation and that in case of already existing old pattadar passbook and title deed in the name of the applicant concerned the entries of newly purchased land by the applicants will be entered in the already existing old pattadar passbook and title deeds.

31)PW2/mediator had also testified before this Court that PW1 had informed to the DSP, ACB Karimnagar/PW7 in presence of PW2 and LW3/G. Sridhar that the accused had asked PW1 to bring the old pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the name of PW1 and in the name of wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 along with the demanded bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- which clearly proves that the official favour is with respect to mutation of lands covered under Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 and to make entries of those lands in the old pattadar passbooks and title deeds of PW1 and his wife respectively as covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and the official favour is not for the issuance of new pattadar passbook and title deed in the name of PW1 and his wife. Hence, the said contention of the learned counsel

for the accused in this regard is untenable and the question of seizure of the

document in respect of Form No. 17 does not arise.

32)Learned counsel for the accused has argued further that the document under Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 discloses that on 04.01.2013 the mutation process of the lands of PW1 and his wife were completed and the same were approved by

Tahasildar/PW4 and that the village revenue officer as on the date of trap of the accused was PW3/Japa Laxma Reddy and that the Tahasildar/PW4 and the Mandal

Revenue Inspector/Ramesh had signed in the mutation register for the year 2012- 13 at Sl.No. 108, 109, 110 and 156 and that PW3/Japa Laxma reddy had 27 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 admitted during his course of cross examination that the contents of Ex.D4 endorsement were written by village revenue assistant and it was signed by PW3 after verifying the endorsement of Ex.D1 and the same is also signed by mandal revenue inspector and Dy.Tahasildar/DW1 which clearly shows that PW3 had received fresh application and entered the same and the same was subsequently approved by PW4 and that PW3 who was the village revenue officer at that time had carried out the said process and if at all any official favour is pending in respect of mutation works of PW1 and his wife, the same is pending with Japa

Laxma reddy and not with the accused as the accused was not working there and has been transferred from Thimmapur village Cluster-I to Algunoor village.

33)The said contention of the learned counsel for the accused is also not tenable as the entries made under Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 in respect of recommendation for mutation were made in the name of PW.1/complainant and in the name of vendees of PW.1/complainant of EXD.1 to EXD.3 covered under

EXD.4 to EXD.6 respectively in the mutation register of 2012-2013 and no mutation proceedings by PW4/Tahasildar is admittedly issued upon Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 applications of PW1/complainant and his wife. if really any fresh application is obtained by the PW.3/J.Laxma reddy after transfer of the accused from the Timmapur village to Alugunoor village as alleged by the learned counsel

for the accused during the course of argument for the first time which plea was

admittedly never taken during course of the trial and in the defence evidence of the accused, then certainly PW4/Tahasildar ought to have endorsed the same to

PW3/Japa Laxma reddy for enquiry and to submit the enquiry report in respect of 28 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 the alleged fresh application for mutation in the name of PW1 and the wife of

PW1.

34)PW1 has categorically testified before this Court that he had not applied for any mutation before Japa laxma reddy/PW3 during course of his cross examination dated 27.06.2018. PW3/Japa Laxma reddy has also testified before this Court that in the month of January or February 2013 PW1 had approached the PW3/Japa Laxma Reddy and had enquired about his application and the application of his wife covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively and PW3 had stated to PW1 that their application is not available in the office and to enquire with the accused to whom PW1 had handed over the application under Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 and had further informed the PW1 that the accused had not handed over the application of PW1 and the application of wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 along with the mutation register covered under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 and that Pw1 during the said visit had not shown any documents to PW3. The evidence PW2/mediator and PW7/DSP, ACB, Karimnagar also discloses that when the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had questioned the accused about the connected documents of PW1 and his wife, the accused had produced the Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 from his custody and had revealed about the connected file covered under

Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 available in the almirah of village revenue officer, Thimmapur village which is located in the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal and then the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had rang to PW3 and asked him to produce the connected file covered Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 and then PW3 had produced Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 connected file and handed over to the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and then Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 were seized. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 and PW7 29 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 nowhere reveals that any fresh application for mutation is submitted by PW1 and his wife.

35)It is pertinent to mention that there is no entries for recommendation for mutation in the name of wife of the PW.1/complainant in the mutation register of 2012-2013, though there is entries with regard to recommendation for mutation in the name of the PW.1 and in the name of vendees of PW.1 as covered under EXD.4 to EXD.6 respectively. There is no reason assigned by the accused as to why the said enteries mentioned at serial number 162 of EXD.7 in the mutation register of 2012-2013 in the name wife of the PW.1/complainant is struck off if really the mutation is effected in the name of the Wife of the PW.1/complainant even after the alleged fresh application if at all taken by the PW.3/J.Laxma reddy from PW1 and his wife by name Pendyala

Nirmala.

36)Hence, the said contention of the learned counsel for the accused that basing on fresh application allegedly obtained by PW3 from PW1, the recommendation for mutation in the name of PW1 and in the name of wife of

PW1 were approved by PW4/Tahasildar and that PW3 who was the village revenue officer at the relevant period had carried out the mutation process covered under

Ex.D4 to Ex.D7 and that the official favour is pending with PW3 is not tenable.

37)If really the PW1/complainant had not at all met and contacted the accused either on 04-04-2013 or earlier to that date and the accused had not shown the mutation register of the year 2011-12 under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 regarding the entries of the land purchased by the PW.1 and wife of the PW.1 in 30 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 the said mutation register covered under Ex.P11 and EXD.9/Mutation register for the year 2011-2012 of Timmapur village, which is admittedly signed by the accused as the village revenue officer of Timmapur village and that the enquiry report dated 04-10-2012 admittedly contained the signature of the accused as village revenue officer of Timmapur village on EXP.2 and EXP.3 applications of

PW.1/complainant and wife of PW.1/complainant and and same does not contain the signature of mandal revenue inspector concerned which is also proving that

EXP.2 and EXP.3 applications of PW.1/complainant and wife of PW.1/complainant were even not placed before the mandal revenue inspector concerned unless the same is not revealed by the accused to PW.1 on 04-04-2013 in the office of

Tahsildar, Timmapur/PW.4, then how the PW1/complainant had got the knowledge about the same which is exclusive within the knowledge of accused.

Though the accused was duty bound to place the said enquiry report dated 04- 10-2012 covered under EXP.2 and EXP.3 respectively before the mandal revenue inspector concerned and before the Tahsildar concerned of Timmapur mandal had not placed the same for the further process of mutation in the name of

PW.1/complainant and the wife of PW.1/complainant which proves that the official favour was pending only with the accused from the date of demand till the date of trap of the accused in this case and not with the PW.3/Japa Laxma reddy as alleged by the accused.

38)It is argued further by the learned counsel for accused that as per

Ex.P2 sheet No.1 the application dated 01.09.2012 and as per the sheet No.4 and 5 of Ex.P2 notice and form No.8 reveals that the notice has been given calling for objections on the mutation in the name of PW1 and his wife in which the enquiry 31 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 report of village revenue officer i.e., Accused dated 04.10.2012 is submitted after expiry of 30 days notice period and no objections received in respect of mutation in the name of PW1 and his wife as shown in Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 and that the entries in the mutation register at Sl.No.83 and SI.84 of EXD.9 discloses that there are mutation entries also effected at Sl.No.85 and 86 covered under Ex.D8 without signature of the accused or any village revenue officer except the signature of PW4/Tahasildar and mandal revenue inspector/Ramesh and that the accused after submission of enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 to the

Tahasildar/PW4 on the next day, the accused was directed to undergo training from 08.10.2012 to 18.11.2012 at Hyderabad and on 06.10.2012 the accused handed over the charge to PW3 and thereafter accused had reported for further training on 19.11.2012 before chief planning officer and had undergone further training upto 26.11.2012 and later the accused had reported to duty before the

Tahasildar on 27.11.2012 covered under Ex.D10 and after completion of the said training, the accused has been transferred to Algunoor village immediately and had joined the duty from 05.12.2012 and therefore it reveals that the accused after submitting the enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 before the Tahasildar/PW4 for approval had been immediately deputed for training upto 26.11.2012 and after the transfer of the accused from Thimmapur village to Algunoor village, PW1 had approached to new village revenue officer i.e., PW3/Laxma Reddy which also shows that accused was not working in Thimmapur village as such, there is no question of pending of official favour with the accused as the accused has completed his part of enquiry and submitted the report at sheet No.6 of Ex.P2.

32 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

39)The above said contention of the learned counsel of the accused with regard to submission of enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 to the

Tahasildar/PW4 and that on the next day, the accused was directed to undergo training from 08.10.2012 to 18.11.2012 at Hyderabad and that on 06.10.2012 the accused handed over the charge to PW3 and thereafter accused had reported for further training on 19.11.2012 before chief planning officer and had undergone further training upto 26.11.2012 and later the accused had reported to duty

before the Tahasildar on 27.11.2012 covered under Ex.D10 and that after

completion of the said training, the accused had been transferred to Algunoor village immediately and had the joined the duty to Algunoor village from 05.12.2012 is also untenable as the very serial number at 83 and 84 of EXP.11 and EXD.9 does not bear the signature of the mandal revenue inspector by name

Ramesh and the signature of the Tahsildar/PW.4 to show that the enquiry report

dated 04.10.2012 covered under EXP.2 and EXP.3 respectively were really

submitted before the mandal revenue inspector by name Ramesh and the

Tahsildar/PW.4 by the accused immediately before the training of the accused as covered under EXD.10 on 06-10-2012 or is submitted either before or after transfer of the accused from the Timmapur village to Alugunoor village by allegedly handing over charge of all documents and records by the accused to

PW.3/Japa Laxma reddy. Hence it shows that since the enquiry report dated 04- 10-2012 was not placed by the accused before the mandal revenue inspector by name Ramesh and the Tahsildar/PW.4 as such, there is no signature of the mandal revenue inspector by name Ramesh and the Tahsildar/PW.4 in proof of further process of mutation in the name of the PW.1 and the wife of the 33 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

PW.1/complainant in pursuance of the applications covered under EXP.2 and EXP.3 respectively either in the EXP.2, EXP.3, EXP.10, EXP.11 and EXD.9 and the same on the other hand, proves that the official favour was pending with the accused as on the date of demand i.e., 04-04-2013 to till the date of the trap of the accused I.e on 06-04-213 and it also proves that the mutation register for the

Timmapur village of the year 2011-2012 covered under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 was intentionally retained by the accused as a motive for the demand of bribe covered under MO.1from the PW.1/complainant for the purpose of further process of mutation in the name of PW.1/complainant and in the name wife of

PW.1/complainant.

40)The said argument of learned counsel for the accused also at first instance only goes to show that the accused was also part of process of the mutation works relating to PW1 and wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in which accused had admittedly submitted the enquiry report 04.10.2012 covered under sheet No.6 of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. The submission of enquiry report

dated 04.10.2012 by the accused on the application covered under Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 respectively pertaining to PW1 and the wife of PW1 by name Nirmala proves that accused was very much concerned to the process of mutation works relating to PW1 and the wife of PW1.

41)In one hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that in respect of non agricultural land more particularly the lands covered under Ex.D1 to Ex.D3, no patta passbook can be issued as it is converted into plots as revealed from the evidence of PW1 where PW1 had admitted that PW1 had 34 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 executed a general power of attorney cum sale in favour of Naini Venkat reddy in resepct of land in Sy.No. 425/B admeasuring 1144 sq.yds and the said land shown to be the open land.

42)On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued as per the evidence of PW4/Tahasildar is that after transfer of particular village revenue officer, the Tahasildar concerned will not entertain any report or application from the village revenue officer on transfer and in case the village revenue officer concerned is transferred from one village to another, the new village revenue officer can proceed with the process of mutation and can obtain fresh application from the party concerned for mutation and that the accused in this case had been already transferred from Thimmapur village to Algunoor village and has no authority to issue patta passbook and he is not authorized for the same as it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the accused and hence no official favour is pending with the accused and if at all any alleged mutation process and issuing of patta passbook is pending then PW1 cannot sell his lands to the third parties covered under Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 without the lands being mutated in the name of PW1 and without there being issued patta passbook and title deed and since mutation effected in the name of PW1 in the revenue records as such, PW1 had sold the land covered under Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 and hence, the question of demanding bribe by the accused from the PW1 for mutating the land covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in the revenue records which is already mutated in the name of PW1 covered under Ex.D6 does not arise.

35 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

43)It is pertinent to mention that lands covered under EXD.1 to EXD.3 had been admittedly sold by the PW.1/complainant to the vendees of Ex.D1 to

Ex.D3 and the said transaction had taken place much prior to the date of trap of the accused, however the names of the vendees of the PW.1/complainant had been only recommended for mutation as covered under EXD.4 and EXD.5 and the name of PW.1/complainant had also been only recommended for mutation and same has been accepted by the Tahsildar/PW.4 under EXD.6 on 04-01-2013 and no mutation proceedings issued by PW4/Tahasildar in pursuance of Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 application in respect of file number B/84/2012 as mentioned in Ex.P2 and file No.B/83/2012, MTN/TPR as mentioned in Ex.P3 which is subsequent to sale deed executed by the PW.1/complainant in favour of his vendees of EXD.1 to

EXD.3 covered under EXD.4 and EXD.5 and subsequent to recommendation for mutation being accepted under EXD.6 in the name of PW.1/complainant containing the endorsement and signature of PW.3 and the signature of mandal revenue Inspector Ramesh and deputy Tahsildar/DW.1.

44)Admittedly there were no objections received as per the enquiry report of the accused dated 04-10-2012. The evidence of PW.1/complainant clearly discloses that he had also purchased land in survey number 425/B to an extent of 38 guntas from one Edla Srinivas Reddy in the year 2006 and that mutation in respect of said land has been taken place which is not the subject matter of this case before this court. It is also the evidence of PW.1 during the course of the cross examination that after selling the land to Ekanandam and to

Venkat Reddy,PW.1 has got the lands having purchased from his vendor by name

Edla Poolamma. If really the patta pass books and title deed cannot be issued in 36 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 respect of land covered under Ex.P2 and EXP.3 respectively as contended by the learned counsel for the accused, the accused at the time of submission of the applications under Exp.2 and EXP.3 by the PW.1/complainant ought to have returned to PW.1 by informing the PW.1 regarding the alleged objection contending that the lands covered under EXD.1 to EXD.3 are non agricultural lands and hence no patta pass books and title deed can be issued and no mutation can be effected in the name of PW1 and wife of PW1 in respect of land covered under Exp.2 and EXP.3 and on the other hand the submission of enquiry report dated 04-10-2012 by the accused in respect of land covered under Ex.P2 and EXP.3 and making entries for recommending for mutation in the name of

PW.1/complainant and in the name of wife of the complainant covered under

EXP.11 and EXD.9 proves that though the accused was not the competent authority to effect and to process the mutation in respect of land covered under

Exp.2 and EXP.3 had intentionally retained the applications under Exp.2 and

EXP.3 and the mutation register of 2011-2012 covered under EXP.11 and EXD.9 with him till his transfer to Algunoor village from Thimmapur village to till the date of trap of the accused only as a motive or reward from PW1 for doing official favour by misleading the PW.1/complainant by creating a belief in the mind of

PW.1/complainant about the mutation of the land covered under Exp.2 and

EXP.3 in the name of PW.1 and in the name of wife of PW.1 though the accused had not intended to do and was not in a position to do. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel for the accused that since the land covered under

Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 has been mutated in the name of PW1 in the revenue records hence, PW1 has been issued pattadar passbook by the PW3 after taking fresh 37 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 application for mutation in respect of land covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and hence, PW1 had sold lands covered Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 is contradictory argument to the other hand argument of learned counsel for the accused that since the lands covered under Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 is non agricultural land, hence no patta passbook and title deeds can be issued and that accused is not authorized to do so and that no official favour is pending with the accused to the argument of learned counsel for accused that the lands covered under Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 had been already mutated in the name of PW1 and therefore, the question of demanding bribe by the accused from PW1 does not arise. The said arguments of learned counsel for accused does not stand to reason.

45)The evidence of PW.1/complainant clearly discloses that the

PW.1/complainant had requested the accused on several occasions about his application and application of his wife covered under EXP.2 and EXP.3 respectively in respect of the mutation of their lands from the date of submission of the applications covered under EXP.2 and EXP.3 respectively and more particularly on 04-04-2013 where PW.1 was shown the mutation register for the year 2011-2012 under EXD.9 and EXP.11 from the custody of the accused inspite of transfer of the accused from the Timmapur village to Alugunoor village.

46)Perusal of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 discloses that the said application of PW1 and the wife of PW1 were issued notice inviting for objections having in respect of mutation in the name of PW1 for the land to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts in

Sy.No.425/B of Thimmapur village and in the name of wife of PW1 inrespect of

Sy.No. 398, 399 of Thimmapur village to an extent of Ac.1-04 gts.

38 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

47)Perusal of Ex.P11 mutation register for the year 2011-12 discloses that there is a entry of Sy.No. 83 in village account No.2 of Thimmapur village in respect of Sy.No.398 to an extent of Ac.24 gts in Sy.No.399/B to an extent of Ac.0- 10 gts, in Sy.No. 399/C to an extent of Ac.0-10 gts vide registered document bearing No. 3326/2012, dated 04.06.2012 and Sy.No. 84 inrespect of Sy.No.425/B to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts vide registered document No. 323/2012 dated 19.01.2012 were recommended for mutation by the Village Revenue Officer concerned in the name of PW1 inrespect of Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts and in the name of wife of PW1 n respect of Sy.No.398 to an extent of Ac.24 gts in Sy.No.399/B to an extent of Ac.0-10 gts, in Sy.No. 399/C to an extent of

Ac.0-10 gts vide registered document bearing No. 3326/2012, dated 04.06.2012 and at Sl.No. 84 inrespect of Sy.No.425/B to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts vide registered document No. 323/2012 dated 19.01.2012, since no objections were received from anyone within the prescribed period.

48)Perusal of Ex.D1/certified copy of registered sale deed discloses that

PW1/complainant had sold the land in Sy.No.425/B to an extent of 208.33 sq.yds infavour of V.Ravi on 11.04.2012 in document bearing No.2236/2012.

49)Perusal of Ex.D2 certified copy of registered sale deed in document bearing No. 2237/2012, dated 04.04.2012 discloses that PW1/Pendyala Mahipal

Reddy had sold land in Sy.no. 425/B to an extent of 209.33 sq.yds to one R.

Raghu.

39 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

50)Perusal of Ex.D3 discloses that PW1/Pendyala Mahipal Reddy had sold away the land in Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of 213.33 sq.yds infavour of one

R. Laxmi Narayana on 11.04.2012.

51)Perusal of Ex.D4/certified copy of mutation register for the year 2012-13 discloses that at Sl.No. 108 of certified copy of the mutation register for the year 2012-13 discloses that mutation has been recommended in the name of

V. Ravi S/o Ramulu vide account No.2 of Thimmapur village and mandal,

Karimnagar district having purchased from PW1/complainant/Pendyala Mahipal

Reddy is entered inrespect of Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of 208.33 sq.yds vide registered document bearing No. 2236/2012 dated 11.04.2012 covered under

Ex.D1 and at Sl.No. 109 there is a entry that mutation is recommended in the name of Rangoji Raghu after he purchased the said land from Pendyala Mahipal

Reddy/PW1 vide registered sale deed document No. 2237/2012 dated 11.04.2012 covered under Ex.D2.

52)PW3 admitted his signature on Ex.D4 and his endorsement on Ex.D4 and also admitted that Ex.D4 also contains the signature of Mandal Revenue

Inspector/Ramesh and Deputy Tahasildar/DW1.

53)Perusal of Ex.D5/certified copy of mutation register for the year 2012-13 relevant entry of mutation register inrespect of Ex.D3 at Sl.No. 110 discloses that the land in Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of 213.33 sq.yds has been recommended for mutation in the name of Rudroju Laxminarayana S/o Laxmi

Rajam vide registered sale deed document bearing No. 2238/2012 dated 40 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 11.04.2012 and same has been attested on 04.01.2013 by the village revenue officer/PW3 and mandal revenue inspector by name Ramesh.

54)PW3 has also admitted his signature on Ex.D5 and the signature of mandal revenue officer by name Ramesh recommending for mutation after verifying the documents bearing No.2238/2012 under Ex.D3.

55)Perusal of Ex.D6/certified copy of mutation register of 2012-13 of

Thimmapur village and mandal of Karimnagar district also discloses that at Sl.No.

156 land in Sy.No.425/B to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts has been recommend for mutation in the name of Pendyala Mahipal Reddy/PW1/complainant vide registered document No. 323/2012 on 04.01.2013. PW3 admitted that Ex.D6 contains his signature and recommendation for mutation of land in the name of

PW1/Pendyala Mahipal Reddy having purchased from Edla Poolamma.

56)Perusal of Ex.D7/relevant entry in Sl.No. 161 of mutation register for the year 2012-13 in Khata No. 1033 discloses that vide registered document bearing No. 323/2012 dated 19.01.2012 at column No.8 the registered owner inrespect of said land in Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts is Edla

Poolamma wife of Srinivas Rao and the same has been recommended for mutation in the name of Pendyala Mahipal Reddy/PW1/complainant and the entries in the said mutation register has been struck off.

57)Perusal of Ex.D8/certified copy of mutation register of the year 2011- 12 at Sl.No.85 in column No.8 the present registered owner is one Gundavarm

Ramarao S/o Gopal Rao vide document bearing No. 2454/2012 dated 20.04.2012 41 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 and the mutation has been recommend in the name of Ella Vijaya w/o Rajaiah and the entries were made and the same has been forwarded by mandal revenue inspector by name Ramesh and it was attested by Deputy Tahasildar/Sugunakar

Rao/DW1 on 05.11.2012.

58)It is pertinent to mention that certified copy of mutation register of 2011-12 under EXD.9 at Sl.No. 83 and 84 and EXP.11 does not contain any signature of PW3. PW3 had categorically testified before this Court that the entire mutation register of the year 2011-12 under Ex.D9 at Sl.No. 83 and 84 and

Ex.P11 is maintained by the accused and that the accused had not handed over any document in respect of mutation works of PW1 and his wife at the time of transfer of the accused from Thimmapur village to Algunoor village to PW3. PW3 further testified that accused had not handed over any charge of the village revenue officer cluster-I of Thimmapur mandal of Karimnagar district.

59)Perusal of Ex.D9/certified copy of mutation register for the year 2011-12 at Sl.No.83 and 84 and Ex.P11 of Thimmapur village and mandal,

Karimnagar district discloses that there is no signature or attestation of PW3 and

PW4/Tahasildar and there is no mention of mutation proceedings number of

Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal/PW4 in respect of Ex.P2 in file No. B/84/2012

MTN/TPR and in respect of Ex.P3 file No.B/83/2012/MTN/TPR.

60)Perusal of Ex.D10 i.e., the proceedings No. A3/1176/2012, dated 7.10.2012 discloses that accused was nominated to undergo for the survey training from 08.10.2012 to 18.11.2012 at Andhra Pradesh Survey Training 42 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Academy, Hyderabad conducted by Vice Principal, AP, Survey Training Authority,

Hyderabad.

61)Perusal of Ex.D1 to D3 discloses that Pw1 had sold away his respective lands in Sy.No. 425/B and the same has been proposed for effecting mutation in the name of respective vendees of PW1 since no objections received within the prescribed period as covered under Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 i.e., in the name of

V. Ravi to an extent of 208.33 sq.yds in the name one Rangoji Raghu to an extent of 208.33 sq.yds and in the name of one Rudroju Laxminarayana to an extent of 213.33 sq.yds and the name of the PW1 has been recommended for mutation vide document under Ex.D6 since no objections has been received within the prescribed period and Ex.D4 to Ex.D6i.e., certified copy of mutation register of the year 2012-13 contains the signature of PW3 and mandal revenue inspector by name Ramesh and Ex.D4 contains the signature of DW1/Sugunakar Rao, Dy.

Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal however, Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 does not reveal any mutation proceeding number of the Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal/PW4 or file

No.B/84/2012-MTN/TPR as mentioned in under Ex.P2/file No. B/83/2012 MTN/TPR as mentioned in Ex.P3 to prove that any mutation effected in the name of PW1 or in the name of wife of PW1 or in the name of vendees of PW1 in pursuance of alleged endorsements recommending for mutation in the name of PW1 or in the name of wife of PW1 or in the name of vendes of PW1 covered under Ex.D4 to D6 respectively in pursuance of documents covered under Ex.D1 to D3.

62)The entries mentioned in Ex.D9 at Sl.No. 83 and 84 and under

Ex.P11 i.e., mutation register of the year 2011-12 when compared to the entries 43 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 made in Ex.D6/ mutation register of the year 2012-13, there is a variation with respect to recommendation for mutation in the name of PW1 and in the name of wife of PW1 by name Nirmala with regard to the notice period inviting for objections on the mutation of land in the name of PW1 and his wife and the signature of village revenue officer as Ex.D9 and Ex.P11/Mutation register 2011- 2012 contained the signature of accused and Ex.D6 contained the signature of

PW3/Laxma Reddy which proves that inspite of enquiry report of accused dated 04.10.2012 covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 the mutation process was not effected after completion of prescribed period for effecting mutation though it was recommended for mutation in the name of PW1 and in the name of wife of

PW1 in the year 2012 as per enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 and the same was recommended again under Ex.D6 mutation register of 2012-13 which mutation process was not progressed in the year 2012 in respect of enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 was kept pending till the date of trap.

63)Perusal of Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 at Sl.No.83 and 84 discloses that there is no patta number mentioned as 1033 in the name of PW1 as mentioned in

Ex.D6 and there is no mention of mutation proceedings number of Tahasildar,

Thimmapur mandal/PW4 more particularly inrespect of file No. B/84/2012-

MTN/TPR of the month of November, 2012 as mentioned in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 sheet No.1 to 8 and there is no signature of the Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal/PW4 in proceedings of the Tahasildar, Thimmapur covered at sheet No.7 and 8 of Ex.P2.

44 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

64)PW3, Village Revenue Officer and successor of accused by name

Laxma Reddy testified before this Court that the mutation register pertaining to the year 2011-12 covered under Ex.D9 has not been handed over to the PW3 while accused had been transferred from Thimmapur village to Algunoor village and the applications of PW1 under Ex.P2 the application of wife of PW1 under

Ex.P3 were not handed over to PW3 and that after taking charge by PW3 as

Village Revenue Officer, Thimmapur, PW1 had approached him in the month of

January or February, 2013 and enquired about his mutation application under

Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 upon which PW3 had informed to PW1 that the accused did not hand over the application under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 to PW3 along with mutation register for the year 2011-12 covered under Ex.D9 and Ex.P11 and had asked the

PW1 to approach the accused and to get the process of his work done through the accused only. PW3 further testified that in the month of January or February 2013, PW3 had informed to PW1 that the application under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were not available in the office of PW3 and had asked Pw1 to enquire the same with the person to whom he had handed over the application and thereafter PW1 had returned.

65)PW3 admitted that Ex.D4 contained his signature after verification of document under Ex.D1 and that Ex.D4 also contains the signature of Deputy

Tahasildar/DW1 and signature of Mandal Revenue Inspector by name Ramesh.

PW3 admitted that Ex.D5 contains his signature and the signature of Mandal

Revenue Inspector recommending for mutation for verifying the document bearing No. 2238 covered under Ex.D3. PW3 also admitted the signature under

Ex.D6 recommending for mutation having purchased the said land from the name 45 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 of Y. Pulamma in the name of PW1. PW3 testified that the entries in Ex.D8 at

Sl.No. 85 inrespect of document bearing No. 2454/2012 was attested by Deputy

Tahasildar by name Sugunakar Reddy/DW1 and the entry in mutation register under Ex.D9 is effected and affected by the accused.

66) There is no denial on the part of the accused by way of giving suggestion during course of cross of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7, PW8, PW9 that the entire mutation register of the year 2011-12 of Thimmapur village and mandal of Karimnagar district is not maintained by the accused at the relevant period and was not in custody of the accused till the transfer of the accused from

Thimmapur village Cluster-I to Algunoor village. The evidence of PW3 discloses that as per the request of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 during post-trap proceedings he had produced mutation register for the year 2011-12 to the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur. PW3 denied that accused had handed over the mutation register of the year 2011-12 covered under Ex.D9 and Ex.P11 to PW3.

67)It is pertinent to mention that PW1 had testified before this court that the mutation register for the year 2011-12 covered under Ex.D9 and EXP.11 containing the entries regarding recommendation for mutation inrespect of lands of PW1 and the lands of wife of PW1 were already made and the same were shown to PW1 by the accused on 04.04.2013 however, the entries in old pattedar passbooks of PW1 and wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 were not made though PW1 had handed over the old pattedar passbook and title deed of PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and the same was not disputed and 46 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion to PW1 which also proves that the mutation register for the year 2011-2012 of Timmapur village was retained by the accused and was in the custody of accused even after the transfer of the accused from the Timmapur village to Alugunoor village. A suggestion was given to the PW.1/complainant that accused transferred from the Timmapur village to Alugunoor village and that accused had handed over the charge of all the documents to his successor PW.3/J.Laxma Reddy on 07-10-2012, and to that effect PW.1/complainant had expressed ignorance. Accused in support of his contention did not choose to file or exhibit his alleged charge list document disclosing that he handed over the charge of all the records and documents to to his successor PW.3/Japa Laxma Reddy

68)PW4 is the Tahasildar of Thimmapur mandal at the relevant period deposed that he know the accused who worked as Village Revenue Officer of

Thimmapur mandal, Cluster-I during the relevant period and tenure of PW4 and that he had made incharge arrangements on 09.01.2013 since village revenue officer of Algunoor by name Srinivas was trapped by the ACB officials and the accused was kept as incharge for Algunoor village and that PW4 had asked PW3 to take over the charge of Thimmapur, Cluster-I.

69)The evidence of PW4 discloses that he was informed by the ACB officials on 06.04.2013 that accused was trapped by the ACB officials on the allegations of demand and acceptance of tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- from

PW1/complainant for effecting mutation and for making necessary entries in the old pattadar passbooks inrespect of land of PW1 and the wife of PW1 covered 47 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and that PW4 was also informed that accused had not handedover the relevant records to PW3 and had retained with him. The evidence of PW4 also discloses that PW4 was also informed that accused had not handed over the charge of Thimmapur village to PW3.

70)PW4 categorically testified before this Court that the entire records of Thimmapur village will be in the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal and the concerned village revenue officer i.e., accused has to make entries of proceedings in form No.II/mutation register in 1-B register (personal khata register) and if there is old pattedar passbook in existence, the newly purchased land by the applicant concerned to be entered in old pattedar passbook only.

PW4 admitted that Ex.P10 contains the signature of the accused and Ex.P10 file has not been received by PW4/Tahasildar, Thimmapur and that the enquiry report

dated 04.10.2012 does not contain the signature of mandal revenue inspector

and it contains only the signature of the accused. PW4 further testified that he had not received any application under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and had not endorsed the same to the accused for mutation. The said evidence of PW4 also proves that the accused has retained the connected file pertaining to the mutation work of

PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 and had not placed the same before the PW4 for making necessary orders and the same was also not handedover to the successor of the accused i.e., PW3/Japa Laxma

Reddy.

71)Perusal of the entries with regard to recommendation for mutations under Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 discloses that there were no objections received with 48 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 respect to mutation in the name of respective vendees of PW1 and in the name of PW1 within the prescribed period from the date of issuance of inviting the objections i.e. 01.09.2012 to 30.09.2012.

72)The fact that the mutation register of the year 2011-12 of

Thimmapur village and mandal of Karimnagar district was retained by accused till the date of his transfer to Algunoor village and the same was not handover to his successor i.e., PW3/Village Revenue officer by name Laxma Reddy till the date of trap of the accused i.e., 06.04.2013 was established through the evidence of the

PW1, PW2, PW.3 and PW.4 and PW7 and the said retention of the documents under EXP.2 and EXP.3, EXP.10 and EXP.11 denotes that there was a motive for the accused for the demand of bribe of Rs.5,000/- from PW1 by showing the entries made in the said mutation register of the year 2011-12 covered under

Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 at Sl.No. 83 and 84 which was admittedly effected in the name of PW1 and in the name of wife of PW1 by name Nirmala and that the accused made the demand of bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the PW1 for effecting the entries in the old pattedar passbooks and title deed of PW1 and wife of PW4 covered under

Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 on 04-04-2013.

73)There is no dispute or denial specifically by the accused that PW1 had not approached the accused on 04.04.2013 in the office of Tahasildar,

Thimmapur mandal/PW4 and that accused was not present there and had not shown the mutation register of the year 2011-12 covered under Ex.P11 and

Ex.D9 stating that the entries with respect to recommendation for mutation in the name of PW1 and in the name of wife of PW1 has been already entered which 49 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 clearly proves that the mutation entries were made prior to the date of demand of the accused i.e., 04.04.2013 which further proves that there was official favour pending with the accused as the enquiry report dated 04-10-2012 does not contain the signature of mandal revenue inspector under EXP.2, EXP.3 and

EXP.10 i.e., to make further process of mutation of PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 in pursuance of mutation of the land of PW1 and the land of wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively.

74)There is also no specific dispute or denial with respect to place of demand on 04.04.2013 and there is also no dispute and denial specifically that accused had never demanded and accepted the tainted amount covered under

Mo.1 from PW1 on the date of trap i.e. 06.04.2013 and there was also no dispute or denial with respect to demanded bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- at the first instance on 04.04.2013 and subsequently reducing the same to Rs.5,000/- by directing the PW1 to bring the old patta passbooks and title deeds covered under

Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 inorder to make entries of newly purchased lands pertaining to

PW1 and his wife.

75)Admittedly, the accused was on duty on 04.04.2013 and there was no any kind of training imparted to the accused and therefore in this regard the above contention of the learned counsel for the accused that accused was undergoing training covered under Ex.D10 is untenable to say that official favour was not pending with the accused as on the date of demand i.e., 04.04.2013 to till the date of trap 06.04.2013 and that accused had never made demand of bribe of Rs.5,000/- to PW1 on 04.04.2013 in the office of Thimmapur, 50 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Tahasildar/PW4 and the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused has been transferred immediately after the training covered under

Ex.D10 to Algunoor village from Thimmapur village and had worked at Algunoor village as village revenue officer from 05.12.2012 is no way helpful to the case of the accused to shift his part of responsibility i.e., being the part of process of mutation work relating to PW1 and his wife by name Nirmala as there is no denial on the part of the accused that PW1 had never approached the accused in the month of August, 2012 and thereafter and more particularly with a request to mutate his lands covered under Ex.P2 and the land of wife of PW1 covered under

Ex.P3 on 04.04.2013 and that accused had not shown the mutation register of 2011-12 containing entries with regard to recommendation for mutation endorsed on Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 and had never asked the PW1 to bring old pattdar passbooks and title deeds covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 for the purpose of making necessary entries of newly purchased land of PW1 and his wife on 06.04.2013 and had not taken the old patta passbooks and title deeds covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 on the date of trap from PW1 after receiving the tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- covered under Mo.1 from PW1 at the private office of the accused and hence it clearly proves that the accused was the part of process of mutation work relating to PW1 and wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in which accused had admittedly submitted the enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 covered under sheet 6 of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 which establishes and proves that PW1 had approached the accused inrespect of his work and the work of his wife

Nirmala for getting process the application under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and more particularly on 04.04.2013 when PW1 had visited office of the Tahasildar/PW4 51 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 where accused was present and had shown the mutation register entries under

Ex.D9 and Ex.P11 to PW1 stating that the entries with respect to proposed mutation in the name of PW1 and in the name of wife of PW1 has been already entered which also clearly proves that the mutation entries were made prior to the date of demand of the accused only for showing the official favour i.e., to make entries in old pattedar passbook and title deed of PW1 and wife of PW1 and hence the accused had demanded for the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from PW1 and admittedly accused was on duty on 04.04.2013 and there was no any kind of training imparted to the accused and therefore in this regard the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is untenable that there is no official favour pending with the accused as on the date of demand to till date of trap and that the accused has no role in the mutation work process of PW1 and his wife after submitting the enquiry report dated 04.10.2012.

76)As discussed supra, the evidence of PW4 discloses that he had not received any application from PW1 and the wife of PW1 and had not endorsed the same to the accused for process of mutation however, the PW4 had not disputed that the application under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were not submitted by PW1 and the wife of PW1 in the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal. Admittedly, the accused submitted the enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 in pursuance of application under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in which no objections were received from anyone within the prescribed period for entering mutation in the name of PW1 and his wife inrespect of their respective lands situated in Thimmapur village and mandal as covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Perusal of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 at 6th sheet reveals that there is no signature of Tahasildar, Thimmapur/PW4 on the enquiry 52 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 report of accused dated 04.10.2012. The said evidence of PW4 that he had not received any application from PW1 and from wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and the connected file under Ex.P10, Ex.P11, on the other hand proved that the accused had retained the connected file pertaining to PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 and the same has not been handed over to PW3/Japa Laxma Reddy village revenue officer and

PW4/Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal inspite of transfer of accused from

Thimmapur village to Algunoor village.

77)The evidence of DW1 i.e., V. Sugunakar Reddy, retired Tahasildar also discloses that the documents under Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 were pending before the Village Revenue officer for further process of mutation as on the date of trap of the accused. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel

for accused that accused had never demanded and accepted any tainted

amount under MO.1 from the PW.1/complainant on the date of the trap i.e., 06.04.2013 and that no official favour was pending with the accused as on the date of demand till the date of trap in pursuance to Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 is not tenable and this court do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused.

Demand and acceptance:

78)The learned counsel for the accused has argued further that except the tainted evidence of PW.1/complainant, there is no other evidence of accompany witness to prove that accused had ever demanded and accepted any bribe amount from PW1 for the purpose of effecting mutation and for issuance of 53 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 pattedar passbook in the name of PW.1/complainant and in the name of wife of the complainant and that no official favour is pending with the accused as on the date of trap pertaining to the application of the PW.1/complainant and the wife of

PW.1/complainant covered under EXP.2 and EXP.3 . In support of his contention the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the authority in State of

Punjab Vs. Madam Mohan Lal Varma on 12 th August, 2013 Crl.Appeal No.

2052/2010 wherein it is held that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988 and mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the cases not reliable, unless there is evidence to proof payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe and mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. It is held further that the complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convict the accused person.

79)He further relied upon the authority in B. Jayaraj Vs State of AP 2014(2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC) Supreme Court, wherein it was held that “

Demand for illegal gratification failure to prove and complainant not supporting prosecution case in so far as demand by accused is concerned and disowning that what he had stated in initial complaint and the prosecution adducing not other evidence to prove demand. Demand of gratification cannot be held to be proved only on the basis of complainant filed and evidence of panch witness, 54 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 mere possession and recovery of tainted money from accused without proof of demand not sufficient for his conviction either under section 7 or under section 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w 13(2).

80)The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the authority in between in R. Malini and others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2012

C.J (Kar) 3724 wherein it is held that mere possession of the amount by the accused cannot be taken as receipt of the amount by the accused after demand being made by him as the evidence of demand is totally lacking and mere acceptance of the amount will not be sufficient to fasten the guilt under section 5(1)(a) or section 5 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, in absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification.

81)Learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the authority in

Ramprakash Arora Vs. State of Punjab on 22 nd March, 1972 wherein it is held that the statement of Joginder singh is not at all impressive and his cross examination shows that he could not be implicitly relied upon. Dalbir Singh is related to him being his cousin. It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh PWs were interested witness. They were concerned in the success of trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.

82)The learned counsel for the accused has further relied upon the authority in 2022 Live law (SC) 192 K. Shanthamma Vs The State of

Telangana, wherein it is held that the proof of demand of bribe by public 55 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under section 7 of the PC Act, the failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.

83) In this above said case the version of PW.1 in his examination in chief about the demand made by the appellant from time to time is an improvement . There is no other evidence of the alleged demand and the evidence of the PW.1 about the demand of bribe by the appellant is not at reliable and PW.1 did not state that the appellant reiterated her demand at the time of trap and therefore it is concluded that the demand made by the appellant has not been conclusively proved.

84)All the above said authorities cited by the learned counsel for the accused is no way applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. As in the given case at hand, the prosecution has proved the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of the tainted amount/MO.1 by the accused and has also proved pendency of the official favour with the accused with regard to mutation in the name of the PW.1/complainant and the wife of the complainant/PW.1 and for making necessary entries in the pattedar pass books and title deeds pertaining to PW.1/complainant and the wife of the complainant by name Nirmala in pursuance to EXP.2 and EXP.3/applications as on the date of demand as well on the date of trap. Hence the authorities relied upon by the 56 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 learned counsel for the accused is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this present case.

85)The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau has submitted that the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused is proved through the evidence of PW.1/complainant who supported the case of the prosecution in material particulars and merely because there is no accompanying witness, the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside and that same is also proved through circumstantial evidence and the recovery of tainted amount under MO.1 from the possession of the accused and the phenolphthalein test conducted to both fingers of hands of the accused had yielded positive results and the evidence of PW.2/Mediator proved the recovery and seizure of MO.1 to 8 under Mediator Report-II/EXP.13, after the chemical test conducted upon the fingers of both hands of Accused and the contacted portion of the tainted amount covered under MO.7 also yielded positive.

86)It is argued further by the learned special publicprosecutor for the

Anti Corruption Bureau that since the evidence of PW.1/complainant is consistent and stable having corroborated with the contents of EXP.1/report, there is no necessity for the prosecution for corroboration of the evidence of

PW.1/complainant through any other witness.

87)In Sham Swarup Bhatnagar Vs. The state reported in 1983 (1) Crimes - 77 wherein it is held that “Even One truthful witness is sufficient to convict a person under Prevention of Corruption Act if tainted money is recovered.” 57 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

88)The learned Special Public Prosecutor in support of his contention has relied upon a reported judgment between Chaitanya Prakash Audichya

Vs. C.B.I., reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Crriminal) 186, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that “When the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification fully established and tainted currency notes recovered from the person of

Accused and phenolphthalein test proved positive, a presumption under

Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act can be drawn.”

89)Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti Corruption Bureau also relied upon the authority in Between Reparla Venkata Gopala Ratnam

Vs. State of AP wherein it is held that the presumption need not be proved by direct evidence. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB to butress his argument has also relied upon the authority in Between (2016) 1 SCC (Crl.) 540 and in between Indra Vijay Alok Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004(6)

S.C.C. 488 between State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. R.Jeevaratnam, upon the authority in Between A.I.R. 1974 SC 1516 between Raghubit Singh Vs. State of Haryana,2007 (1) SCC Crl. 711 between B.Noha Vs. State of Kerala and another wherein it was held that ‘’when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant, the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification – That burden was not discharged by the accused’’.

90)Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti Corruption Bureau has relied upon authority in A.I.R. 1984 SC 63 between State of Maharastra Vs.

Narsinga Rao Gangaram Pimple wherein it is held that minor contradictions 58 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 and insignificance discrepancies not a ground to throw away the prosecution case and in 2011 (3) ALT (Crl.) 246 (A.P) between V.Vamana Rao Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh. wherein it was held that ‘’demand and acceptance of bribe need not be proved through direct evidence – Prosecution can prove it by circumstantial evidence’’

91)Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB has further argued that it is not necessary that the work should be pending with the Accused Officer itself and it is sufficient that if the accused officer is working in that office and induce the complainant that he will do the favour and it is enough that the complainant believes and hand over the amount to the accused officer. He further relied upon the authority in 1988 criLJ 1150 Dr.V. Sebastian Vs. The

State dated 20.07.1987 wherein it is held that Act done by the Accused Officer in his official capacity is distinguished from his purely private capacity and therefore it amounts to official act and it is not necessary that the Accused Officer should be obliged to do that act. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB has further relied upon the authority in between Indure Dayal Das Advani Vs.

State of Bombay on 6 th April,1951, wherein it is held that Sec.7 does not require that the public servant must himself have power or himself be in a position to show favour or disfavour, for doing or showing which the bribe had paid to him. Therefore, it is not necessary to constitute an offence U/sec.7 that the Act for doing which the bribe is given should actually be performed. Learned

Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB has further relied upon the authority in between

AIR 1976 SC 1497 Chaturdas Bhagwandas Vs. State of Gujarat 1976

wherein it is held that it is enough that if a public servant induces a belief that he 59 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 would render assistance to the giver and the giver gives the gratification under that belief.

92)Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB has further relied upon the authority in State Vs. Jhan chand reported in 1984 Crl.J.NOC (104) Delhi wherein it was held Regarding the question as to the capacity of accused to do favour or disfavour at the time of demand of bribe, the fact that he was not in a position to show any favour is of no consequence.

93)In State of Kerala Vs. M.M.Mathew and another reported in

AIR 1978 S.C. 1571The courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognized test of basic human probabilities. The evidence of the I.O. can not be branded as highly interested on ground that they want that the accused are convicted. Such a presumption runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act

honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its

intrinsic wroth and can not discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case.

94)He also relied upon the authority in The State Vs A. Parthiban reported in 2008 Crl. L. J. 4772 SC wherein it was held Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by

Sec.7 – acceptance of illegal gratification in pursuance of demand by a public servant would fall under 13 (1) (d).” 60 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

95)In K. John Devasahayam Vs State of AP reported in 2014 (1)

ALT (Crl) 280 wherein it was held Case of the prosecution is that chemical test conducted on the fingers yielded positive results. Bribe amount was recovered.

Numbers of the currency notes in the pre trap proceedings tallied with the notes recorded. The very theory put-forth by the appellant that Mediator-PW1 thrusted the amount into his pocket and ran away is quite unconvincing and unacceptable.

Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau, has relied upon the another decision reported in Sukhdev

Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8 supreme

Court Cases 86. Wherein it is held that The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance.

The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such facts, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses 61 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 now a days go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy..

96)The evidence of PW1 before this Court that on 04.04.2013 when

PW1 had approached to the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur/PW4 and had met the accused and enquired about the process of mutation works at the time the accused had shown the mutation register pertaining to the year 2011-2012 under

EXP.11 and Ex.D9 which contained the entries of land purchased by PW1 and his wife recommending for mutation in the name of PW.1/complainant and his wife and the accused to cause entries into the old pattadar passbooks and title deeds of PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 had demanded bribe amount of

Rs. 10,000/- and had stated to PW1 that unless the said bribe amount is paid to the accused, the accused will not process the work of PW1 and that the PW1 had agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the bribe on 06.04.2013 upon which the accused had asked PW1 to bring old passbooks and title deeds covered under

EXP.4 to EXP.7 in order to cause entries of newly purchased land and then PW1 agreed and returned and since PW1 was willing to pay the bribe to the accused had lodged the report on 04.04.2013 at 1200 noon under Ex.P1 and then basing on the report of PW1 under Ex.P1 PW7/Trap Laying officer had asked PW1 to attend the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar at 8:00 am on 06.04.2013 along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- and accordingly PW1 had attended on 06.04.2013 at 08.00 am along with the 62 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 proposed bribe amount and the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar had asked PW1 to wait outside for some time and after 15 minutes the PW7 had called him to his chamber and introduced PW1 to two mediators and viceversa and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 had given the copy of report/Ex.P8 of PW1 to the mediators who had gone through the contents of the said report and had ascertained the truth of contents of the Ex.P8 with PW1 for which the PW1 had stated that the contents of the report under Ex.P1 are true and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had asked PW1 to produce the proposed bribe amount and upon the affirmative reply given by PW1 the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had asked

PW1 to handover the proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (100x50=5000) and upon the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7, PW1 had given the said amount of Rs.5,000/- to one of the mediators who had noted down the denomination and currency note numbers and thereafter Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 had called one of the police constable and directed the mediators to handover the said amount to the constable who smeared the currency notes with white powder and kept the same in the left side empty shirt pocket of PW1 and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had instructed PW1 to give the tainted amount only on his further demand and not otherwise and not to shake hands with the accused either before or after and in case the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount to give signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief.

63 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

97)PW2/mediator and PW7/Trap Laying officer deposed that on 05.04.2013 during evening hours, the Executive Engineer instructed to PW2 and another mediator to attend the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar on 06.04.2013 at 8.30 am and accordingly PW2 and another mediator LW3/G. Sridhar had attended office of Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB, Karimnagar at 8.30 am and observed the presence of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7, inspector of police ACB and

PW1/complainant then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar had introduced the PW1 and his staff to mediators and vice-versa and had given copy of the report under Ex.P8 and that PW2 and another mediators had gone through the contents of the report under Ex.P8 and verified with PW1/complainant regarding the genuineness of the contents of Ex.P8/copy of report and PW1 had affirmed the contents of Ex.P8 copy of report and then PW2 and another mediator had attested the copy of report under Ex.P8 and thereafter PW1 was questioned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar about the procurement of the proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (100x50=5000) and on affirmative reply given by the PW1 the said proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- was handed over to PW2 by PW1 verified by PW2 and another mediator upon the instructions of PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar and the same were noted in a separate paper and then Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had directed one of the police constable to smear the currency notes of Rs.5,000/- with phenolphthalein powder and accordingly the said police constable had smeared the currency notes of Rs.5,000/- with phenolphthalein powder and had placed the same in the empty left side shirt 64 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 pocket of PW1 as per the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 had enquired PW1 as to whether any financial transactions or enmity between PW1 and the accused and upon which PW1 stated no and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had got prepared sodium carbonate solution and had demonstrated the phenolphthalein test

before the complainant and the mediator I.e,. PW2 and LW3/G. Sridhar and there

after explained the significance of the phenolphthalein test and then the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had given instructions to

PW1/complainant to give the tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- to accused only on his further demand and not otherwise and not to shake his hands with the accused either before or after his meeting and further instructed the PW1/complainant to give a signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief incase the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount.

98)The evidence of PW2 disclosed that PW1 had informed the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 that the accused had asked PW1 to bring the old pattedar passbook and title deed in his name and in the name of his wife covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 along with demanded bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/-. PW2 and PW7 deposed that a panchanama was prepared in the office computer by LW3/G. Sridhar on the dictation of PW2 under Ex.P9 and the same was concluded by 10.00 am after its commencement at 8.45 am. PW2 deposed that after the pre trap proceedings covered under Ex.P9 all the trap party members has boarded in a vehicle along with the ACB officials and PW1 had proceeded to the private office of the accused at Algunoor village and reached 65 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 their at 10.20 am and Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had stopped the vehicle by the side of main road and directed all the trap party members to get down from the vehicles and the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had then reiterated the previous instructions to

PW1/complainant and then permitted PW1/complainant to go to the private office of the accused and accordingly PW1 had entered into the private office of the accused at 10.35 am and meanwhile all the trap party members had taken their respective vantage positions in an around the private office of the accused and at 10.40 am, the PW1 came out and had give pre arranged signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief and immediately after the receipt of pre arranged signal of

PW1/complainant, trap party members had rushed into the private office of the accused at 10.50 am and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 had asked PW1 to stay outside for sometime and after entering into the private office of the accused the trap party members including PW2 had found the accused sitting in his room and then the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had introduced himself to the accused and ascertained about the identity particulars of the accused upon which, the accused had revealed his identity particulars and then the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had intimated to the accused about his purpose of visit to the said place and upon hearing the same, the accused became shock and was speechless for sometime and thereafter the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers separately and had asked the accused to dip his fingers of left and right hand in the said two glass tumblers separately 66 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 and on doing so, both the solutions into two glass tumblers had turned into pink color under Mo.5 and Mo.6 respectively and then the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had questioned the accused as to whether he had just demanded and accepted any bribe amount from PW1 and the version given by the accused had corroborated with the version given by PW1 and same was incorporated and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 had questioned the accused about the tainted amount of

Rs.5,000/- upon which the accused had picked-up a ward of currency notes from his right side front pant pocket and produced before them and on the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7, the mediators had verified the denomination and currency note numbers with the numbers already mentioned in Ex.P9/Mediator report-I and on verification the same found tallied.

99)PW2 and PW7 deposed further that the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had then collected the wearing pant from the accused by providing substitute lungi to the accused and had subjected the contacted portion of the tainted amount I.e., right side front back pocket to the sodium carbonate solution test and on doing so it yielded positive covered under

Mo.7 and then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had seized three resultant solutions under Mo.5 to Mo.7 in separate class bottles after duly sealed, labelled and tested by Pw2 and another mediator LW3/Sridhar and the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7.

100)PW2 and PW7 deposed further that the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had seized the tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- under 67 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Mo.1 and had also seized wearing pant of the accused under Mo.8 and the sample of sodium carbonate powder in separate covers under Mo.4 and then questioned the accused about the connected file upon which the accused had produced the old pattedar passbooks and old title deed from his table covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and the same were seized by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and then the accused had revealed about the connected file is available in the almirah of Village Revenue officer, Thimmapur,

Cluster-I which is in the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur and then the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had rang to PW3/Laxma Reddy,

Village Revenue officer, Thimmapur village and had asked him to produce the connected file covered under Ex.P10.

101)PW2 and PW7 deposed further that the accused had revealed about his service particulars to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 and then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 had questioned the PW1 as to what had happened from the time he left the trap party members till relying of pre arranged signal and the version given by PW1 was recorded and that PW3/Laxma Reddy had meanwhile came to the private officer of accused along with connected file under Ex.P10 and handed-over the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 and the same was seized by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 which contained Ex.P11/Photo copy of mutation register of Thimmapur village and later the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 had returned the original registers and file to PW3/Laxma Reddy and had also returned the original pattedar passbook and title deed book of 68 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 to PW1 and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 had drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P12 and had effected the arrest of accused at 2.30 pm and later upon the dictation of

PW2, LW3/Sridhar had typed the mediator report-II covered under Ex.P13 in the official laptop of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and then the mediator report-II proceedings were concluded by 2.45 pm after its commencement at 4.30 am.

102)The evidence of PW2 disclosed that the recovery of tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.1 is from the custody of the accused at his instance and the accused had picked up the tainted currency notes from his right side front pocket and produced before the mediators and Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and on verification of the said tainted currency notes under Mo.1 with the currency notes mentioned in the mediator report-I under

Ex.P9 tallied and both the left and right hand of the accused when subjected to sodium carbonate solution test had yielded positive result under Mo.5 and MO.6 respectively and the contacted portion i.e., right side front pant pocket of the accused had also yielded positive under Mo.7 and that the connected file pertaining to the PW1 and old pattedar passbooks and title deed of PW1 and the wife of PW1 by name Nirmala covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 was seized from the possession of the accused and the document under Ex.P10 and EXP.11 i.e., connected file was seized at the instance of the accused upon the questioning to the accused by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and that the connected file under Ex.P10 and EXP.11 was found available in the almirah of Village Revenue Officer, Thimmapur, Cluster-I which is in the office of 69 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Tahasildar, Thimmapur and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar/PW7 had secured the document under Ex.P10 and EXP.11 through

PW3/Laxma Reddy on the date of trap during course of post trap proceedings.

103)A suggestion was given to PW2 by the learned counsel for the accused that on the date of trap PW1 had attempted to thrust the tainted amount under Mo.1 in the front pant pocket of the accused but the accused had resisted with his hands and the amount fell down on the floor and when accused had attempted to lift the same from the floor to return the same to the PW1, meanwhile the ACB officials came there and had accosted the accused and the same was witnessed by Village Revenue Assistant by name Ajitha and one

Thatipally Vijaya and the same was denied by PW2.

104)The evidence of PW2 with regard to the recovery of tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.1 and the seizure of the pattedar passbook of PW1 and the wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 from the possession of the accused on the date of trap during course of post trap proceedings under Ex.P13/mediator report-II was not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving any suggestion to the PW2 by the learned counsel for the accused and hence the evidence of PW1 and PW2 proved the demand and acceptance of the tainted amount under Mo.1 from PW1 by accused.

105)PW3 is the successor of the accused i.e., Village Revenue Officer of

Thimmapur village at the relevant period I.e, on 09.01.2013 upto July, 2013 for cluster-I. PW3 deposed that the accused had worked as village revenue officer of

Thimmapur village Cluster-I and II before joining the office from 01.02.2012 to 70 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 03.10.2012 and that PW3 after his joining on 03.10.2012 had worked in the cluster-II village of Thimmapur mandal upto July, 2013 and that after transfer of the accused to the Algunoor village, PW3 was placed as incharge village revenue officer of Thimmapur Cluster-I whereas accused was placed incharge of village revenue officer of Algunoor Cluster-I. PW3 deposed further that before the transfer of accused to Algunoor, accused had not handedover all the books and records to him, but had handed over only some of the books and accused officer had also not handedover the mutation register for the year 2011-12 covered under Ex.D9.

106)PW3 deposed further that PW1 had approached him and enquired about his mutation application and application of his wife covered under Ex.p2 and Ex.P3 respectively and that PW3 had informed to PW1 that the accused had not handed over their applications to PW3 along with mutation register for the year 2011-12 covered under EXP.11 and Ex.D9 and had advised the PW1 to go and get the process of his mutation works done through accused only and thereafter the PW3 had received phone call from the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 about the trap of the accused in this case and

Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had asked PW3 to bring mutation register of the year 2011-2012 covered under EXP.11 and EXD.9 and the connected file under EXP.10 from the rack of the village revenue office,

Thimmapur available in the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal and accordingly PW3 had produced the mutation register under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 and connected file/Ex.P10 after taking the same from the office of Tahasildar, 71 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Thimmapur mandal and had handed over the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 on 06.04.2013.

107)PW3 testified before this Court that the accused had not handed over any document pertaining to PW1 to the PW3 at the time of transfer of the accused. No suggestion given to PW3 by the learned counsel for the accused that there was no any kind of documents pertaining to PW1 and the wife of PW1 by name Nirmala pending in the custody of the accused from the date of transfer of the accused to till the date of trap of accused and that the accused had not handedover the charge of those documents pertaining to PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.P2, P3, PW10, P11 and Ex.D9.

108)The evidence of PW3 proved that the accused had retained the documents and records pertaining to mutation work of PW1 and wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively and that PW1/complainant had approached PW3 pertaining to his application and the application of his wife covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 upon which PW3 had stated to pW1 that the application under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were available with the accused and hence

PW3 had asked PW1 to enquire the same with the accused to whom PW1 had handedover his application and thereafter PW1 had not turned up to PW3.

109)PW4 is the Tahasildar of Thimmapur mandal at the relevant period testified before this Court that accused worked as Village Revenue officer of

Thimmapur village Cluster-I during his tenure at the relevant period and that the

Village Revenue officer of Algunoor village by name Srinivas was trapped by the

ACB officials as such, the accused was placed incharge of Algunoor village and 72 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

PW4 had asked PW3 to take over the charge of Thimmapur cluster-I and accordingly PW4 had made the incharge arrangements on 09.01.2013. PW4 deposed that the accused has to handedover the charge of Thimmapur village to

PW3 and then has to take charge of Algunoor village in pursuance of the incharge arrangements orders dated 09.01.2013.

110)PW4 deposed further that he had not received any application under

Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 from PW1/complainant and had not endorsed the same to the accused for further process of mutation. The said evidence of PW4 also proved that the documents under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 was not placed before the PW4 with regard to enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 submitted by the accused as Village

Revenue officer, Thimmapur.

111)Perusal of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 discloses that the enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 in respect of the application covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 dated 01.09.2012 is submitted by the accused after expiry of the notices period with regard to objections if any inrespect of mutation to be effected in the name of

PW1 inrespect of land in Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts in the name of

PW1/complainant vide registered sale deed document bearing No. 323/2012

dated 19.01.2012 and in the name of wife of PW1 in respect of land in Sy.No. 398

to an extent of 24 gts in Sy.No. 399/B to an extent of 0.10 gts in Sy.No. 399/C to an extent of 0.10 gts vide registered document bearing number 3326/2012 dated 04.06.2012 and the recommendation is made for effecting mutation in the name of Pw1/complainant by the accused as Village Revenue officer, Thimmapur.

73 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

112)There is no signature of Tahasildar/PW4 under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 at second sheet, third sheet, fifth sheet, seventh sheet inrespect of proceedings of the PW4/K. Varandhan, Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal of November, 2012 proceedings vide B/83/2012 MTN/TPR and B/84/2012 MTN/TPR for effecting mutation in the name of PW1/Pendyala Mahipal Reddy vide registered document bearing No. 323/2012 dated 19.01.2012 inrespect of Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of

Ac0-21 gts and for effecting mutation in the name of wife of PW1 vide B/83/2012

MTN/TPR and B/84/2012 MTN/TPR. The said proceedings does not contain signature of the PW4 at sheet 7 and sheet 8 of Ex.P2.

113)Perusal of Ex.P4/Certified Copy of mutation for the year 2012-13 inrespect of Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 discloses that at Sl.No.108 land in Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of 208.33 sq.yds vide registered document No. 2236/2012 dated 11.04.2012 was recommended for mutation in the name of V. Ravi S/o Ramulu, having purchased from PW1/complainant and the entry to that effect was attested on 04.01.2012 by Tahasildar, Thimmapur mandal and Village Revenue officer/PW3.

114)The document under Ex.D5/relevant entry of mutation register inrespect of Ex.D3 at Sl.No. 110 inrespect of Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of 213.33 sq.yds vide registered document No. 2238/2012 dated 11.04.2012 having purchased from PW1/Pendyala Mahipal Reddy S/o Narasimha Reddy infavour of

Rudroju Laxminarayana S/o Laxmirajam was recommended for mutation and the entries endorsement to that effect was attested by the Tahasildar and the Village

Revneue officer on 04.01.2013.

74 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

115)The document under Ex.D6 i.e., relevant entry of mutation register for the year 2012-13 at Sl.No. 156 in the name of PW1 having purchased from

Edla Poolamma wife of Srinivas Reddy inrespect of land in Sy.No. 425/B to an extent of Ac. 0-21 gts vide register document bearing No. 323/2012 dated 18.01.2012 was recommended for mutation and the said entry of endorsement under Ex.D6 was attested by the Tahasildar, Thimmapur and Village Revenue officer, Thimmapur village on 04.01.2013.

116)The said documents under Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 discloses that though the mutation proceedings at sheet No. 7 and Sheet No. 8 of Ex.P2 were prepared with the proceedings of Tahasildar/K. Varandhan/PW4 in the month of November, 2012 the entries to that effect recommending for mutation in the name of PW1 were made under Ex.D6 and in the name of purchasers of PW1 covered under Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 in the mutation register of year 2012-13 and the same was attested by the village revenue officer, Thimmapur village and mandal on 04.01.2013 also proving that the application under Ex.P2 and P3 of PW1 and his wife Nirmala were acted upon issuance of notice inviting for objections and for submission of the enquiry report dated 04.10.2012 and no objection received from any person inrespect of effecting mutation in the name of PW1 and his wife Nirmala dated 04.10.2012 and the said enquiry report of the Village Revenue officer I.e., accused was not submitted by the accused before the Tahasildar/PW4 and the same was retained by the accused though the accused was transferred from

Thimmapur village cluster-I to till the date of trap of the accused and the evidence of PW3/Laxma Reddy/Village Revenue officer and the PW4/K. Varandhan proved that the records pertaining to PW1 and his wife PW2 under Ex.P2, Ex.P3, 75 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 were not handedover to PW3 by the accused till the date of trap of the accused i.e., on 06.04.2013.

117)PW6 is the owner of the private office room of the accused deposed

before this Court that the accused had stayed in the said private office on rent

having let out by PW6 three months prior to the occurrence and the accused used to run office in the said room and used to keep the files. PW6 deposed that on the date of occurrence while he was present in his house in the first floor he had heard commotion and came down and had found that the Village Revenue

Assistant by name Ajitha and another person were also present in the room of the accused and after 30 minutes ACB officials came and apprehended the accused.

118)The evidence of PW.6 discloses that the accused used to reside in the rented room having let out to accused by PW.6 and accused used the said room as his private office and on the date of trap, PW6 after hearing the commotion had came down from his home situated at first floor of the building and found that the Village Revenue Assistant by name Ajitha and another person were also present in the room of the accused. PW.6 expressed ignorance about the name of tenants in the front room.

119)The evidence of PW.6 about the the presence of Village Revenue

Assistant by name Ajitha and other person and that PW6 heard the commotion from the private office of the accused from his home situated at first floor of the building reveals that the trap incident is not personally witnessed by the PW.6 and that PW.6 had found the presence of Village Revenue Assistant by name

Ajitha and other person after PW.6 heard the commotion from the private office of 76 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 the accused. It is strange that PW.6 could testify the name and designation of one of the revenue official by name Ajitha but had failed to disclose the name of tenants who resides in the front room of the said house however, the evidence of

PW.6 only proves about the apprehension of the accused by the anti corruption bureau officials and about the trap of the accused taken place at the private office of the accused on 06.04.2011.

120)The suggestion that were given to PW1, PW2 and PW7 that on the date of trap of the accused i.e., on 06.04.2013 Village Revenue Assistant by name Ajitha and one Tatipally Vijay were also present in the private office of the accused during course of Post trap proceedings covered under Ex.P13 was denied by the PW1, PW2 and PW7.

121)PW9 is one of the investigating officer who had assisted the trap laying officer/PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar deposed that on 06.04.2013 PW9 had assisted PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar on mediator report-I and II covered under Ex.P9 and Ex.P13 respectively and that on 09.04.2013 as per the instructions of PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar he had conducted further investigation and had examined PW4/K. Varandhan/Tahasildar, Thimmapur village and PW6/Anil Kumar and recorded their statements on 10.04.2013 and thereafter he had collected the job chart of the accused under Ex.P17 and had also collected service particulars of the accused under Ex.P16 and then after completion of the entire investigation PW9 had prepared the draft final report and forwarded the same to the Director General office, Hyderabad for seeking 77 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 sanction for prosecution against the accused and later on the transfer, PW9 had handedover the case dairy file to the PW8.

122)PW8, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar at the relevant period deposed before this Court that he had took up the further investigation of this case from PW9 on 09.10.2015 and during the course of his investigation he had received the sanction order under Ex.P14 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

123)Admittedly there is no denial by the accused that when Deputy superintendent of police/PW7 had questioned the accused during post trap proceedings under Mediator report-II/Ex.P13 about the demand and acceptance of the tainted amount of Rs.5000/- under MO.1, stating that accused had never demanded and accepted any tainted amount under Mo.1 from PW1 on the date of trap.

124)PW.1/complainant has admitted before this court that he had given his statement under section 164 of code of criminal procedure before a

magistrate and the contents of the said statement is true and correct.

PW.1/Complainant also admitted that he examined by the Anti Corruption

Bureau Officials.

125)The evidence of PW.1/complainant clearly discloses , EXP.1/report is lodged against the accused for demanding the bribe from PW.1/complainant by the accused and the evidence of PW.1/complainant has been further corroborated by PW.2 stating when the mediators had verified about the 78 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 genuineness of EXP.1/Report with the PW.1/complainant, same had been affirmed by the PW.1/complainant with regards to the contents of report/EXP.1 as true and said evidence of PW.1/complainant was not disputed and denied by way of suggestion to PW.1 by the learned counsel for the accused.

126)The evidence of PW.1 proved that the report under EXP.1/report is given voluntarily by the PW.1/complainant and PW.1/complainant has no financial transactions or personal enmity with the accused. The evidence of PW.2/mediator proved that when the Deputy superintendent of police, Anti corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar range, Karimnagar/PW.7 had questioned to the PW.1/complainant as to whether PW.1/complainant has got any financial transaction and any personal enmity with the accused, the PW.1/complainant stated no. and stated that the accused had asked the PW.1/complainant to bring old pattedar pass book and title deed in his name and in the name of wife of the PW.1/complainant.

127)The evidence of PW1 proved that in the month of August, 2012 PW1 had approached the accused who was Village Revenue Office of Thimmapur at the relevant period and had handedover the photo copies of the registered documents of PW1 and his wife by name Nirmala for the purpose of effecting the mutation and making necessary entries in the old pattadar passbook of PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and that the PW1 had on several occasions had requested the accused to do the mutation works of PW1, but the accused kept the work of PW1 pending and on 04.04.2013 when PW1 had approached to the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur and met the accused and enquired about his mutation work, the accused had shown the mutation register for the year 2011- 79 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 12 covered under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 which contained the entries with regard to the recommendation for mutation of land purchased by the PW1 in the name of

PW1 and in the name of wife of PW1, however the accused inorder to make necessary entries in old pattedar passbook and title deeds of PW1 and his wife had demanded the PW1 to pay a bribe amount initially for Rs. 10,000/- stating that the work of PW1 will not be completed since the mutation register for the year 2011-12 of Thimmapur village and mandal covered under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 is with the accused and then PW1 had reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- on 06.04.2013 upon which the accused had asked PW1 to bring the old pattadar passbooks and title deeds covered under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 so that accused will cause entries in respect of newly purchased lands in the said pattadar passbooks and title deeds covered under Ex.P11 and Ex.D9 and since the PW1 was not willing to pay any bribe amount to accused had approached the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar on 04.04.2013 at 12.00 noon and had lodged Ex.P1 report.

128)Admittedly, there is no denial on the part of the accused that

PW1/complainant had never approached the accused either in the month of

August or September 2012 and thereafter till the date of trap along with registered documents of PW1 and his wife for the purpose of mutation of lands covered under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and for making entries in the old pattedar passbook of PW1 and his wife. Accused also did not deny that Ex.P2 application of PW1 and Ex.P3 application of wife of PW1 by name Nirmala were not submitted

before the accused for the purpose of effecting mutation and for making entries

80 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 in the pattedar passbook and title deeds of PW1 and the wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7.

RECOVERY:

129)The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the recovery itself does not indicate demand or acceptance to satisfy the ingredients of section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and demand and acceptance have to be positively proved and the same cannot be assumed and that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the grave man of the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and mere acceptance of amount dehorse the proof of demand, if so fact would thus not upto sufficient to bring home the charges under the section of the act and the failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would have fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the accused would not undoubtedly the conviction there other.

130)Per contra, the learned special public prosecutor has argued that since the date of submission of the applications under EXP.2 and EXP.3 pertaining to PW.1 and wife of the PW.1/complainant, the accused had kept pending the application/EXP.2 and EXP.3 for further process of mutation and retained the connected file of PW.1 and wife of complainant covered under EXP.10 and EXP.11 in the almirah of the village revenue officer in the office of the Tahsildar,

Timmapur /PW.4 till the date of the trap and PW.1/complainant had approached the accused on several occasions pertaining to mutation in respect of lands of the

PW.1/complainant and the wife of the complainant and to make necessary entries 81 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 in their patta pass books and title deeds covered under EXP.4 to EXP.7 and the accused had retained the mutation register covered under EXP.11 and EXD.9 for the year 2011-2012 of the Timmapur village and had not handed over to his successor i.e., PW3/Japa Laxma reddy inspite of the transfer of the accused from the Thimmapur village to Alugunoor village and on 04-04-2013 when

PW.1/complainant met the accused in the office of the Tahsildar Timmapur/PW.4 and enquired about his works pertaining to mutation in respect of lands of the

PW.1/complainant and the wife of the PW1/complainant, the accused had shown the mutation register of the year 2011-2012 of Timmapur village covered under

EXP.11 and EXD.9 containing the entries pertaining to mutation recommended in the name of the PW.1/complainant and the wife of the PW1/complainant in respect of lands of the PW.1/complainant and the wife of the PW1/complainant and by showing the same the accused had demanded the bribe amount of rupees 10000/ initially and upon the request of the PW.1/complainant, the bribe amount was reduced from 10000/- to rupees 5000/- and then the accused told the

PW.1/complainant to bring the patta pass books and title deeds of

PW.1/complainant and wife of the PW.1/complainant and inspite of the accused being not competent and authorized to do and had never intended to do it shows the motive of the accused for the demand of bribe amount for the purpose of further process of the mutation. The accused after receipt of the tainted amount of rupees 5,000/-under MO.1 had also received also EXP.4 to EXP.7 and same was seized from the possession of the accused at the instance of accused on the date of trap in presence of PW.2/mediator and the another mediator/G.Sridhar.

82 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

131)The evidence of PW1 complainant clearly proved that when the

PW1 had enquired with the accused about his application and application of his wife by name Nirmala covered under Ex.P2 and EXP.3 for the mutation and for making necessary entries, the accused had enquired the PW1 about the the bribe amount of rupees 5000/- was whether brought or not by PW1 and on the affirmative reply given by the PW.1, the accused had demanded the

PW.1/complainant to pay the bribe amount of rupees 5000/- and accordingly the accused had collected the tainted amount under Mo.1 and counted with his both hands and kept the same in his right side front pant pockect and the PW.1 had also given the his old pattedar pass book and title deed and the old pattedar pass book and title deed of his wife covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and then the accused had asked the PW.1 complainant to come after one week and thereafter the PW.1/complainant came out of the private office of the accused and had given pre arranged signal to the trap party members.

132)The acceptance of the tainted amount under MO.1 was established through the circumstantial evidence of PW2/mediator who categorically deposed

before this Court that accused had taken out the tainted currency amount from

his front wearing pant pocket on questioning by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Anti corruption bureau/PW7 and had produced before the mediators and upon verification of the tainted currency note under Mo.1 with the mediator report-I under Ex.P9, it was found tallied.

133)The evidence of complainant/PW1 with regard to the demand of bribe made by the accused is found consistent and stable and the circumstantial 83 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 evidence of PW2 which is available before this Court is that on the date of trap, the document under Ex.P4 to EXP.7 was recovered and seized from the possession of the accused which PW.1/complainant had carried along with him to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar and had also revealed the same in presence of PW2 before the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and was handed over to the accused as per the request of the accused for making necessary entries in the old pattedar pass book and title deed of the PW.1/complainant and his wife by name nirmala and said fact was not disputed and denied by the accused during the course of cross examination of either PW.1, PW.2/mediator, PW9 and PW.7/ Deputy superintendent of the police, Anti corruption Bureau, Karimnagar range,

Karimnagar /Trap laying officer and therefore, the acceptance of tainted amount under Mo.1 is proved with the evidence of mediator/PW2 for doing official favour i.e., for the mutation of the land covered under EXP.2 and EXP.3 applications of

PW.1 and his wife by name Nirmala respectively and for making necessary entries in old pattedar pass book and title deed of PW.1/complainant and the old pattedar pass book and title deed of his wife covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 and the accused had not denied the acceptance of tainted amount when questioned by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau/PW7.

134)No explanation offered by PW1 as to what necessitated the PW1 to visit the private office of the accused along with Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 unless PW1 was invited and asked by accused to visit his private office by PW1. It is not the case of the accused that he never told the PW1 to visit his private office along with documents covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 i.e., old pattadar passbook and title 84 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 deeds of PW1 and wife of PW1 by name Nirmala. No reasons assigned as to what made the accused to receive the old pattadar passbooks and title deeds of PW1 and wife of PW1 by name Nirmala covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 from PW1 by the accused on the date of trap inspite of transfer of the accused from Thimmapur village to Algunoor village as rightly argued by the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB and therefore, the acceptance of tainted amount under Mo.1 is proved with the evidence of PW2/mediator. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel

for accused that mere recovery of tainted amount from the possession of the

accused in absence of demand of bribe of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.1 is not tenable in this case as the aspect of the demand is affirmed by the PW1 during course of his evidence for which there is no denial by way of any suggestion to

PW1/complainant by the learned counsel for the accused.

135)The evidence of PW2 disclosed that the recovery of tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.1 is from the custody of the accused at the instance of accused and the accused had pickedup the tainted currency notes from his right side front pocket and produced before the mediators and Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and on verification of the said tainted currency notes under Mo.1 with the currency notes mentioned in the mediator report-I under Ex.P9 tallied and both the fingers of left and right hand of the accused when subjected to sodium carbonate solution test had yielded positive result under Mo.5 and Mo.6 and the contacted portion i.e., right side front pocket of the accused had also yielded positive under Mo.7 and that the connected file covered under Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 pertaining to the PW1 and old pattedar passbooks and title deed of PW1 and the wife of PW1 by name Nirmala were seized from the 85 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 possession of the accused and the document under Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 i.e., connected file was seized at the instance of the accused upon the questioning to the accused by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 and that the connected file under Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 upon the disclosure made by the accused was found available in the almirah of Village Revenue Officer,

Thimmapur, Cluster-I which is in the office of Tahasildar, Thimmapur and then the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 had secured the document under Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 through PW3/Laxma Reddy on the date of trap during course of post trap proceedings.

136)The evidence of PW2 with regard to the recovery of tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.1 and the seizure of the pattedar passbook of PW1 and the wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 from the possession of the accused on the date of trap during course of post trap proceedings under Ex.P13 was not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving any suggestion to the PW2 by the learned counsel for the accused.

137)A suggestion was given to PW2 by the learned counsel for the accused that on the date of trap PW1 had attempted to thrust the tainted amount under Mo.1 into the right side front pant pocket of the accused and the accused had resisted with his both hands and the amount fell down on the floor and when accused had attempted to lift the same from the ground to return the same to the PW1, meanwhile the ACB officials came there and had accosted the accused and the same was witnessed by Village Revenue Assistant by name Ajitha and one Thatipally Vijaya and the same was denied by PW2.

86 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

138)Accused during the course of his defence did not chose to examine said village revenue assistant by name Ajitha and the alleged other person who were allegedly present in the private office of accused at the time of trap of the accused to prove that the said village revenue assistant by name Ajitha and other person had actually witnessed the incident to prove that the tainted amount under Mo.1 was forcibly thrusted in the front pant pocket of the accused by

PW1/complainant in collusion with the PW3/Laxma reddy and that the accused had resisted the tainted amount with his both hands and that the tainted amount had fell down on the ground and that when accused attempted to lift the same from the ground in order to return the same to PW1, the ACB officials had apprehended the accused and that the accused had not demanded and accepted the tainted amount from PW1 on the date of the trap i.e., on 06.04.2013.

139)In the present case at hand, the evidence of PW1 complainant clearly proves that when the PW1 had enquired with the accused about his application and application of his wife for process of mutation of their respective lands covered under EXP.2 and EXP.3 , the accused had enquired and ascertained from the PW.1 about the bribe amount of rupees 5000/- was being brought or not by PW1 and on affirmative reply given by the PW.1, the accused had demanded the PW.1 to pay the bribe amount of rupees 5000/- under MO.1 and accordingly the accused had collected the tainted amount with his right hand and counted with his both hands and kept the same in his right side front pant pocket and also collected the old patta pass books and title deed of PW.1 and wife of PW.1 covered under EXP.4 to EXP.7 from the PW1 as on the date of trap.

87 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

140)No explanation offered by the accused that the tainted amount under MO.1 was not received by him towards any illegal gratification as a reward or motive for doing official favour to PW1 i.e., for further process of mutation of land of PW.1/complainant and land of wife of complainant/PW.1 . No explanation also offered by the defence as what necessitated the accused to ask PW.1 to bring the old patta pass books and title deed of PW.1 and wife of PW.1 covered under EXP.4 to EXP.7 and to accept the old patta pass books and title deed of

PW.1 and wife of PW.1 covered under EXP.4 to EXP.7 from the PW.1 on the date of trap if really accused is no way concerned to the further process of mutation of land of PW.1/complainant and land of wife of complainant/PW.1 .

141)As discussed supra, the acceptance of the tainted amount under

MO.1 was established through the circumstantial evidence of PW2/mediator who categorically deposed before this Court that accused had taken out the tainted currency amount under Mo.1 from his right side front wearing pant pocket on questioning by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Anti corruption bureau/PW7 and the accused had produced before the mediators and upon verification of the tainted currency note with the mediator report-I, it was found tallied and when the contacted portion of the tainted amount of Mo.1 was subjected to sodium carbonate solution test it also yielded positive result under MO.7 and when both the hands of the accused were subject to sodium carbonate solution test the right hand of the accused yielded positive under MO.5 and left hand wash of accused also yielded positive under MO.6. Therefore, this court also do not find force in the contention of learned counsel for the accused in this regard that the accused had never demanded any bribe of rupees 5000/- under MO.1 and had not 88 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 accepted the same on date of the trap i.e., on 06-04-2013. Hence the evidence of PW1 with respect to demand and acceptance of tainted amount by accused under Mo.1 is proved and same is corroborated by PW2 with request to acceptance of tainted amount by accused under Mo.1 from PW1.

DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED:

142)The defence of the accused is that he had never demanded and accepted tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- from PW1/complainant on the date of the trap i.e., on 06.04.2013 and that MO.1/tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- was forcibly thrusted into the pant pocket of the accused by PW1/complainant in collusion with the PW3/Laxma reddy and that same is witnessed by village revenue assistant by name Ajitha and one other person who were allegedly present in the private office of accused at the time of trap of the accused and that the accused had resisted the tainted amount with his both hands and that the tainted amount had fell down on the ground and that when accused attempted to lift the same from the ground in order to return the same to PW1, the ACB officials had apprehended the accused.

143) It is also the defence of the accused that accused upon the complaint given by one D.Bharatamma against PW1 for occupying the government land to an extent of 1-06 gts in Sy.no.397 had conducted the survey and fixed the boundaries of the said land in Thimmapur village and therefore, the

PW1 had developed the grudge against the accused and had falsely implicated the accused in this case with false averments in collusion with PW3.

89 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

144)It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that Pw.1 in collusion with the PW.3 had falsely implicated the accused due to grudge by joining hands with the PW3 and since the accused had submitted survey and demarcation report against the PW.1/complainant in the complaint filed by one

D.Bharatamma and that PW3 who is successor of the accused in collusion with the PW1 had falsely implicated the accused in this case and that there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and no independent witness is examined

before this Court to support the contention of the PW1 with regard to the trap

incident more particularly with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from PW1 for the purpose of effecting mutation and for making entries in the old patta passbook and title deed of PW1 and his wife.

145)Per contra the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB has argued that there is no suggestion given to PW3 during course of cross examination of PW3 by learned counsel for accused about any kind of alleged grudge of PW3 against the accused and that there is also no suggestion given to PW1 about the alleged nature of grudge against accused by PW1 except elicitation of fact that one

D.Bharatamma had filed complainant against the PW.1 to tahsildar about encroaching of government land in survey number 397 to an extent of 01-06 guntas and there is nothing brought on record on behalf of accused regarding any previous enmity in between PW1, PW3 with the accused and defence has created a false story of alleged thrusting theory of tainted amount in to the pant pockect of the accused and that tainted amount is recovered not from the ground and is recovered from the possession of accused from the wearing pant pocket at the instance of accused and phenolphthalein test on both hands of accused also 90 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 proved positive and contacted portion of the tainted amount under Mo.7 also yielded positive result.

146)It is true that an accused though not furnished any explanation at the time of the trap, can submit his defence plea during the evidence or in the examination under section 313 of code of criminal procedure and it cannot be discarded on the mere ground that it was furnished at a belated stage on the other hand, it has to be accepted if it is trustworthy , however it must be noted that an accused cannot take the different inconsistent pleas at different stages in which case it must be said that his defence will lose sanctity . That is the case now.

147)If really the PW.1 in collusion of PW.3 had thrusted the tainted amount in to pant pocket of the accused, what made the accused not to give any report or complainant against the PW.1 before the competent authority .

148)It is pertinent to mention that the defence of thrusting theory adopted by the accused for the first time during course of trial and as discussed supra, the same do not find place in EXP.13/Mediator-report-II When accused was apprehended with those currency notes/MO.1 by PW7 in presence of

PW2/mediator he never denied or raised any objections to PW-7 that those currency notes were not received by him. In fact, the story that such currency notes were thrusted into his pant pocket was concocted by the accused only when accused faced the trial in the court. From those proved facts the court can legitimately draw a presumption that accused had voluntarily received or 91 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 accepted the said currency notes. Of course, the said presumption is rebuttable one, as the accused could rebut it either through cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence.

149)It is pertinent to mention that accused had not disputed and denied by way of giving suggestion to PW1 during the course of cross examination on behalf of the defence that the contents of report under EXP.1 is either false or incorrect and that same is lodged at the instance and instigation of the

PW.3/Laxma Reddy. There is no suggestion given by learned counsel for the accused to PW3 about any kind of alleged grudge against accused by PW1. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 proved that when Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB, Karimnagar/PW7 enquired PW1 about any financial transactions and about the personal enmity with accused, the PW1 had stated no such financial transactions or previous enemity with the accused and said evidence of PW.1 was not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion to

PW1, PW2 PW.7,PW.8 and PW.9.

150)There is no documentary proof filed by the accused in respect of the alleged report submitted in resepct of Sy.No. 397 with regard to survey and demarcation of land of one D. Bharathamma. Accused did not made any efforts or attempts to examine the said D. Bharatamma and did not chose to file the said alleged report with regard to demarcation and survey of land in Sy.No.397 upon the complaint of said D. Bharatamma to prove the said contention of the accused that PW.1 in collusion with PW.3 due to grudge upon the accused has filed false case against the accused .

92 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

151)The defence try to explain the presence of phenolphthalein in the both the hands of the accused and front pant pocket of the accused and plead

Court should doubt the recovery.

152)As discussed supra, the evidence of PW2 with regard to the recovery of tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- under MO.1 and the seizure of the pattedar passbook and title deed of PW1 and the wife of PW1 covered under Ex.P4 to

Ex.P7 from the possession of the accused on the date of trap during course of post trap proceedings under Ex.P13 was not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving any suggestion to the PW2 by the learned counsel for the accused.

153)Though the defence made attempt to explain through the evidence of PW.1/complainant that the tainted amount was not demanded and accepted by the accused and that the tainted amount is actually thrusted by the

PW.1/complainant seems to be highly improbable as no person who is face to face talking to a person would move or turn around the said person to thrust the tainted amount into pant pocket of the accused and that the natural human tendency of any person is to handover the amount to a person to his hands or to put the amount into front shirt pocket. It is not the case of the accused that

PW.1/complainant had applied any criminal force upon the accused for thrusting the tainted amount/MO.1 into front pant pocket of the accused. If really the

PW.1/complainant had thrusted the tainted amount/MO.1 into pant pocket of the accused, then what made the accused not to lodge any report or to take any action before any competent Authority against the PW.1/complainant regarding 93 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 alleged thrusting of the tainted amount/MO.1 into into front pant pocket of the accused when according to accused, PW.1 is allegedly in enemical terms in respect of alleged complaint filed against PW1 by one D. Bharatamma in respect of land in survey number 397 of Thimmapur village during the tenure of the accused.

154)Admittedly the alleged notice issued to PW1 from the office of the

Tahsildar during the tenure of the accused in respect of land in survey number 397 of Thimmapur village is not filed or produced before this Court on behalf of defence to prove that alleged enmity between PW1 and accused. Therefore the defence of thrust theory taken by the accused found to be highly improbable and not believable.

155)Thus it is proved that accused had received the tainted amount/MO.1 voluntarily with his both hands and and had kept in the pant pocket of the accused. The Prosecution has further proved that official favour was pending with the accused by examining P.Ws.3, and 4 and phenolphthalein test conducted on fingers of both hand of the accused under MO.5 and MO.6 and contacted portion of back pant pocket of the accused. under MO.7 and pant of

MO.8 of the accused yielded positive result.

156)The recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused is established by the prosecution through the testimony of

PW1/Complainant and PW2 who is mediator for receipt and recovery of tainted money from the accused. Besides this there is evidence of the trap laying officer (PW-7), the Mediator-11 under (Ex.P13). Except bald denial, no material evidence 94 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 is placed to disprove the recovery. Therefore, from the material facts placed by the prosecution, this Court without any doubt hold that the demand and acceptance of money by the accused is proved. The accused has not come out with any explanation to rebut the presumption that the money he received from

PW1 is a gratification other than legal remuneration. Therefore, the presumption under section 20 of the Act works against him. This court having relied upon the portion of PW-2 deposition which say, the accused was found shocked and was speechless on hearing the introduction and the purpose of visit of trap party members headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar/PW7, the trap laying officer/PW.7 got prepared sodium carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip his hands in to the glass tumblers separately and on doing so the fingers of both the hands of the accused yielded positive and thus accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

157)In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused through valid and reliable evidence.Thus, this Court in view of the forgoing discussion and after evaluating the entire evidence on record, it is clear that prosecution by cogent evidence proved the demand and acceptance of bribe of rupees 5000/- under

MO.1 by accused and deserved itself to claim presumption under section 20 of

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in its favour. On the other hand, accused failed to rebut the presumption by submitting a cogent explanation. Therefore, he is liable for the charges under sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

95 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

158)Therefore this court from the foregoing discussion, on point No.1 to 4 taking into consideration of reliable part of evidence of Complainant/PW1, official witnesses/PW2, PW.3 ,PW.4 PW.6, PW.8, PW.9, Section Officer/PW.5, and

Investigation Officer/PW7 coupled with Ex.P1 to P17 and MOs 1 to 8, hold that, the prosecution in this case, has proved the guilt against the accused for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt therefore, the accused is liable for conviction accordingly. Points No. 1to 4 are answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

159)In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-III), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of April., 2022.

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

160)The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that is to be imposed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

161)Accused stated that he is aged about 49 years and residing in own house situated at Namilikonda village, Jagtial district and that his first wife died 96 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015 and he got remarried and blessed with three sons, elder son aged about 14 years, second elder son aged about 10 years and younger son aged about 7 years and that they are school going children and his second wife and three sons are depended upon me. He further submitted that he is suffering with hypertension disorder and thereby, he has requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against Accused are socio-economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, as such, on ground of sickness, accused can not escape from the compulsory imprisonment provided under the Act, for the offences proved against him, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, are also can not be extended in these type of cases. When once, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against accused, after full fledged trial are proved, accused shall be dealt deterrently.

The general and common grounds put forth by Accused can't form basis to escape from compulsory imprisonment and fine hence, lenient view is not taken in this case.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

97 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

162)Accused is also further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed against the accused is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only i.e., Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- under two counts).

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

164)The remand period already undergone by the accused i.e., from 07.04.2013 to 15.05.2013 shall be set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

165)M.O.1 (tainted amount of Rs.5,000/-) is ordered to be returned to

P.W.1/complainant if not reimbursed earlier by the Department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects i.e., M.Os. 2 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

166)The Accused shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of

Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the Accused.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-III), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 12th day of April, 2023.

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.

98 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1P. Mahipal Reddy/Complainant/LW1DW1Vemula Sugunakar Reddy P.W.2Banda Ramana Reddy/1st mediator/LW2 P.W.3Japa Laxma Reddy/Village Revenue Officer, Thimmapur-I cluster/LW4 P.W.4K. Varandhan/Tahasildar of Thimmapur mandal/LW5 P.W.5L. Srinivas/Sanction for Prosecution Order/LW8 P.W.6B. Anil Kumar/House Owner of Accused/LW6 P.W.7T. Sudharshan/Trap Laying Officer/LW9 P.W.8P. Veerabhadram/Inspector of police ACB, filed charge sheet/LW11 P.W.9K. Sathish Chandedar Rao/LW9/First Investigation Officer who assisted PW7

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1Complaint dated 04-04-2013 Ex.P.2Application along with registered sale deed of PW1 dated 01.09.2012 Ex.P.3Application along with registered sale deed of PW1 dated 01.09.2012 Ex.P.4Photostat copy of Old pattedar pass book of PW1 vide patta No.639 Ex.P.5Photostat copy of Old title deed of PW1 vide patta No.639, dated 25.05.1995 Ex.P.6Old pattadar passbook No.1138 in the name of wife of PW1 Ex.P.7Title deed patta No.1138 in the name of wife of PW1 Ex.P.8Copy of Complainant, dated 04-04-2013 Ex.P.9Mediator report-I, dated 06-04-2013 Ex.P.10Connected file (11) sheets office note, dated 01-09-2012 Ex.P.11Mutation register for the year 2011-12 Ex.P.12Rough sketch, dated 06-04-2013 Ex.P.13Mediator report-II, dated 06-04-2013 99 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

Ex.P.14Sanction proceedings, dated 20.09.2015 Ex.P.15First Information Report, dated 06-04-2013 Ex.P.16Service particulars of accused dated 09-07-2014 Ex.P.17Job chart of Accused.

Exhibits marked for the defence

Ex.D1Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.2236/2012,

dated 11.04.2012, marked through PW1.

Ex.D2Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.2237/2012,

dated 11.04.2012, marked through PW1.

Ex.D3Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.2238/2012,

dated 11.04.2012, marked through PW1.

Ex.D4CC of mutation register for the year 2012-13 relevant entry of mutation in respect of Ex.D2 in Sl.No. 108, marked through PW1. Ex.D5CC of mutation register for the year 2012-13 relevant entry of mutation in respect of Ex.D3 in Sl.No. 110, marked through PW1 Ex.D6Relevant entry of mutation register in respect of land purchased by PW1 under registered sale deed bearing No.323/2012 from Edla Poolamma for an extent of 21 gts in Sy.No.425/B, marked through PW1 Ex.D7Relevant entry in Sl.No.161 shows under mutation effected in favour of PW1 was struck off, marked through PW1 Ex.D8Entry made in mutation register for the year 2011-2012 at Sl.No.85 in respect of document bearing No. 2454/2012, marked through PW3 Ex.D9CC of mutation register for the year 2011-12 Ex.D10 VROs survey training proceedings vide Lr.No.A/1176/2012, dated 07- 10-2012 marked through DW1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1Tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- MO2Sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre trap proceedings MO3One sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in pre trap proceedings MO4One sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used during post trap proceedings 100 Of 100 CC No. 179 of 2015

MO5One sealed bottle containing right hand wash of accused MO6One sealed bottle containing left hand wash of accused MO7One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contacted portion of right side front pocket of accused MO8Ash colour pant of accused

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

1 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB CASES,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: SMT.P.LAKSHMI KUMARI,

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

Tuesday, the 31stday of January, 2023

CALENDAR CASE NO.68 OF 2015

Between:

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

….Complainant.

And

Sri Pamraj Madhusudhan Rao, Village Revenue Officer, Bavupet (v) of Elkathurthy (M), Karimnagar District.

…Accused.

OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13 (2) READ WITH 13 (1) (d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

This Calendar Case is coming before me on 25-01-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.S. Prasad, Advocate for the accused, upon perusal of material on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.09/ACB-KNR/2010 to prosecute him for the offences punishable under 2 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.01)The brief facts of case of the prosecution is that the father of

PW1/complainant about 15 years ago had divided the properties among the four brothers of PW1, wherein PW1/complainant had got the share of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No. 581/B, Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No. 581/C and Ac.0-32 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No. 582/B total admeasuring Ac.1-12 ½ guntas of land and since the father of PW1 had died about three years ago, PW1 had submitted a representation about five months ago under Ex.P3/Application before the office of Tahasildar,

Elkathurthy Mandal/PW3 for issuance of Virasath Patta passbook and

PW3/Tahasildar had entrusted the same to the accused to process the work of

PW1 and the accused after two months thereafter had issued patta passbook to PW1 and had not given the title deed/EXP.2 inspite of several requests by

PW1 and though PW1 had met the accused on several occasions at the request of accused to the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Elkathurthy/PW3 and also made several phone calls but there was no response from the accused and the accused has not given the title deed/EXP.2 to PW1 and that on 29.09.2010 at 9.00 am when accused came to Bavupet village, PW1 had asked the accused about his title deed/EXP.2 upon which, the accused had demanded Rs.2,500/- towards bribe to give title deed/EXP.2 and had also shown the title deed/EXP.2 to PW1 stating that it was already prepared and kept in his bag and then PW1 had requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount expressing his financial inability and on considering the request of 3 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

PW1, the accused had reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1500/- and the accused had directed PW1 to come to Elkathurthy village to the office of

Tahasildar, Elkathurthy/PW.3 and to take his title deed/EXP.2 by giving bribe amount of Rs.1500/- for which PW1 had reluctantly agreed to pay the same within two or three days.

2.02)Since PW1 was no willing to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.1500/- to the accused had approachedto PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar on 29.09.2010 at 4.00 pm and had lodged a written report in Telugu against the accused under Ex.P1. Basing on the report of PW1, PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had made discreet enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the report and reputation of the accused and after due verification regarding the reputation of the accused and antecedent of PW1, PW6 had obtained the permission from the competent authority and had registered a case in Cr.No.

09/ACB-KNR/2010 for the offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 on 01.10.2010 at 10.30 am and took up investigation and during the course of investigation PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had secured the services of PW1 and had also sent requisition seeking services of PW2 and LW3/Bonthala Naveen to act as mediators in this case and after observing of the necessary formalities, a trap was laid against the accused infront of Kaveri Digital Photo Studio, Elkathurthy village and mandal of

Karimnagar District and during the course of trap on 01.10.2010, All the the 4 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 trap party members including PW6/ P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar, Anti

Corruption Bureau officials and mediators PW2 and LW3/Bonthala Naveen including PW1/complainant had proceeded from the office of PW6/P. Jaipal,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar at 12.45 pm in a Government vehicle and reached the outskirts of Bavupet village and parked the vehicle beside the road and PW6/P. Jaipal,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had instructed the PW1 to contact the accused over the cell phone informing about his arrival to Bavupet X Road at 2.10 pm and meanwhile, the accused had called PW1 over cell phone and had asked the

PW1 to come to the office of Mandal Revenue Officer/PW3 as the accused had already reached there and upon which the PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar along with mediators i.e., PW2 and LW3/Bonthala Naveen,

Complainant/PW1 and all the the trap party members returned from Bavupet

X Road and had reached to Elkathurthy Bus stand at 2.30 pm and the PW6/P.

Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar had directed the PW1 to proceed to the office of Mandal

Revenue Officer/PW3 and to offer the tainted amount under MO.1 to the accused only upon his further demand and not otherwise and not to shake hands with the accused either before or after the demand and acceptance of tainted amount and in case, if the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount to give pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief and 5 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 accordingly PW1 as per the instructions of PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had proceeded to the office of PW3/Mandal Revenue Officer,

Elkathurthy at 2.35 pm and the trap party members had followed PW1 at some distance on foot and had taken respective vantage positions in the office of Mandal Revenue officer/PW3 and from there PW1 was seen proceeding along with the accused to Kaveri Digital Photo Studio situated beside the office of Mandal Revenue Office, Elkathurthy/PW.3 and at about 2.45 pm, the trap party members had observed PW1 infront of Kaveri Digital

Photo Studio and had received pre-arranged signal from PW1 indicating the demand and acceptance of tainted amount by the accused and on receipt of the pre-arranged signal, the trap party members had immediately rushed to the Kaveri Digital Photo Studio and had apprehended the accused and thereafter the PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had asked PW1 to wait at a distance and thereafter PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had ascertained the name of the accused person who disclosed his identity particulars and the PW6/P. Jaipal,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had also disclosed his identity and purpose of his visit and upon hearing the same, the accused was found shocked and was speechless for some time and then the sodium carbonate solution test were conducted over the both hands of the accused in which the right hand wash of the accused had yielded positive result under Mo.5 whereas the left hand wash of the 6 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 accused remained un-changed and then PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had recovered the tainted amount of Rs.1500/- under MO.1 from wearing pant right side back pocket of accused and had seized the same with attestation of mediators PW2 and LW3/Bonthala Naveen and thereafter upon the instructions of PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar, sodium carbonate solution test was conducted over the contacted portion of the inner flap of right side back pant pocket of the accused and on doing so, the same also yielded positive result and it was seized under Mo.7 with the attestation of

Mediators PW2 and LW3/Bonthala Naveen and thereafter the title deed book bearing patta No. 1630, Sl.No.477859 standing in the name of PW1 under

EXP.2 was also seized with the attestation of Mediators PW2 and

LW3/Bonthala Naveen and same was obtained in photostat copy under Ex.P2 and original was handed-over to the PW1 and thereafter on the request of deputy superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, PW3 had furnished original Virasath proceeding file bearing No. B/721/2009-17 standing on the name of PW1 under Ex.P9 and thereafter arrest of accused was effected at 5.30 pm after duly observing the arrest formalities and accused was produced before the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at

Hyderabad for remand on 02.10.2010. During the course of investigation,

PW6 had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and had prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P7 in presence of PW2 and

LW3/Bonthala Naveen and thereafter PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of Police, 7 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had further investigated this case and examined PW3, PW5 and PW8 and recorded their statement under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C and thereafter a requisition was sent for recording the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C of PW1 and accordingly the statement of PW1 was recorded by LW7/C. Rajender Reddy, Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special

Mobile, Karimnagar and thereafter sanction order for prosecution of the accused was sought under Ex.P13 vide GO.Ms.No. 207, dated 29.03.2012,

Revenue (VIG.VII), Department and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3)This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and assigned C.C.No. 68 of 2015 to the crime.

4)On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The learned Predecessor of this Court has examined the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and as the accused denied the offences, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed, read over and explained to him, for which the accused denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

6)Subsequently, Calendar Case No. 04 of 2013 was transferred from

Learned II Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Hyderabad, FAC:

II Addl. SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad vide ROC. No. 240/2010-D11 (BLDGS),

dated 21.04.2015 to this Court and Learned Special Judge for trial of SPE and

ACB Cases, Karimnagar has re-numbered the case as Calendar Case No. 68 of 2015.

7)In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1 to 8 and also marked Ex.D1 to D3 on behalf of the defence.

8)After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him were recorded separately.

9)Accused has filed his Written Statement contending that the charges framed against accused basing on Ex.P1 (Complaint) by PW1 dated:

29.09.2010 alleging that 15 years back the father of the PW1 partitioned his property among the four brothers of PW1 and that PW1 got Ac.1.12 ½ guntas of agricultural land in Sy. Nos. 581/B, 581/C and 582/B in Bavupet Village and that the father of PW1 died three years back and that five months back PW1 submitted application (Ex.P3) to the Tahasildar, Elkathurthy (PW3) for issuance of Patta and Title Deed passbooks and that PW3 entrusted the work to accused and that 2 months back the accused gave patta passbooks to

PW1 and did not deliver the title deed book/EXP.2 to PW1 and that PW1 met accused several times and also contacted through phone but accused did 9 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 not give the title deed passbook/EXP.2 to PW.1 and that lastly on 29.09.2010 at 9:00 AM when the accused went to Bavupet Village, PW1 met accused and enquired about Title Deed Passbook/EXP.2 and on that accused had demanded Rs.2,500/- as bribe to give the Title Deed Passbook/EXP.2 and that accused had also shown the Title Deed Book/EXP.2 to PW1 and kept the same in his bag and on the request of PW1, the accused had reduced the demanded bribe amount to Rs. 1,500/- and directed PW1 to bring Rs.1,500/- to the Tahasildar Office, Elkathurthy/PW.3 and to pay the demanded amount to him and take away the Title Deed Passbook/EXP.2 from him and that the accused had accepted Rs. 1,500/- from PW1 and handed over title deed passbook to him on 01.10.2010 at about 2:40 PM when the Anti Corruption

Bureau officials got him trapped are all absolutely false and baseless.

Therefore he solemnly deny the charge framed against him and submit that he is absolutely innocent.

10)That accused never demanded nor accepted any bribe amount from

PW1 for issuing title deed/EXP.2 and the same is clearly admitted by PW1.

11)That PW1 does not know how to read and write except scribing his signature and that one T. Indrasena Reddy had drafted Ex.P1 by obtaining the signature of PW1 on a white paper and that PW1 do not know the contents of Ex.P1. It is also mentioned in Ex.P1 that the scribe of Ex.P1 is one

T. Indrasena Reddy and same is admitted by Pws.1, 2, 6 & 7.

12)That originally father of PW1 got Ac.5.10 guntas of land in Bavupet

Village. The said land was divided among the four brothers of PW1 i.e. PW1, 10 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Komuraiah, Pedda Rajaiah and Chinna Rajaiah about 20 years back and PW1 and his three brothers got Ac. 1.12 ½ guntas of land equally in that partition.

Thereafter brothers of PW1 i.e. Komuraiah had obtained pattedar passbooks.

Pedda Rajaiah/PW1 and Chinna Rajaiah’s wife Sammakka did not obtain pattedar passbooks since Chinna Rajaiah passed away. PW1 and the said

Sammakka had submitted Ex.P3 (application) on 02.05.2010 for pattedar passbooks in the office of Tahasildar, Elkathurthy (PW3) and PW3 endorsed the same to B section and basing on Ex.P3, the Senior Assistant cum Revenue

Inspector by name Sri Y. Rama Rao put up an office note on 30.05.2010 for issuing a memo authorizing him and the Revenue Inspector for necessary enquiry and report, PW3 approved the said note on the same day. On the same day i.e., on 30.05.2010 a notice under Ex.P11 was also issued by the

Office of Tahasildar/PW.3 to the general public calling for any objection if any, within 45 days by fixing the date by 15.07.2010. Ex.P11 was affixed at Gram

Panchayath Office, Bavupet Village. As no objections were received from the general public, the accused and the Revenue Inspector went to the village of

PW1 and recorded the sworn statements of PW1 and Sammakka under

Ex.P12. Thereafter the accused and Mandal Revenue Inspector had submitted enquiry report to PW3 recommending for mutation of land at Ac 1.12 ½ guntas each infavour of PW1 and the said Sammakka and that

PW3/Tahasildar after satisfied with the enquiry report accorded the sanction proceedings on 19.07.2010 for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed infavour of PW1 and the Sammakka. After issuance of the mutation sanction proceedings by PW3 (Tahasildar), the accused and Mandal Revenue Inspector 11 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 prepared the pattadar passbooks and title deeds/EXP.2 and sent the same to office of PW3/Tahasildar for the signature of PW3 and PW3 affixed his signatures on the passbooks and title deeds and the same were sent to office of Sub Registrar for attestation and for necessary entries in the records. After attestation by the Sub-Registrar, Huzurabad on 17.08.2010, the pattadar passbook and title deed were return to the office of PW3. Thereafter PW3 forwarded the Title Deed/ROR book to the the office Revenue Divisional

Officer (PW8) for her countersignature and whereas the pattadar passbooks were handed over to the accused to handover the same to PW1 and the said

Sammakka and accordingly the accused had handed over the pattadar passbooks to PW-1 and said Sammakka. At the time of handing over of pattadar passbook, the accused had also informed to PW1 and said

Sammakka that the title deed book/EXP.2 will be given to them after the countersignature of Revenue Divisional Officer (PW8). The Revenue Divisional

Officer (PW8) had countersigned on title deeds of PW1 and the said

Sammakka on 18.09.2010 and the same were received by the accused on 22.09.2010. Infact PW1 did not at all met him or contact him from 22.09.2010 to 01.10.2010 to receive the title deed book and that All this is clearly admitted by PWs.1, 2, 3, 6, 7 & 8.

13)That PW1 bore grudge against the accused as PW.1 gave report to the Tahasildar (PW3) under Ex.D1 on 16.09.2010 regarding the dumping of the sand illegally by PW1 near his house. That accused had had also seized the tractor bearing No. AP 15 TA 0278 of PW1 on 29.09.2010 when sand was illegally transported in that tractor and handed over the same to the 12 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

PW3/Tahasildar along with his report vide Ex.D2 and PW.3/Tahasildar had imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- on PW1 and that the said fact was also stated by him to the Anti Corruption Bureau (PW6) on the date of trap i.e. on 01.10.2010 and that the same was incorporated in Mediator Report-II (Ex.P8).

Thereafter PW1 paid the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- on 01.10.2010 by way of challan vide Ex.D3. All this is clearly admitted by Pws.1, 3 & 6.

14)That T. Indrasena Reddy implicated the accused in this false and foisted Anti Corruption Bureau trap case out of grudge only by joining the hands with PW1. That on 23.03.2004 while he was discharging his official duties, T. Indrasena Reddy had beat the accused and in that connection, the accused had given a complaint against the said T. Indrasena Reddy to the

SHO, Elkathurthy Police Station, and in that connection a case in Cr.No.

30/2004 under section 353 IPC of Elkathurthy Police Station was registered against the said T. Indrasena Reddy on 23.03.2004. That the accused had also given another complaint against the said Indrasena Reddy on 08.04.2005 stating that while he was discharging his duties T. Indrasena

Reddy had assaulted him and used criminal force and caused damaged to the official records and in that connection Police Station Elkathurthy had registered a case in Cr.No. 39/2005 the said T.Indira Sena Reddy for the offence punishable under section 353 Indian Penal Code. All this is clearly admitted by PW1. In this connection, the accused herewith enclosed attested copies of the First Information Report in Cr.No. 30/2004 and 39/2005 as

Annexure No.1 for the kind perusal of this Court.

13 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

15)That though the scribe of complaint (Ex.P1) is T. Indrasena Reddy, he was deliberately not cited as a witness by the Anti Corruption Bureau in this case with the fear that the above 2 cases in Cr.No. 30/2004 and 39/2005 registered against him on the complaint given by him will be exposed.

Therefore, non examination of material witness by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution case.

16)That on the date of trap PW1 met him near Kaveri Photo Studio and accused questioned to PW1 as to why the PW.1 did not meet him since the last 10 days and then he handed over the title deed passbook to PW1 and then PW1 tried to handover the tainted amount to him and he refused to receive it and pushed the same with his right hand and then PW1 thrusted the same in the right side hip pocket of his pant and went out hurriedly without heeding his calling and in the meanwhile Anti Corruption Bureau officials came and apprehended accused near the photo studio. This is what that actually took place on the date of the trap and the same is clearly admitted by PW1.

17)That the Mediators Reports I & II under Ex.P6 and P8 were prepared on the dictation of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (PW6) without relevance to the real facts and true happenings that took place on the date of trap aimed to somehow make out a false case against the accused and that the actual version of the accused was not at all incorporated and deliberately suppressed in Ex.P8.

14 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

18)It is submitted further that Sri T. Indrasena Reddy out of grudge only obtained the signature of PW1 on white paper and hatched a plan to implicate the accused in this false case by providing trap amount of Rs.

1,500/- to PW1 and PW1 had also joined hands with T. Indrasena Reddy as the accused had intercepted his tractor with illegal sand load for which he was forced to pay penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and thereby PW1 in collusion with

T. Indrasena Reddy had deliberately implicated him in this stage managed and foisted Anti Corruption Bureau trap case on 01.10.2010.

19)It is submitted further that accused had never demanded nor accepted any bribe amount from PW1 at any time much less on 01.10.2010 for giving title deed passbook/EXP.2 of PW1 and Sammakka and while concluding the accused humbly submit that the trap against him is out and out a false and fabricated one, therefore the accused humbly pray that this court Court may be pleased to consider this written statement dispassionately and acquit him from the false charges leveled against accused.

20)Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the accused has demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.1,500/- from PW.1/Velpula Venkanna ?

2.Whether there was any official work of PW.1/Velpula Venkanna pending with the accused as on the date of the Trap ?

3.Whether the accused by corrupt or illegal means accepted Rs.1,500/- from PW.1/Velpula Venkanna as gratification other 15 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 than legal gratification by abusing his position as Public Servant ?

4.Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

POINT NO.1

Before appreciating the evidence, it is relevant to extract Sections 7

and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which is as under:

Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under:

Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act – Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification, whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the

Legislature of any State of with any local authority, Corporation or

Government company referred to in Clause (c) of Section 2 or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be not less than six months but which may extent to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

16 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act reads as follows:

Criminal misconduct by a public servant- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct:

a. …………… b. …………… c. ……………

(d) if he; (I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii)by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (2)Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

21)It is the specific case of prosecution that PW1/complainant got the share of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No. 581/B and

Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No. 581/C and Ac.0-32 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No. 582/B total admeasuring Ac.1-12 ½ guntas of land and since the father of PW1 had died about three years ago, PW1 had submitted a application about five months ago under Ex.P3 before the office of Tahasildar, Elkathurthy

Mandal/PW3 for issuance of Virasath passbook and PW3/Tahsildar had entrusted the same to the accused to process the work of PW1/complainant and the accused after two months had got issued patta passbook to 17 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

PW1/complainant and had not given the title deed/EXP.2 to PW.1/complainant inspite of several requests made by PW1/complainant and though PW1 had made several visits at the request of accused to the office of Mandal Revenue

Officer, Elkathurthy/PW3 and also made several phone calls, there was no response and the accused has not given the title deed/EXP.2 to

PW1/Complainant and that on 29.09.2010 at 9.00 am when accused came to

Bavupet village, PW1 had asked the accused about his title deed/EXP.2 upon which the accused had demanded Rs.2,500/- towards bribe to give title deed/EXP.2 and had also shown the title deed/EXP.2 to PW1 stating that it was already prepared and kept in his bag and then PW1 had requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount expressing his financial inability and on considering the request of PW1, the accused had reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1500/- and the accused had directed PW1 to come to Elkathurthy village to the office of Tahasildar, Elkaturthy and to take his title deed/EXP.2 by giving Rs.1500/- for which PW1 had reluctantly agreed to pay the same within two or three days.

22)It is not in dispute that accused had worked as village revenue officer at Bavupet village ,Elkathurthy mandal Karimnagar District from 01-09-2010 to 01-10-2010 and by virtue of post held by him, he was a Public

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

Sanction:

23)PW.4/Rathod Gurusingh, is the section officer Revenue Department,

T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad deposed that from June, 2016 he has been 18 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 authorized to depose on behalf of the Principal Secretary to the Government,

Revenue Department vide GO.RT.No.205, dated 15.07.2019. PW4 deposed that on 12.10.2010 the office of Revenue department Secretary had received a suspension proceedings of the accused from District Collector and had also received radio message from the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar about the trap of accused and on 13.10.2010 the office of Revenue Department, Secretariat had also received a primary report from the office of Director General, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad along with copies of First Information Report,

Complaint, Mediator Reports-I and II and on 16.07.2011 a final report was received from the office of Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Hyderabad along with relevant material and accordingly the section had prepared the file and sent the same to Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission for advice and after receiving the advice from the Vigilance Commission,

Andhra Pradesh concerned section had prepared file and placed before the then Principal Secretary/Sri Ashutosh Mishra and after examining the entire file, the Principal Secretary had taken provisional decision and had sent the file to the concerned Revenue Minister for approval and after approval by the said Revenue Minister, the concerned section had prepared subsequent sanction order and had then placed the same before the then Principal

Secretary and thereby after verification of material on record, the then

Principal Secretary had issued sanction proceedings vide GO.Ms. No. 207,

dated 29.03.2012 to prosecute the accused under Ex.P14. PW4 had

identified the signature of the then Principal Secretary under Ex.P14. PW4 19 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 denied during course of cross examination that Ex.P14/Sanction order was mechanically issued by the sanctioning authority without application of mind to the facts of the case. The evidence of PW4 is disclosing that the sanctioning authority before issuing Ex.P14 had also taken into consideration regarding the reputation of accused with respect to the case registered against PW1 for transportation of sand and to that effect there was no denial by way of suggestion to PW4 that the reputation of accused was not considered by the sanctioning authority while issuing Ex.P14 sanctioning order.

24)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal

Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1979 SC 677 has held as under...It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.

25)A suggestion was given to PW4/Section Officer that the sanction proceedings under Ex.P.14 is issued without any application of proper mind and the same is issued mechanically and not valid in the eye of law was denied by PW.4. There is no suggestion given to PW4/Rathod Guru Singh that 20 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 the sanction proceeding under Ex.P14 has caused the prejudice to the rights of the accused or any in justice is caused to the accused.

26)In the present case, Rathod Guru Singh/PW.4 has proved the signature of the Sanctioning Authority. He had brought the record also. He denied that the Sanctioning Authority had issued the sanction order without going through the papers. Sanction order dated 29-03-2012 is a detailed order.

27)The authority to remove the accused is Principal Secretary by name

Ausutosh Mishra and his order granting sanction to prosecute is Ex.P14. This exhibit and the deposition of PW.4 nowhere indicates that the authority has not applied his mind or not acted independently. It is not the case of the accused that any injustice is caused to the accused by virtue of EXP.14.

Therefore, it is held that the sanctioning authority had considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of Section 19(3) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the sanction was granted after due application of mind and in absence of any failure of justice.

28)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined

PWs.1 to 9 though cited eleven witnesses. PW1 is the complainant/Velpula

Venkanna. PW2 is the mediator who participated in pre and post trap proceedings. PW3 is the then Tahasildar, Elkathurthy Mandal at the relevant period and predecessor of the accused. PW4 is the Section Officer, Revenue

Department, Secretariat through him Ex.P14 was marked vide GO.Ms.No. 207

dated 29.03.2012. PW5 is the circumstantial witness and the photographer

21 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 of Kaveri Digital Photo Studio. PW6 is the Trap Laying Officer who also issued first information report under Ex.P15. PW7 is the Inspector of police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar who assisted the trap laying officer/PW6. PW8 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar at the relevant period. PW9 is the investigating officer who filed charge sheet against the accused.

29)PW1/complainant deposed before this Court that he is an agriculturist and has got land to an extent of Ac.1-12 ½ guntas through his father which is situated at Bavupet village and that he had applied for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed under Ex.P3 application about five months ago to the date of trap and Ex.P3 application of PW1 was entrusted to the accused by PW3 and basing on that the accused after two months of his application under EXP.3 had issued the pattedar passbook but did not handover the title deed under Ex.P2 to PW1 stating that the title deed under Ex.P2 has not been received from the office of Revenue Divisional

Office/PW8 and though PW1 had requested the accused several times, the accused postponed the same and that when PW1 had approached the accused in the office of Tahasildar, Elkathurthy/PW3, the accused had demanded Rs.2500/- towards expenses for issuing title deed under Ex.P2 for which PW1 had expressed his financial inability and had requested the accused officer to reduce the bribe amount and basing on the request of the

PW1 the bribe amount of Rs.2500/- was reduced to Rs.1500/- and since PW1 was not interested to pay such bribe amount had approached the Anti

Corruption Bureau officials and lodged Ex.P1 report against the accused and 22 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 that basing on the report under Ex.P1, the PW7/Inspector of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had verified the report of PW1 with regard to its genuineness and the reputation of the accused and had asked the PW1 to come to the Anti Corruption Bureau office after 3 days with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.1500/- at 10.30 am and accordingly PW1 had attended the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar along with proposed bribe amount and met PW7/Inspector of Police who introduced PW1 to PW6/P.

Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar and PW6/ P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had introduced the PW1 to PW2 and LW3/Bonthala Naveen and viceversa and later the mediators had also enquired with PW1 as to whether PW1 had given report to the Anti

Corruption Bureau officials or not, for which PW1 affirmed the contents of giving complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau and thereafter the PW6/P.

Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar had asked PW1 as to whether he brought the proposed bribe amount and on affirmative reply given by PW1 the PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had asked the PW1 to produce the proposed bribe amount and accordingly PW1 had produced the proposed bribe amount of Rs.1500/- (500x2=1000 and 100x5=500) and then the PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had handed-over the said amount to the mediators and the said amount were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were kept in the left 23 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 side shirt pocket of PW1 after ensuring that there was no other articles inside the pocket of the PW1 and then PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had given instructions to PW1 to give the said tainted amount to accused only on further demand and not other-wise and not to shake his hands with accused either before or after meeting and had further instructed PW1 to give pre arranged signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief incase the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount and later PW1 along with trap party members had boarded in TATA Sumo and proceeded to Bavupet X

Roads at 1.00 pm from the office of PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and reached there at 2.10 pm and thereafter the PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had asked

PW1 to telephone the accused and the accused had received the phone of

PW1 and had asked PW1 to come to the office of Mandal Revenue office,

Elkathurthy and accordingly PW1 informed the said fact to PW6/P. Jaipal,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar who had taken PW1 to the office of Mandal Revenue office,

Elkathurthy/PW3 and the trap party members including the PW1 had reached at 2.15 pm and thereafter the PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had reiterated the previous instructions to PW1 and permitted him to go and meet the accused in the office of Mandal Revenue office, Elkathurthy/PW3 and accordingly PW1 went to the office of Mandal Revenue office, Elkathurthy/PW3 and met the 24 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 accused infront of office of Mandal Revenue Office, Elkathurthy/PW3 and PW1 had enquired accused about the title deed upon which the accused had enquired PW1 as to whether PW1 had brought the money or not and then

PW1 had forcibly kept the tainted amount in the back side pant pocket of the accused and given pre-arranged signal to the trap party members by wiping his face with hand-kerchief and on observing the signal the PW6/P. Jaipal,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar and the trap party members apprehended the accused and had prepared the panchanama and that 20 days after the PW1 was examined by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials and later the statement of PW1 was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. PW1 deposed that the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C deposed by him and it is correct. PW1 deposed that accused officer had given title deed under Ex.P2 to him on the date of trap and the same was shown to the PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar who took photostat copy and returned the original to PW1.

30)PW1 was declared hostile by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for

Anti Corruption Bureau and was cross examined in which PW1 deposed that mediators had enquired PW1 about the contents of his report under Ex.P1 in which PW1 had affirmed that the contents of the report of PW1 is true and then the mediators had noted the currency note numbers of the proposed bribe amount given by PW1 and the PW6/P. Jaipal, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had directed one of the constable 25 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 to smear the said currency notes and accordingly the constable had smeared the said currency notes and kept the same in shirt pocket of PW1.

31)PW1 denied that he stated the contents mentioned in Ex.P4/161(3)

Cr.P.C statement of PW1 and denied the fact that PW1 had given the amount to accused only on the demand of accused and the accused had received the same with his right hand and put the same in his back side pant pocket and that PW1 had changed his earlier version and deposing false before this Court with regard to the fact that PW1 had forcibly kept the tainted amount in the back side pant pocket of accused by colluding with the accused.

32)The cross examination on behalf of the defence was conducted on 10.10.2017 after 3 months of chief examination of PW1 i.e., on 18.07.2017 in which PW1 deposed before this Court that he was taken to the office of Anti

Corruption Bureau by one T. Indrasena Reddy and he had signed on white paper under Ex.P1 and expressed ignorance about the contents of the Ex.P1 and deposed further that except putting his signature he do not know how to read and write. PW1 deposed further that the accused had given his pattedar passbook and title passbook of one Sammakka and had informed the PW1 that the title deed book under Ex.P2 will be given after the receipt of same from the office of Revenue Divisional office.

33)PW1 deposed that for issuing title deed passbook/EXP.2, the accused had never demanded any bribe amount from PW1 and that Rs.1500/- was also provided by T. Indrasena Reddy to the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials,

Karimnagar and on the date of trap the Anti Corruption Bureau officials had 26 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 taken the PW1 to Bavupet X Roads and from there PW1 brought to the photo studio near Elkathurthy Tahasildar office/PW.3 near the Kaveri photo studio where PW1 had met the accused and accused had questioned PW1 as to why

PW1 did not meet since last 10 days and then accused had given the title deed passbook under Ex.P2 to PW1 and that PW1 had then tried to handover the tainted amount to accused and the accused refused to take the same and had pushed away the same with his right hand and then PW1 had thrusted the same into the pant pocket of the accused and went away hurriedly without heeding the words of the accused and in the meanwhile the

Anti Corruption Bureau officials came and apprehended the accused near the photo studio.

34)PW2 is the mediator deposed that as per the phone call received from the office of District Education Officer on 30.09.2010 at 10.00 am he had attended the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar on 01.10.2010 and by the time he reached the office of

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar, another mediator by name LW3/B.Naveen was also present in the office and thereafter the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had introduced the complainant/PW1 to him and another mediator LW3/B. Naveen and vice versa and thereafter the copy of report under Ex.P5 was given to the mediators who had gone through the same and verified with the PW1/complainant regarding the genuineness of the said report given by PW1 under Ex.P1 and PW1 had affirmed the contents of the report as true and thereafter the mediators had attested the copy of the 27 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 report under Ex.P5 and then the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had asked the

PW1/complainant as to whether he brought the proposed bribe amount or not upon which the PW1/complainant had given affirmative reply and produced the proposed bribe amount of Rs.1500/- (100x5=500 and 500x2=1000) and as per the instructions of PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar, the mediators had verified the currency note numbers and noted the same and thereafter the

PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar had directed one of the constable to smear the phenolphthalein powder and accordingly the said currency notes were smeared with the phenolphthalein powder by the constable and thereafter kept the same in the empty left side shirt pocket of the PW1 as per the instructions of the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and thereafter PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had given instructions to PW1 to give the said tainted amount of

Rs.1500/- under Mo.1 to the accused only upon his further demand and not otherwise and not to shake hands with accused either before or after meeting and had further instructed the PW1 to give the prearranged signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief incase the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount/MO.1 and thereafter the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had ascertained PW1/complainant as to whether he had any financial transactions 28 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 between himself and PW1 and accused for which PW1 had stated that there was no such transactions.

35)Thereafter, the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had prepared sodium carbonate solution and demonstrated the phenolphthalein test to the mediators and the complainant and had explained the significance of phenolphthalein test and seized the remaining portion of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powders separately in covers after duly sealed, labelled and attested by the mediators and the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar under Mo.2 and 3 respectively and thereafter the police constable who smeared currency notes with phenolphthalein powder was asked by the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar to remain in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and later a panchanama was prepared by

PW2 and LW3/B. Naveen and it was attested under Ex.P1/Mediator Report-I and pre trap proceedings which commenced at 11.30 am and was concluded at 12.30 pm.

36)Thereafter, completion of the pre trap proceedings, the mediators along with PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar, two ACB inspectors and PW1 had boarded into a Government vehicle at 12.45 pm and proceeded to Bavupet cross roads and reached the outskirts at 2.08 pm and the PW6/Deputy 29 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had stopped the said vehicle by the side of the road and had instructed PW1/complainant to contact the accused/village revenue officer on phone by informing the arrival of PW1 at 2.10 pm and meanwhile the accused/village revenue officer had rang to PW1/complainant and informed him that he had already reached to the office of Mandal Revenue officer,

Elkathurthy mandal/PW.3 and had asked PW1 to come and meet the accused at Elkathurthy village Mandal Revenue Office and accordingly all the trap party members including the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and complainant/PW1 reached the bus stop of Elkathurthy village by 2.30 pm and the PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had stopped the vehicle by the side of the road and all the trap party members got down from the vehicle and the PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had again reiterated the previous instructions to

PW1/complainant and had permitted the PW1 go to and meet the accused at 2.35 pm and accordingly PW1 had proceeded to photo studio and meanwhile the trap party members had taken their respective vantage positions in and around the office of Mandal Revenue Office, Elkathurthy and at 2.45 pm PW1 had given pre-arranged signal from the Kaveri Digital Photo Studio and on receipt of the pre-arranged signal by PW1, the trap party members had rushed infront of Kaveri Digital Photo Studio and the PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, 30 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Karimnagar had asked the PW1 to wait at a distance for some time and then the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had introduced himself to the accused who was standing there and ascertained his identity particulars upon which the accused had revealed his identity particulars to the PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar and the trap party members and then the PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar informed about the purpose of his visit to the accused upon which, the accused was found in shock and was speechless.

37)Thereafter, the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had prepared sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and had asked the accused to dip his fingers of left and right hands in the said two glass tumblers separately and on doing so, the right hand wash of accused turned into pink whereas the left hand wash of accused remained unchanged and thereafter the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar got transferred the resultant solutions into separate glass tumblers after duly sealed and affixed with identity labelles having attested by the mediators and the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar covered under

Mo.5 and 6 respectively and thereafter, the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had questioned the accused as to whether he had just demanded and accepted 31 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 any amount from PW1 and the version given by the accused was recorded and that PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had then questioned the accused about the tainted amount of Rs.1500/- under Mo.1 upon which the accused had taken out the amount of currency notes from his right side back pant pocket and had produced before the mediators and then upon the instructions of

PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar, mediators PW2 and LW3/B. Naveen had verified the denomination of currency note numbers of the tainted amount produced by the accused with the denomination and currency note numbers mentioned already under Ex.P6/Mediator Report-I and on verification the currency notes seized from the possession of the accused the same was found tallied with the denomination and currency note numbers mentioned in the Mediator

Report-I under Ex.P6 and thereafter PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had seized the tainted amount under Mo.1 and had collected wearing pant of the accused and had subjected the contacted portion of right side back pant pocket of the accused to the phenolphthalein test and on doing so the same yielded positive and thereafter the resultant solution of the contacted portion was seized in a separate bottle after duly sealed, labeled and attested by the mediators under Mo.7 and the wearing pant of accused was seized under

Mo.8 and later the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had questioned the PW1 about the entire happenings from the time PW1 had left the trap party till he relaying of 32 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 the pre-arranged signal from Kaveri Digital Photo Studio and the version given by the PW1 was recorded. PW2 deposed further that during the course of recording the version of PW1, PW1 had produced the title deed/EXP.2 which was handedover by the accused to him soon after the collection of the tainted amount from PW1 and the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had taken the photo state copy of the title deed under Ex.P2 and returned the original to Pw1 and then the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had confronted the version given by the PW1 to the accused and the version given by the accused was recorded and then the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had confronted the version given by accused to PW1, but PW1 had denied the version given by the accused and then

PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar had prepared Ex.P7/Rough Sketch at the scene of offence and effected the arrest of the accused at 5.30 pm and then the mediator report-II which was commenced at 3.15 pm and was concluded by 5.45 pm and the copy of Ex.P8/Mediator Report-II was furnished to the accused under proper acknowledgment. During the course of cross examination of PW2, deposed that the cell phones from the sim cards of accused and PW1 were seized by the ACB officials and that the trap party members including PW2 had not witnessed PW1 handing over the tainted amount to accused and accused receiving the/MO.1 same with the right hand keeping it in his right 33 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 side back pant pocket near Kaveri Digital Photo Studio situated opposite to the office of Tahasildar, Elkathurthy Mandal.

38)PW3/N. Ravi, is the superior officer of accused and Tahasildar of

Elkathurthy mandal at the relevant period deposed that he know the accused who worked as village revenue officer of Bavupet village of Elkathurthy mandal and that he explained about the procedure contemplated inrespect of mutation proceedings relating to agricultural land obtained by the legal heirs by way of Virasath in which PW3 had stated that the applicants concerned has to apply to the Village Revenue officer concerned and on every Monday during the meeting held by the Tahasildar in general in this will be issued to the general public inviting objections if any with the directions to the Village

Revenue officer and Revenue Inspector to inform about the legal heirs of the original land owner and that a memo was issued to that effect to the Village

Revenue Officer/accused and Revenue Inspector and after detailed enquiry conducted by the Revenue Inspector in the village, a report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector and thereafter, the Tahasildar will issued mutation proceedings in the name of the legal heirs by entering the same in 1-B register and then pattedar passbook and title deeds will be issued to them through village revenue officer concerned by obtaining Form-17C and in the present case, the applicants by name Velpula Rajaiah/PW1 and one

Sammakka, Venkanna and Velpula Komuraiah had applied for Virasath on 30.05.2010 through village revenue officer/accused, Bavupet village to receive their names as pattedars and after receipt of the application under

Ex.P3 in which the office endorsement of Tahasildar/PW3 is also enclosed 34 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 covered under Ex.P9 and thereafter on 30.05.2005 had issued memo under

Ex.P10 directing the Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer to submit their enquiry report inrespect of EX.P3 application and thereafter a notice under Form-7 and 8 were also issued by PW3 under Ex.P11 on 30.05.2010 and subsequently the accused/Village Revenue Officer and the Revenue

Inspector had submitted detailed enquiry report on 15.07.2010 under Ex.P12 along with concerned statements of legal heirs and that basing on the report under Ex.P12, PW3 had issued mutation proceedings on 19.07.2010 under

Ex.P13 and thereafter pattedar passbook in the name of legal heirs was issued by the office of Tahasildar/PW3 directly, however the title deed under

Ex.P2 was sent before the office of Revenue Divisional officer/PW8 for her countersignature along with 1-B register and admitted that there is no delay in process of EXP.3/Application with respect to mutation from 30-05-2010 to till receiving ROR documents, there was no delay.

39)PW5/G. Sathish, Circumstantial witness and photographer of Kaveri

Digital Photo Studio at the relevant period had deposed that on 01.10.2010 at about 8.30 am as usual PW5 had opened his photo studio and went to

Hanmakonda for the purpose of his professional work and during evening hours when he was at Hanmakonda, he had received a phone call from known person that Anti Corruption Bureau officials had trapped one person infront of his photo studio and later PW5 came to know that the village revenue officer was trapped on the allegations of corruption. PW5 deposed further his photo studio is situated opposite to the old Mandal Revenue Office,

Elkathurthy mandal. PW5 deposed that he returned to his photo studio during 35 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 evening on the date of trap and came to know about the incident through his neighbors and in this regard he was examined by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials.

40)PW6/P. Jaipal, Trap Laying Officer deposed that on 29.09.2010 at 4.00 pm, PW1 came to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and had lodged a written report before the PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of police, ACB, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar against the accused/village revenue officer of Bavupet village and basing upon the allegations of demand of Rs.1500/- for handing over the title deed under Ex.P2 to PW1 inrespect of his agricultural lands and to that effect PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of Police had made an endorsement on the said report under Ex.P1 and informed the same to

PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar about the said report of Ex.P1 and then the PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had instructed the PW7 to conduct discreet enquiry with respect to the reputation of the accused and genuineness of the report lodged by

PW1 and later PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had informed the contents of above complaint to his superior officer and thereafter PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had instructed the inspector/PW7 to ask the complainant to come on 01.10.2010 during the morning hours.

36 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

41)PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar deposed further that the discreet enquiry was conducted by PW7 and his staff upon the genuineness of the report and reputation of the accused which reveals that the reputation of accused is not good and the contents of report of PW1 found to be genuine and therefore

PW7 had obtained necessary permission from his superior officers and had registered a case in Crime No.9/ACB-KNR/2010 for the offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act on 01.10.2010 at 10.30 am under Ex.P15.

42)PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar deposed further that on 01.10.2010 he had secured the presence of PW2 and another mediator LW3/B. Naveen to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar and by the time PW1 had already attended to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar at 10.30 am and then PW6 introduced to both the mediators to PW.1/complainant and vice versa at 11.15 am and later given the copy of the report under Ex.P1 to the mediators who had gone through the same and the mediators had readover the contents of the report/Ex.P1 of

PW1 and PW1 affirmed the contents of Ex.P1 report and thereafter the mediators have attested the copy of Ex.P1 under Ex.P5 /copy of report and thereafter PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had ascertained with PW1/complainant as to whether he brought the proposed bribe amount and on affirmative reply 37 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 given by PW1/complainant, the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had asked PW1 to produce the proposed bribe amount and accordingly the said amount of

Rs.1500/- was given to the mediators upon the instructions of PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar by PW1 and they have noted down the denomination of currency notes numbers and thereafter upon the instructions of one of the police constable i.e., PC.No.1772 by name S. Madhu had smeared the said currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and had kept the said tainted amount in the left side shirt pocket of PW1 after ensuring that PW1 was not carrying anything else inside the pocket.

43)PW6 deposed further that he had instructed PW1 to proceed to

Bavupet village and to offer the tainted amount/MO.1 to accused on his further demand and not otherwise and not to shake hands with the accused either before or after demand and acceptance of tainted amount by accused and had further instructed PW1 to give signal by way of wiping his face with hand-kerchief incase the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount and later PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had ascertained from PW1 about any financial transaction with the accused for which PW1 had stated that there is no any such financial transactions with the accused.

44)PW6 deposed that he had prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and had demonstrated the same to PW1 and mediators 38 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 and also explained the significance of the phenolphthalein test and thereafter

PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar had collected the sample of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate powder in separate covers after duly sealed, labelled and attested by the mediators and PW6 under Mo.2 and 3 respectively and then

PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar had instructed the police constable S. Madhu to remain in the office along with seized bottles containing phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate and thereafter all the trap party members had washed their respective hands with soap and water ensuring no traces of phenolphthalein particles carried by them on their hands and thereafter the above happenings were incorporated in Mediator Report-I under Ex.P6 by one of the mediators and later it was signed by both the mediators, Anti

Corruption Bureau inspectors and PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and pre trap proceedings concluded at 12.30 pm.

45)PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar deposed further that after pre trap proceedings, he started along with complainant/PW1, mediators, three ACB inspectors and other ACB staff from the office of Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar at 12.45 pm to

Bavupet village in a government Tata Sumo vehicle and had reached to the

Bavupet X Roads and had parked the vehicle near the road and had instructed PW1 to contact the accused over his phone informing the accused 39 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 about the arrival of PW1 to the Bavupet X roads at 2.10 pm and meanwhile the accused/village revenue officer had called PW1 through his mobile phone and had asked PW1 to come to the office of Mandal Revenue Officer,

Elkathurthy as accused had already reached to the office of Mandal Revenue

Officer and as such PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar along with complainant/PW1 and the trap party members returned from Bavupet X Roads to the office of Mandal

Revenue Officer, Elkathurthy/PW.3 and reached near the bus stand,

Elkathurthy at 2.30 pm and got down from the vehicle and the PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had permitted PW1 after reiterating the previous instructions to

PW1 to proceed to the office of Mandal Revenue office, Elkathurthy at 2.35 pm and meanwhile the trap party members have followed the PW1 for some distance and had seen PW1 entering into the Mandal Revenue Office and from there PW1 along with accused had proceeded to Kaveri Digital Photo

Studio situated opposite to the Mandal Revenue Office and meanwhile the trap party members had taken vantage positions near the Mandal Revenue office and at about 2.40 pm the complainant PW1 was seen infront of Kaveri

Digital Photo Studio and had given pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief indicating the demand and acceptance of tainted amount/MO.1 by accused from PW1.

46)PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar deposed further that immediately after receipt of pre-arranged signal from PW1, the trap party members along with 40 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 mediators had immediately rushed infront of Kaveri Digital Photo Studio and

PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar had asked the PW1 to wait at a distance for some time and on reaching infront of Kaveri Digital Photo Studio, the trap party members had found the accused standing and PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had ascertained the particulars of accused and revealed his identity particulars and then the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had revealed his identity particulars and about purpose of visit upon which the accused was found shocked and was silent for some time and then the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar got prepared the sodium carbonate solution into two glass tumblers and requested the accused to rinse his both hands into the separate two glass tumblers separately and when accused did so, the right hand wash of the accused turned into pink whereas, the left hand wash of the accused remained as it is under Mo.5 and 6 respectively and then the solutions were transferred into two separate bottles and preserved after duly sealed, labelled and attested by the mediators and PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar.

47)PW6 had questioned the accused as to whether he had just demanded and accepted any bribe amount from the complainant/PW1 and the version given by the accused was recorded and then PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, 41 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Karimnagar had asked the accused to produce the bribe amount and accordingly the accused had produced the same from his right side back pocket of his wearing pant and produced before the mediators and on the instructions of PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar, one of the mediators had verified the denomination of the tainted amount under Mo.1 with the denomination of currency note numbers mentioned in mediator report-I/Ex.P6 and the same found tallied and thereafter the said currency notes were seized under Mo.1 and later PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had got prepared sodium carbonate solution in another glass tumblers and subjected the contacted portion of inner flap of the right side back pant pocket of accused and on doing so it yielded positive under Mo.7 and then Mo.8 one black color pant of accused was also seized in presence of mediators after duly sealed, labelled and attestation and thereafter PW1 was called by the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and was questioned about the entire happenings from the time he left the trap party till relying of pre- arranged signal and the happenings narrated by the PW1 was incorporated in mediator report-II under Ex.P8 and by saying so, PW1 had also produced title deed under Ex.P2 which was handedover to PW1/complainant by the accused after demand and acceptance of tainted amount from PW1.

48)Thereafter, the PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar got photo stat copy of the

Ex.P2 and handover the original title deed book to PW1 and later called the 42 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 accused and questioned him with regard to the demand and acceptance of tainted amount from PW1 and the version given by the accused was recorded. PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar deposed further that he called PW1 and confronted the version of accused upon which the version given by the PW1 was recorded and later PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P7 and thereafter the accused was arrested at 5.30 pm after duly informing the grounds of arrest and Ex.P8/Mediator report-II which was commenced at 3.30 pm and was concluded at 5.45 pm.

49)PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar deposed further that as per the instructions of T. Subba Rao, Inspector of Police proceeded along with mediators by name

J. Badraiah and V. Komuraiah to the house of accused bearing H.No. 6-12/D/5,

Gopalpuram, Hanmakonda and had conducted search at the house of accused and no incriminating documents or substances found in the house of the accused later PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar examined and recorded the statement of PW1 under Ex.P4/161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 and during course of investigation requisition was filed for recording of statement under section 164 Cr.P.C of PW1 and the same was recorded by LW7/C. Rajender

Reddy, Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Special Mobile, Karimnagar and thereafter the accused was

produced for remand on 01.10.2010 and later PW6/Deputy Superintendent of 43 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had handed over the investigation to inspector of police PW7/Ch. Nagender for further investigation.

50)PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of Police deposed that on 29.09.2010 at 04.00 pm he had received a report from PW1/complainant and informed the contents of report under Ex.P1 to PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar upon which the PW6 had instructed PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of police to conduct discreet enquiry regarding genuineness of the report and the reputation of the accused and asked the complainant to come to the office of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar on 01.10.2010 along with proposed bribe amount and that

PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of police as per the instructions of PW6/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar had conducted a discreet enquiry and found that report of the

PW1 found to be genuine and the reputation of the accused found to be ill- reputed and basing on the discreet enquiry of PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of police, PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had registered First Information Report under

Ex.P15 and later PW6 had laid trap against the accused in assistance with Sri

Sambaiaha, Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar who assisted PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar during pre and post trap proceedings and after the remand of accused PW6/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti 44 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar had handed-over the case diary file to the PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of police for further investigation and that on 13.10.2010 PW7 had filed requisition for recording the statement of PW1 under section 164 Cr.P.C statement and the same was recorded and during the course of investigation PW7/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of police and examined and recorded the statement of PW7/Ch. Sundanda,

PW3/Tahasildar, PW5/G. Sathish.

51)PW7 deposed further that during the course of his investigation he had called for explanation of the accused on 25.10.2010 and accused had submitted his explanation and same was rebutted and later PW7/Ch.

Nagender, Inspector of police addressed a letter to the PW3/Tahasildar,

Elkathurthy to furnish job particulars of the accused, annual property returns and service particulars of accused under Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 respectively had also requested to send report requesting the Tahasildar/PW3 with respect to the illegal transportation of sand prior to 01.10.2010 and later PW7 had handedover the case diary file to PW9 Sri V.V. Ramana Murthy, Inspector of police, ACB, Karimnagar for further investigation.

52)PW8/Smt. Ch. Sunanda is the then Revenue Divisional officer at the relevant period deposed that on 18.09.2010 she had verified the 1-B register of Bavupet village of Elkathurthy mandal and had issued the title deed inrespect of PW1/V. Venkanna and on 22.09.2010 the accused had personally collected the title deed to handover the same to PW1 and on 01.10.2010 PW8 came to know that accused was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau 45 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 officials while demanding and accepting Rs.1500/- from PW1 to deliver the title deed under Ex.P2.

53)PW9/V.V Ramana Murthy, Inspector of police, ACB, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar at the relevant period deposed that he received case diary from PW7 for further investigation and verified the investigation done by PW7/Ch. Nagender and during course of his investigation he had received a sanction order under Ex.P14 and thereafter he had filed charge sheet with connected documents against the accused under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused.

Official Favour:

54)Learned counsel for the accused has argued that PW1 had not at all met the accused or contacted the accused in between 22.09.2010 to 01.10.2010 in order to receive title deed/Ex,P2 and there is no official favour pending with the accused and there was no delay in processing the application for mutation of PW1 since the date of filing of the application of

PW1 under Ex.P3 till issuance of pattedar passbook and till receiving of

Record of rights documents from the office of sub-registrar and forwarding to

PW.8/Revenue Divisional Officer and that the present case is filed by PW.1 due to grudge upon the accused since accused had given report before the

Tahasildar/PW3 under Ex.D1 when PW1 had illegally stored the sand infront of his house and that the accused had also given report dated 29-09-2010 under EXD.2 before the Tahasildar/PW3 when PW.1/Complainant was found illegally transporting the sand in his tractor bearing No. AP-15-TA-0278 and 46 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 the accused had intercepted the said tractor of PW.1 and handed over the same to the Tahasildar/PW3 along with his report and then Tahasildar/PW3 had imposed fine of Rs.5000/- upon PW1 and the said fine amount of

Rs.5000/- was paid through challan on 01.10.2010 under Ex.D3 in pursuance of the order of the Tahasildar/PW3 in respect of report dated 29.10.2010 given by the accused.

55)On the other hand It is argued by the learned special public prosecutor that since the month of july 2010, the accused had process the application/EXP.3 connected file of PW.1 from the office of PW.3/Tahasildar till the date of personally collecting the title deed/EXP.2 of PW.1/complainant on 22-09-2010 from the office of PW.8/Revenue divisional officer and had not handed over the title deed/EXP.2 to the PW.1 though PW.1 had met the accused at Bavupet village on 29-09-2010 and it shows the motive of the accused for the demand of bribe amount for the purpose of handing over of the title deed EXP.2 to PW.1 and that on 01-10-2010 I.e date of trap, the accused after receipt of the tainted amount of rupees 1500/-under MO.1 had handed over the title deed/EXP.2 to PW.1/complainant and PW.6 had seized the title deed/EXP.2 on the date of trap in presence of PW.2/mediator and the another mediator/B.Naveen.

56)According to PW3 the applicants by name Velpula Rajaiah,

Sammakka, Venkanna and Velpula Komuraiah have applied for Virasat on 02.5.2010 through Village Revenue Officer, Bavupet to received their names as Pattedar. After receipt of both applications, he endorsed for enquiry and 47 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 report to the Village Revenue Officer. Then on 30.5.2005 the PW3 issued a memo directing Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer (AO) to submit their enquiry report in respect of the Ex.P3. Subsequently the accused and Revenue Inspector has submitted their enquiry reports on 15.7.2010 along with the sworn statements of legal heirs. Basing on the report/ Ex.P12,

PW3 issued Ex.P13/mutation proceedings on 19.7.2010. The pattedar passbook in the name of PW1 was handed over to PW.1 whereas the title deed/EXP.2 was sent to Revenue Divisional Officer for her countersignature along with 1-B register.

57) Admittedly there is no denial on part of the accused that PW1 had never met or contacted the accused since the date of application of PW1 under Ex.P3 i.e., from 02.05.2010 to till the date of giving report against the

PW.1/complainant by the accused dated 16.09.2010 covered under Ex.D1 for issuance of Ex.P2/Title deed till counter signature of Revenue Divisional officer/PW8 on Ex.P2/Title deed.

58)The evidence of the PW.3/Tahasildar and PW.6/Trap Laying Officer discloses that the accused had given report dated 29-09-2010 covered under under EXD.2 against the PW.1 and in pursuance of the said report of the accused covered under EXD.2, a penalty was imposed upon the

PW.1/complainant for an amount of rupees 5000/ and the said penalty was paid accordingly by the PW.1 on 01-10-2010 covered under EXD.3.

48 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

59)Accused had only specifically disputed and denied that PW.1 had not met or contacted the accused in between 22-09-2010 to 01-10-2010 in respect of EXP.2/Title deed.

60)If really the PW1/complainant had not at all met and contacted the accused in between 22.09.2010 to 01.10.2010, then how the

PW1/complainant had got the knowledge of Ex.P2/ title deed passbook on 29.09.2010 about the said fact which is exclusive within the knowledge of accused regarding the counter signature of the EXP.2/title deed by the

Revenue Divisional officer/PW8 and collection of the EXP.2/title deed on 22- 09-2010 by the accused personally from the PW.8/Revenue Divisional Officer and ready to issue the same to PW1 unless the same is not revealed by the accused to PW.1 on 29-09-2010 at Bavupet Village more particularly when the accused had intercepted the tractor of PW.1 covered under EXD.2 as admittedly the accused was having the custody of EXP.2/title deed as on 29- 09-2010 having personally collected from PW.8/Revenue Divisional Officer on 22-09-2010 after it was countersigned on 18-09-2010 by PW.8/Revenue

Divisional Officer.

61)The evidence of Revenue Divisional officer/PW8 before this Court also proved that on 18-09-2010, the title deed/Pass book of PW.1 was countersigned by Revenue Divisional officer/PW8 and on 22.09.2010, the accused had personally collected the Ex.P2/ title deed passbook from

PW8/Revenue Divisional officer to hand over the same to PW1.

49 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

62)In one hand, the accused contended that PW1 had not at all met him or contacted him in between 22.09.2010 to 01.10.2010 to receive the title deed passbook/Ex.P2 and in another hand the accused contended that he had intercepted the tractor of PW1 bearing registration No. AP-15-TA-0278 on 29.09.2010 when sand was illegally transported in that tractor and that the accused had given report to PW3/Tahasildar under Ex.D2 and on the said report of accused, the Tahasildar/PW3 had imposed fine of Rs.5000/- upon

PW1 and PW1 had accordingly paid the said fine on 01.10.2010 under Ex.D3 through challan which on the other hand proves that there was a occasion for

PW.1 to come into contact with the accused when the accused had intercepted the tractor of the PW.1 on 29.09.2010 and hence it occasioned the accused to meet the PW.1 and accordingly the accused had came into contact in terms of Ex.D2/report with respect to illegal transportation of sand in the tractor of PW1 on 29-09-2010 at Bavupet village I.e on date of interception of tractor of PW.1 covered under EXD.2 and at that point of time, the document under Ex.P2/Title deed was in the custody of accused which was admittedly personally collected by the accused on 22-09-2010 after having countersigned by the PW.8/Revenue Development Officer on 18-09- 2010. There was no explanation offered by the accused, as to why the title deed under EXP.2 was not handed over to PW.1/complainant on 29-09-2010 by the accused immediately after the receipt of EXP.2/Title deed by the accused from PW.8/Revenue Divisional Officer either on 22-09-2010 or thereafter in between 22-09-2010 to 01-10-2010 when the document under

EXP.2/Title deed which was already countersigned by PW.8/Revenue 50 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Divisional Officer on 18-09-2010 and collected by the accused on 22-09-2010 was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and though the accused was duty bound to intimate and to hand over document under EXP.2/Title deed the PW.1 immediately on 22-09-2010.

63)Admittedly the accused had assured the PW1/complainant to hand over the title deed/Ex.P2 to PW1 immediately after receipt of the same from the office of Revenue Divisional officer/PW8 and the accused had personally collected the same from PW8/Revenue Divisional officer on 22.09.2010 from the office of Revenue Divisional officer/PW8 Elkathurthy mandal after it was countersigned by the PW.8/Revenue Divisional Officer on 18-09-2010 was not handed over to PW.1/complainant.

64)The evidence of PW.1/complainant clearly discloses that the

PW.1/complainant had requested the accused on several occasions but the accused had not handed over the title deed/Ex.P2 even on 29-09-2010 to

PW1 when PW.1/complainant had happened to meet the accused at Bavupet village the day when the accused had intercepted the tractor of the

PW.1/complainant on 29-09-2010 at Bavupet village for illegally transporting the sand in the the tractor of the PW.1/complainant covered under EXD.2 though the accused was admittedly having the custody of EXP.2/title deed as on 29-09-2010.

65) PW3/Tahasildar, admitted that entire process of mutation from 30.05.2010 till receiving of Record of rights documents from the office of

Sub-Registrar and forwarding the same to Revenue Divisional office/PW.8 51 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 there was no delay and the village revenue officer/accused had handed over the pattedar passbook to PW1/complainant and Samakka, soon after receiving the same from the Sub-Registrar, Huzurabad in the month of

August, 2010 which also clearly proves that accused was part of the entire process of EXP.3/Application of PW.1 till receipt of EXP.2/title deed from

PW.8/Revenue divisional officer.

66)The evidence of PW.1/complainant during course of his chief examination dated 18-07-2017 clearly discloses, EXP.1/report is lodged against the accused for demanding the bribe from PW.1/complainant by the accused and during course of cross examination conducted by the learned special public prosecutor for Anti corruption Bureau dated 05-09-2017, the

PW.1/complainant had further corroborated his evidence in chief dated 18- 07-2017 stating that when the mediators had verified about the genuineness of EXP.1/Report the PW.1/complainant had affirmed the contents of report/EXP.1 as true and said evidence of PW.1/complainant was not disputed and denied by way of suggestion to PW.1 by the learned counsel for the accused. The evidence of PW.1 proved that the report under EXP.1/report is given voluntarily by the PW.1/complainant and not at the instance of any person more particularly at the instance of one T. Indirasena Reddy.

67) Admittedly though the accused had got knowledge of EXP.2/ title deed being countersigned by Revenue Divisional officer/PW.8on 18.09.2010 and was accordingly personally collected by the accused from Revenue

Divisional officer/PW.8on 22-09-2010 from the office of Revenue Divisional 52 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 officer/PW.8 and same was very much within the knowledge of the accused which clearly proves that though Ex.P2 was countersigned on 18-09-2010 and was ready to issue on 22.09.2010, the accused had not handed over the same to PW.1/complainant and had retained the EXP.2/ title deed with him till the date of the trap I.e 01-10-2010 even after the assurance given at the time of issuance of the pattedar pass book to the PW.1/Complainant and one Sammakka wife of Chinna Rajaiah by the accused to handed over the title deed/EXP.2 to the PW.1/Complainant.

68)The evidence of PW2/mediator and PW6/Trap laying officer that on the date of trap i.e., 01.10.2010, PW1/complainant had contacted the accused over phone informing about the location of PW1 to accused and that the accused had meanwhile called the PW1/complainant over cell phone and asked the PW.1/complainant to come to the office of Mandal Revenue officer,

Elkathurthy/PW.3 as accused had already arrived to the office of Mandal

Revenue office, Elkathurthy and upon the information given by the PW1 to the trap party members, they have returned from Bavupet X Road and reached to Elkathurthy outskirts near bus stop was also incorporated in

Ex.P6/Mediator Report-I.

69)Except giving suggestion to PW2, that there is no mention in

Ex.P6/Mediator report-I that PW1 had telephoned to accused and accused had instructed PW1 to come to Bavupet X Roads and that there is no mention also in Ex.P6/Mediator report-I as to from which telephone number, the accused had called PW1 and no phone number of PW1 also mentioned and that the 53 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 cell phones or the sim cards of accused and PW1 were also not seized by the

ACB officials, there is no denial on the part of accused that there were no telephonic conversation ever took place in between PW1/complainant and the accused on the date of trap i.e., 01.10.2010 and that accused had never instructed to Pw1 over phone to come to the office of Mandal Revenue officer to meet the accused stating that accused had already arrived to the office of

Mandal Revenue Officer/PW3.

70)It is not the case of accused that he had intimated to

PW.1/complainant about receipt of EXP.2/title deed by the accused on 22-09- 2010 from the PW.8/Revenue Divisional Officer after it was countersigned by

PW.8/Revenue Divisional Officer on 18-09-2010 and that he had also instructed the PW.1/complainant to approach the office of Mandal Revenue

Officer/PW.3 in between 22-09-2010 to 01-10-2010 to receive the EXP.2/title deed and inspite of that the PW.1/Complainant had not chosen to meet the accused or to approach the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer/PW.3 for receiving EXP.2/Title deed . Therefore the fact of the accused visiting the

Bavupet village on 29-09-2010 and PW.1/complainant happened to meet the accused in Bavupet village though in terms of EXD.2 regarding intercepting of the tractor of PW.1 had actually occasioned for the accused to actually hand over the title deed /EXP.2 to PW.1 but the accused had not done so and instead of that the accused had retained the title deed of PW.1 though the accused was having the custody of title deed /EXP.2 since 22-09- 2010 after it was personally collected by the accused from the PW.8/Revenue

Divisional Officer on 22-09-2010 and was ready to issue to 54 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

PW.1/complainant and had intentionally and purposefully retained the

EXP.2/title deed with him till the date of trap I.e on 01-10-2010.

71) Therefore, under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that PW1 had never met or contacted the accused in between 22.09.2010 to 01.10.2010 is proved to be false with the evidence of

PW.2/Mediator and with the own defence document of the accused covered under Ex.D2/report of accused dated 29.09.2010 given to PW3/Tahasildar at the cost of repetitions in the discussion when the PW.1/complainant had intercepted the tractor of the PW.1/Complainant on 29.09.2010 at Bavupet village while the sand was illegally transported in the tractor of

PW.1/complainant on 29-09-2010 from Bavipet village and which occasioned the accused to come in contact with the PW.1/Complainant on 29.09.2010 at

Bavupet village and though the document under EXP.2/title deed was admittedly in custody of accused as on the date of interception of the tractor of PW.1/Complainant I.e on 29-09-2010 having admittedly counter signed by the PW.8/Revenue Divisional officer on 18-09-2010 and was personally collected by the accused from PW.8/Revenue Divisional officer on 22-09-2010, was not handed over to the PW.1/complainant till the date of the trap and it was intentionally retained by the accused till the date of trap I.e 01-10-2010.

DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE

72) It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that accused had never demanded or accepted any bribe amount from PW1 for issuing title deed passbook/Ex.P2 and that if accused is really intended to demand any bribe of 55 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Rs.1500/-, he ought to have retained the patta passbook of PW1/complainant and Sammakka w/o Chinna Rajaiah and since, the accused had never intended to demand and accept for tainted amount as such, the patta passbook of PW1/complainant and the wife of Chinna Rajaiah by name

Sammakka was handedover to them immediately after its issuance in pursuance of mutation proceedings by PW3/Tahasildar under Ex.P13 and the same is clearly admitted by PW1 in his evidence before this court and that the T. Indrasena Reddy out of grudge against the accused had obtained the signature of PW1 on white paper and that PW1 does not know how to read and write except scribing his signature and the said T. Indrasena Reddy had drafted Ex.P1 by obtaining the signature of PW1 on a white paper and that

PW1 do not know the contents of Ex.P1 report and that the said Indrasena

Reddy had hatched a plan to implicate the accused in this false case by providing the trap amount of Rs.1500/- to PW1 and PW1 had also joined hands with T. Indrasena Reddy since the accused had detained the tractor of

PW1 while PW1 was illegally transporting the sand in the said tractor for which PW1 was forced to pay penalty of Rs.5000/- and thereby PW1 in collusion with T. Indrasena Reddy had deliberately implicated the accused in this case and the officials of Anti Corruption Bureau laid trap basing on the false report of PW1 on 01.10.2010.

73)The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the authority in 2021 SCC online SC 53 N. Vijay Kumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu, where in it is held that it is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. It has to be proved 56 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession of recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. It is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.

74) In this case the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as the demand by the accused is concerned . The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused and there was no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand and from the evidence of the complainant/PW.2 and in view of the material contradictions as noticed in the deposition of the key witnesses, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.

75)Where as in the present case at hand the evidence of PW.1 is clear, consistent and stable with respect to the aspect of the demand for bribe of rupees 1500/- made by the accused on the date of the trap in pursuance of his earlier demand and the evidence of mediator/PW.2 proved the recovery of the tainted currency notes under MO.1 from the back pant pocket of the accused and it was seized by the PW.6/Trap Laying officer in presence of mediators/PW.2 and LW.3/ B.Naveen Kumar. Therefore the authority cited by 57 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 the learned counsel for the accused is not applicable to facts of the present case at hand.

76)The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon the authority in 2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) 109 (TS) S. Shanker Vs State, ACB,

Karimnagar, wherein it is held that in the case of hand, such consistent evidence is not found. The evidence produced by the prosecution before the trail court does not lead the case towards the establishment of guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

77)In the above said case the both the aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe are not proved by the prosecution through any of the witnesses examined by it and the prosecution tried somehow to cover something regarding the actual date of presentation of the complainant to suite the case and when the said discrepancy is put to PW.10 during course of the cross examination, clearly stated that as per his endorsement on

EXP.4, he received the said complainant on 21-09-2000 as deposed by him in his chief examination. This discrepancy in the statements made by the PW.10 during the course of his chief and cross examinations is fatal to the case of the prosecution as when the complaint was received on 22-09-2000 at 10.00 a.m, securing the witnesses on the said date at 9 a.m does not arise and fetching PW.2 by PW.1 to the office of ACB at 8 a.m on the said does not arise. Presumption cannot be drawn when there is no prima facie case found that accused has accepted or obtained gratification as alleged by prosecution.

58 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

78)Whereas it is present case at hand there is no discrepancy in the evidence of complainant with respect to aspect of demand and same is proved with the direct evidence of the complainant and the acceptance of illegal gratification is proved through the circumstantial evidence by way of recovery of tainted currency amount under MO.1 from the pant pocket of the accused in presence of the mediators. Therefore the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above said case is no way applicable to the present case at hand.

79)The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon the authority in 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC) B. Jayaraj Vs State of Andhra

Pradesh, wherein it is held that Mere possession and recovery of tainted money from accused without proof of demand is not sufficient and

Prosecution adducing no other evidence to prove demand of gratification cannot be held to be proved only on basis of compliant filed and evidence of punch witnesses for his conviction either under Sec.7 or under Sec. 13(1)(d)

(ii) r/w 13 (2).

80)In this above said case the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant to prove that the same is in pursuant to any demand made by the accused and there was no any other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand.

59 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

81)In the present case the complainant though turned hostile but still supported the prosecution case and affirmed the content of his report covered under EXP.1 with respect to aspect of demand of bribe made by the accused in pursuance of earlier demand of the accused. Therefore the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above said case is no way applicable to the present case at hand.

82)The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon the authority in 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 840 (AP) Sudershan Parek Vs State of

A.P., wherein it is held that heavy duty cast upon the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance. Either of two, if not established accused cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2).

83)In the above said case the complainant/PW.2 has stated in his evidence that when he along with the PW.1 visited the office of the appellant , the appellant asked PW.1 as to whether he brought the papers and thereafter, according to him, the bribe money was handed over to the appellant and on receipt of the same the appellant signed on the papers and the PW.2 has not stated that the appellant has demanded PW.1 as to whether he brought the bribe amount .

84)Where as in the given case at hand the PW.1/complainant has clearly stated in his evidence that when he enquired with the accused with regard to his title deed/EXP.2, the accused enquired with the

PW.1/complainant as to whether he brought the money or not and the aspect of the demand is clearly stated by the PW.1/complainant in favour of 60 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 the case of the prosecution. Therefore the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above said case is no way applicable to the present case at hand.

85)The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon the authority in 2010 Cri.L.J 2419 Banarsi Dass Vs State of Haryana, wherein it is held that Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect namely, acceptance is very important and when the accused has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the accused that the money had been put in drawer as an illegal gratification.

86)In the above said case, there is no other evidence except that of

PW.1. Since PW.1’s evidence suffers from infirmities ,corroboration was sought but in vain . There is no other witness or any other circumstance which supports the evidence of PW.1 that this tainted money as a bribe was put in the drawer, as directed by the accused .

87)In the given case at hand there is a direct evidence of PW.1 with regard to the aspect of demand of bribe amount of rupees 1500/- by the accused to PW.1 on the date of trap in pursuance of his earlier demand dated 29-09-2010 and circumstantial evidence of PW.2/Mediator with regard to the acceptance of the tainted amount and recovery of tainted amount from the back pant pocket of the accused in presence of mediators as a motive for demand for illegal gratification for doing official favour I.e for issuance of 61 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 title deed /EXP.2 . Therefore the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above said case is no way applicable to the present case at hand.

88)The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon the authority in 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 821 AP K. Giri Vs State of AP, wherein it is held that once a person acts as mediator on behalf of prosecution party he loses his character as independence witness and automatically becomes a part of prosecution story.

89)In the above said case the case of the prosecution that A1 had accepted the bribe amount from PW.1 through A2. Inasmuch as the evidence of PW.4 does not inspire confidence that A1 had accepted MO.1 bribe amount from PW.1 through A2, the question of raising the presumption under section 20 of the Act would not arise.

90)Where as in the given case at hand the evidence of PW.2/mediator clearly proves the acceptance of tainted amount under MO.1 and the aspect of demand of bribe amount 1500/- by the accused about. Therefore the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above said case is no way applicable to the present case at hand.

91)The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon the authority in 2022 Live law (SC) 192 K. Shanthamma Vs The State of

Telangana, wherein it is held that the proof of demand of bribe by public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under section 7 of the PC Act, the failure of the prosecution to prove the 62 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under section 7 or 13 of the

Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.

92) In this above said case the version of PW.1 in his examination in chief about the demand made by the appellant from time to time is an improvement . There is no other evidence of the alleged demand and the evidence of the PW.1 about the demand of bribe by the appellant is not at reliable and PW.1 did not state that the appellant reiterated her demand at the time of trap and therefore it is concluded that the demand made by the appellant has not been conclusively proved.

93)Where as in the given case PW.1 though turned hostile to the case of the prosecution however PW.1 deposed the aspect of reiteration of demand of bribe amount of rupees 1500/- in pursuance of his earlier demand on the date of trap. Therefore the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above said case is no way applicable to the present case at hand.

94)The learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon the authority in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779 C.M. Girish Babu Vs

CBI, Cochin, wherein it is held that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.

63 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

95)In the above said case the prosecution story mainly rested upon the evidence of PW10 who is the central figure in the entire story of prosecution.

He did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. It was for him that accused No.1 had allegedly made a demand of gratification on the morning of 01.10.1999 and it was in his presence accused No.1 repeated the demand when he went along with the PW2 in the evening of 01.10.1999 to air carvo office. This is the version given by PW2. But PW10 does not support this story. PW10 in his evidence stated that on 01.10.1999 the accused No.1 in the morning hours suggested certain correction in the document as regards the valuation and description of the item that was to be sent to Dubai. When PW10 went back to office and told PW2, PW2 said that no correction need be made. Thereafter, both of them visited Air Carvo complex. It is in the evidence of Pw10 that he alone went inside the room to meet accused No.1 and told him that no corrections possibly could be made as PW2 was not interested in making the suggested corrections. But the accused No.1 insisted on carrying out corrections if the item was to be cleared for its dispatch to Dubai. Then, PW10 requested accused No.1 to meet PW2, but accused No.1 retorted saying that whoever he may be, he will not meet him. The only evidence available in this regard is that of PW10 who did not support the case of the prosecution. The appellant A2 at the earliest point of time explained that it was not the bribe amount received by him, but the same was given to him by PW10 saying that it was towards repayment of loan taken by his manager, PW2 from accused No.1. This is evident from the suggestion put to PW2 even before PW2 was examined. It 64 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 was held that the appellant A2 has proved his case by the test preponderance of probability and the amount was not taken by the appellant as gratification he was made to believe that the amount paid to him was towards the repayment of the loan taken by PW2 from accused No.1.

96)In the present case at hand, the evidence of PW1 complainant clearly proves that when the PW1 had enquired with the accused about his title deed under Ex.P2, the accused had enquired the PW1 about the money was brought or not by PW1 and the acceptance of the tainted amount under

MO.1 was established through the circumstantial evidence of PW2/mediator who categorically deposed before this Court that accused had taken out the tainted currency amount from his back wearing pant pocket on questioning by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Anti corruption bureau/PW6 and had produced before the mediator and upon verification of the tainted currency note with the mediator report-I, it was found tallied. No explanation offered by the accused that the tainted amount was not received by him towards any illegal gratification as a reward or motive for doing official favour to PW1 i.e., for handing over the title deed/Ex.P2 to PW1.

97)Learned counsel for the accused has also relied upon the authority in the recent judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.A.No.1669/2009,

dated 15.12.2023 between NEERAJ DUTTA Vs STATE (GOVERNMENT OF

NCT OF DELHI) wherein it is held that there is no conflict in the three judge bench decision of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao with regard to the nature 65 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under section 7 or 13(1)(d) (i) & (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of complainant or primary evidence of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns hostile is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of section 154 of Evidence Act.

98)In the given case at hand, the complainant/PW1 had also turned hostile to the case of prosecution, however the evidence of complainant/PW1 with regard to the demand of bribe made by the accused is found consistent and stable and the circumstantial evidence which is available before this

Court is that on the date of trap, the document under Ex.P2/title deed was handedover to PW1/complainant by the accused though it was already received by the accused on 22.09.2010 after it was countersigned by the

Revenue Divisional officer/PW8 on 18.09.2010 and the entire process of the application of PW1 with respect to issuance of title deed/Ex.P2 was processed by the accused from the date of handing over the title deed/Ex.P2 to complainant and the wife of Chinna Rajaiah by name Sammakka and therefore, the acceptance of tainted amount under Mo.1 is proved with the evidence of mediator/PW2 for doing official favour i.e., for handing over of title deed/Ex.P2 to PW1 and the accused had not denied the acceptance of tainted amount when questioned by the Deputy Superintendent of police,

Anti Corruption Bureau/PW6. Though the evidence of PW1 during course of cross examination on behalf of the defence that the tainted amount under

Mo.1 was thrusted by the PW1 into the back side pant pocket of the accused 66 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 and it was refused by the accused and was pushed away with his right hand, the PW1 had forcibly thrusted the tainted amount into the back pant pocket of the accused which is not at all inspiring confidence as it is not the case of the accused that no official favour ie., for handing over of title deed/Ex.P2 to

PW1/complainant was pending with the accused as on the date of trap and therefore, the acceptance of tainted amount was proved to be the voluntarily acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing official favour to PW1. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for accused that mere recovery of tainted amount from the possession of the accused in absence of demand of bribe of Rs.1500/- under Mo.1 is not tenable in this case as the aspect of the demand is proved by the PW1 in the chief examination conducted by learned Spl.PP for ACB on 18.07.2017 for which there is no denial by way of any suggestion to PW1/complainant by the learned counsel for the accused.

99)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Narsinga Rao v.

State of A.P., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 has held as under The word “proof” need be understood in the sense in which it is defined in the Evidence

Act because proof depends upon the admissibility of evidence. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This is the definition given for the word “proved” in the Evidence Act. What is required is production of such materials on which the court can reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact exists. Proof 67 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him. Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins v.

Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd. observed like this: “Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion.” The said observation has stood the test of time and can now be followed as the standard of proof. In reaching the conclusion the court can use the process of inferences to be drawn from facts produced or proved. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. Law gives absolute discretion to the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court may have regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business vis-à-vis the facts of the particular case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in

Section 114 of the Evidence Act.Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances.

Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final if it remains undisturbed later. Presumption in law of evidence is a rule indicating the stage of shifting the burden of proof. From a certain fact or facts the court can draw an inference and that would remain until such inference is either disproved or dispelled. For the purpose of reaching one conclusion the court can rely on a factual presumption. Unless 68 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted, the court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of prudence we have to observe that it may be unsafe to use that presumption to draw yet another discretionary presumption unless there is a statutory compulsion.

This Courthas indicated so in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of

Maharashtra: (SCC p. 339, para 5) “A presumption can be drawn only from facts — and not from other presumptions — by a process of probable and logical reasoning.” Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act says that the court may presume that “a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. That illustration can profitably be used in the present context as well when prosecution brought reliable materials that the appellant’s pocket contained phenolphthalein-smeared currency notes for Rs 500 when he was searched by PW 7 DSP of Anti-Corruption Bureau. That by itself may not or need not necessarily lead to a presumption that he accepted that amount from somebody else because there is a possibility of somebody else either stuffing those currency notes into his pocket or stealthily inserting the same therein.

But the other circumstances which have been proved in this case and those preceding and succeeding the searching out of the tainted currency notes, are relevant and useful to help the court to draw a factual presumption that the appellant had willingly received the currency notes. PW7 DSP said that

PW1 approached him on the previous day and lodged Ex.P2 complaint stating that the appellant was persistently demanding Rs 500 from him. The currency 69 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 notes were actually prepared by PW7 by smearing them with phenolphthalein powder. When the appellant was caught red- handed with those currency notes he never demurred to PW7 that those notes were not received by him.

In fact, the story that such currency notes were stuffed into his pocket was concocted by the appellant only after lapse of a period of 4 years and that too when the appellant faced the trial in the court. From those proved facts the court can legitimately draw a presumption that the appellant received or accepted the said currency notes on his own volition. Of course, the said presumption is not an inviolable one, as the appellant could rebut it either through cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. But if the appellant fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the court that the prosecution has proved that the appellant received the said amount.

100)After noticing the conflicting views, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported 2022 3 Supreme (SC) 1248 cleared the following issue regarding “The question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.” is answered as under:

70 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Intheabsenceofevidenceofthecomplainant (direct/primary,oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act based on the other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

101) Per contra learned special public prosecutor for Anti corruption

Bureau has argued that PW.1 had submitted his application under EXP.3 on 02-05-2010 as per the endorsement of PW.3/Tahasildar and in pursuance of

EXP.3/Application of PW.1, mutation proceedings under EXP.13 was issued on 19-07-2010 and after due procedure, the accused had handed over the patta passbook to PW.1 and one Samakka wife of Chinna Rajaiah in the month of

July, 2010 and that accused did not handover the title deed under EXP.2 to the PW.1/complainant stating that the title deed/EXP.2 is not received from the office of the Revenue divisional officer/PW.8 and that accused thereafter had processed the application connected file of PW.1 for issuance of title deed under EXP.2 from the office of PW.3/Tahsildar to the office of the

Revenue divisional officer/PW.8 and on 18-09-2010 the Revenue Divisional officer/PW.8 had countersigned on EXP.2 and on 22-09-2010, the accused had personally collected the document under EXP.2/title deed from the

Revenue divisional officer/PW.8 to handover the same to PW.1 and that the accused on 29-09-2010 had visited the Bavupet village at 9:00 A.M where

PW.1 had met the accused and till that date i.e., 29-09-2010,

PW.1/complainant had no any kind of grievance against the accused and there is no any kind of personal enmity in between PW.1/complainant and 71 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 the accused and that the when PW.1/complainant had met the accused on 29-09-2010 at Bavupet village at that time, the accused had shown the title deed/EXP.2 of PW.1 to the PW.1 stating that it is already prepared and had kept the same in his bag and then the accused had initially demanded the bribe amount of rupees 2500/- at Bavipet village for the purpose of handing over the title deed and on several requests of the PW.1/complainant, the bribe amount was reduced to rupees 1500/- and since PW.1 did not heed the words of the accused for payment of demanded bribe amount, the accused at about 11:00 A.M on 29-09-2010, had seized the tractor of PW.1 at Bavipet village and had submitted report under EXD.2 before PW.3/Tahsildar and that basing on the report of accused under EXD.2, the Tahsildar/PW.3 had imposed fine of rupees 5000/- upon the PW.1/complainant and accordingly PW.1 had made the payment of the said penalty under EXD.3 through challan and since the accused is not competent person for release of tractor of the

PW.1/complainant as such,PW.1 did not approach the accused for release of his tractor and since the PW.1/complainant was not willing to pay the demanded bribe amount to accused had approached the office of Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and lodged written report before

PW.7/Inspector of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar under EXP.1.

102)It is argued further by the learned special public prosecutor for Anti corruption bureau that the PW.1 deposed the aspect of demand in favour of prosecution and aspect of acceptance in favour of defence and had resiled from his previous statement as in EXP.4/161Cr.PC statement of the

PW.1/complainant and that though PW.1/complainant deposed that he had 72 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 thrusted the tainted amount/MO.1 into the back pant pocket of Accused, it cannot be believed since it is not possible to thrust the tainted amount into back pant pocket of any person and more particularly the accused and that the evidence of PW.6 that the tainted amount under MO.1 is seized from the pant pocket of the accused on the date of trap in presence of the mediator/PW.2 and LW.3/B.Naveen which proves that accused had voluntarily accepted the tainted amount under MO.1 from the PW.1/complainant and evidence of PW.2/mediator proved the recovery of tainted amount and the evidence of PW.1 proved the demand of bribe by the accused and evidence of

PW.3, PW.8 proved that as on the date of trap the office favour was pending with the accused and hence prayed to convict the accused. Thereforethe prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and has also proved aspect demand and acceptance of the bribe amount of

Rs.1,500/- from the PW1 and the recovery of bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- from the physical position of the accused and official favour pending with the accused still on the date of trap and he may be convicted in the according to law interest of justice.

103)The learned Spl.PP for Anti Corruption Bureau in support of his contention has relied upon the authority in MA. Rasheed Khan @ Abdul

Rasheed Vs. The State of Karnataka on 11.09.2020 where in it is held that when a witness examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. But the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.

73 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

104)The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar also relied upon the authority in Pubi Satyanarayan alias Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh on 31.03.1994 wherein it is held that when the statement have been made in the Court during the trial and subsequently the witnesses resiled, the Court is competent to take steps to initiate proceedings for perjury and where the witnesses state on oath in the Court in the first instance and after taking adjournment on some pretext, the witnesses turned hostile, which is nothing but blatant manipulation of evidence.

105) The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar also relied upon the authority in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt.

NCT of Delhi) in support of his contention that the circumstantial evidence of recovery of tainted amount under Mo.1 from the possession of the accused towards illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing official favour of handing over title deed/Ex.P2 to PW1/complainant was established with the evidence of PW3/Tahasildar and PW8/Revenue Divisional officer apart from the evidence of PW1 with regard to the pendency of official favour with the accused as on the date of trap i.e., on 01.1.2010 and therefore, though

PW1/complainant was declared hostile by the prosecution, still the evidence of PW1/complainant with regard to the demand made by the accused was affirmed by PW1 in his chief examination dated 18.07.2017 and therefore, the aspect of demand is very much proved with the evidence of PW1and the aspect of voluntarily acceptance of tainted amount towards illegal gratification as a motive for handing over title deed/Ex.P2 to Pw1 was established with the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW8.

74 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

106)The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar relied upon the authority in Indur Dayal Das Advani Vs. State of Bombay 6th April 1951, wherein it is held that Sec 7 does not require that the public servant must himself have power or himself be in a position to show favour or disfavor, for doing or showing which the bribe has paid to him.

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

107)The learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar further relied upon the authority in Chaturdas Bhagwan Das

Vs State of Gujarat 1976, where in it is held that to fix up a person it is enough that if a public servant induces a belief that he would render assistance to the giver and the giver gives the gratification under that belief.

108)The evidence of the PW.1/Complainant before this Court that accused had initially issued pattedar pass book but had not handed over the title deed/EXP.2 on several requests of PW.1/complainant stating that the same is not received from the office of Revenue Divisional officer and had assured to PW1 that the title deed book/EXP.2 will be given to PW.1 after receipt of the same from the office of Revenue Divisional officer. The conduct of the accused on the date of trap i.e., 01-10-2010 regarding questioning

PW.1 as to whether PW.1 brought money or not more particularly when

PW.1/complainant had enquired about the title deed with the accused, discloses that EXP.2/title deed was retained intentionally by the accused only for receiving demanded bribe amount of Rs.1500/- from PW.1/complainant 75 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 and therefore the accused after receiving the tainted amount under Mo.1 voluntarily had handed over Ex.P2/title deed to PW1.

109) In the present case, this Court has already come to a conclusion the conduct of the accused in not handing over the EXP.2/title deed to

PW.1/complainant discloses that the accused had intentionally and purposefully retained the EXP.2/title deed and the same was not handed over to the PW.1/Complainant by the accused even on 29-09-2010 the day when the accused had intercepted the tractor of PW.1/complainant at Bavupet village on 29-09-2010 covered under EXD.2 only with a motive to demand for bribe from PW.1/Complainant to handover EXP.2/title deed to the

PW.1/Complainant. Therefore, this court draws an adverse inference against the accused on proof of foundational facts with respect to demand through the direct evidence of PW.1/complainant that the accused in pursuance of his earlier demand on 29-09-2010, had voluntarily received the tainted amount under MO.1 on the date of trap from the PW.1/complainant and had then handed over the EXP.2/title deed to PW.1/complainant only after receipt of tainted amount under MO.1. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for accused that accused had never demanded and accepted any tainted amount under MO.1 from the PW.1/complainant on the date of the trap and that no official favour was pending with the accused as on the date of trap with respect to issuance of EXP.2/title deed and the admission made by the PW.1/complainant in his evidence before this court that tainted amount under MO.1 was forcibly thrusted by the PW.1/complainant into back 76 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 pant pocket of the accused is not tenable and this court do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused.

110)No doubt PW1 had though took volte face during course of cross examination conducted on behalf of accused stating that the accused had not demanded any bribe amount from the PW.1 for issuing title deed and

PW.1 himself thrusted the tainted amount under MO.1 in the pant hip pocket of the accused, however PW.1/complainant during the course of his chief examination dated 05.09.2017 conducted by learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for

ACB, PW.1/complainant had clearly testified before this court that on 01.10.2010, when the PW.1/complainant had enquired with the accused about his EXP.2/title deed , for which the accused had enquired with PW.1 as to whether PW.1/complainant had brought money or not is not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion to PW.1/complainant by the learned counsel for the accused stating that the accused had never made any demand for bribe of rupees 1500/- to PW.1 on the date of trap before handing over the EXP.2/title deed to PW.1. which proves that the accused had accepted the tainted amount under MO.1 from PW.1/complainant on his own volition with regard to issuance of Ex.P2 title deed which was pending with the accused since the date of issuance of Ex.P2/title deed i.e., 22.09.2010 to till the date of trap which leads to draw an inference that the accused had received the tainted amount under MO.1 voluntarily toward illegal gratification on 01.10.2010 in respect of issuance of Ex.P2/title deed to

PW1 in pursuance of his earlier demand made on 29-09-2010.

77 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

111)It is further argued by the learned counsel for the accused that mediator report-I/Ex.P6 and mediator report-II/Ex.P8 were prepared to the dictation of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB/PW6 without relevance to the facts that has actual happened on the date of trap with an intention to somehow implicate the accused in a false case and that the actual version of the accused was not at all incorporated and was deliberately suppressed in

Ex.P8/Mediator report-II.

112)A suggestion was also given to PW2/mediator by the learned counsel for the accused that the version of the accused that on 01.10.2010 when PW1 met the accused and the accused had questioned PW1 as to why

PW1 did not meet at the accused since last 10 days and the accused handed over the title deed passbook to PW1 was however denied by PW2/mediator.

113)A suggestion was given to PW1/complainant by the learned counsel

for the accused that when accused was questioned by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police/PW6 about demand and acceptance of tainted amount under Mo.1, the accused had represented before the Deputy

Superintendent of police/PW6 that PW1 is having a tractor and doing sand business and same was recently detained by the Revenue officials of

Elkathurthy and fine of Rs.5000/- was imposed upon PW1 and PW1 had requested the accused to release the said tractor and the accused had informed to PW1 that the superiors have detained the tractor and as such, accused is helpless and that PW1 keeping the above incident in mind had 78 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 trapped the accused and falsely implicated in this case was admitted by

PW2/mediator.

114)A further suggestion thereafter was also given to PW2/mediator by the learned counsel for accused that Ex.P6/mediator report-I and

Ex.P8/Mediator report-II were drafted without relevance to the actual facts that took place on the date of trap and that the same was aimed to make out a false case against the accused was denied by PW2/Mediator.

115)The above said suggestions given to PW2/mediator impliedly goes to show that accused intends to take the benefit of part of the contents mentioned in Ex.P8/Mediator Report-II which is beneficial and favourable to the defence of the accused and to discard and deny the remaining contents of Ex.P8/mediator report-II which are contrary to the defence of accused.

116)One cannot take the benefit of the contents of the document which is beneficial and favourable to him/her and cannot discard or deny the remaining contents of the said document which is contrary to the version of the said person and the document has to be read and taken for consideration in toto. Therefore under such circumstances, this court do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused in this regard that the contents of EXP.6 /Mediator report-I and EXP.8/Mediator report -II is

dictated by the PW.6/Deputy superintendent of police, Anti corruption

Bureau/Trap laying officer against the true happenings as PW.2/Mediator has admittedly no any kind of enmity or grudge to depose against the accused

before this Court.

79 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

117)The evidence of PW2/mediator that when accused was questioned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW6 about demand and acceptance of tainted amount under Mo.1, the accused had represented before the

Deputy Superintendent of police/PW6 that PW1 is having a tractor and doing sand business and same was recently detained by the Revenue officials of

Elkathurthy and fine of Rs.5000/- was imposed upon PW1 and PW1 had requested the accused to release the said tractor and the accused had informed to PW1 that the superiors have detained the tractor and as such, accused is helpless and that PW1 keeping the above incident in mind had trapped the accused and falsely implicated in this case was admitted by

PW2/mediator.

118)Admittedly there is no denial by the accused that when Deputy superintendent of police/PW6 had questioned the accused about the demand and acceptance of the tainted amount of Rs.1500/- under MO.1, stating that accused had never demanded and accepted any tainted amount under Mo.1 from PW1 on the date of trap.

119)Admittedly, PW1 is an illiterate and scribe of Ex.P1 is one T.

Indrasena Reddy. PW1 during course of his cross examination conducted by the learned spl public prosecutor for Anti corruption Bureau on 05-09-2017 after PW1 was treated hostile by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Anti

Corruption Bureau had testified before this court that when mediators had enquired with him with respect to Ex.P1 report, he had affirmed the contents 80 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 of report under EXP.1/report, dated 29-09-2010 stating that the contents of

EXP.1/report are true and he had given the report to Anti Corruption Bureau .

120) Though PW1/complainant had took volte face during course of cross examination on behalf of the defence dated 10-10-2017 that one T. Indrasena

Reddy had taken him to the office of Deputy superintendent of police, Anti corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and that the said T. Indrasena Reddy had obtained his signature on white paper of Ex.P1 and that PW.1/complainant does not know the contents of Ex.P1/report however, PW.1/complainant had never denied in his evidence before this Court the contents of EXP.1/report

dated 29-09-2010 is either false or incorrect and that the contents

mentioned in Ex.P1/ report is not drafted as per the instructions of PW.1 and that the same is drafted without the knowledge of PW1 by the scribe of the document under EXP.1 and that PW.1/complainant had never instructed the scribe T. Indrasena Reddy for drafting Ex.P1.

121)It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that on the date of trap, PW1 had met the accused near Kaveri Photo Studio and accused had questioned PW1 as to why Pw1/complainant did not meet the accused since last 10 days and then accused had handedover the title deed passbook to

PW1 and then PW1 tried to handover the tainted amount to accused for which accused refused to receive and had pushed the same with his right hand and then Pw1 had thrusted the same in the right side hip pocket of pant of the accused and went away hurriedly without heading the calling of the accused and in the meanwhile accused was apprehended by the ACB officials 81 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 near the Kaveri Photo Studio and the said fact was admitted by PW1 before this Court.

122)It is pertinent to mention that on 29.09.2010, Ex.D2 report was given by the accused to PW3/Tahasildar against PW1 for the illegal transportation of sand in tractor of PW1 for which PW1 had paid penalty of

Rs.5000/- through challan covered under Ex.D3 on 01.10.2010 in pursuance to the report of accused dated 29.09.2010 which proves that there was occasion for the accused to meet the PW.1/complainant while the accused had intercepted the tractor of the PW.1/complainant on 29-09-2010 and hence the said suggestion given to PW1 by the learned counsel for the accused that accused on the date of trap had questioned to PW1 as to why

PW.1 did not meet the accused since last 10 days is proved to be the false version of the accused with the document of the defence covered under

Ex.D2 and D3. Therefore this court in this regard do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused the contention.

123)It is not the case of the accused that he attended the kaveri Digital photo studio for the purpose of his any official work or any field work assigned to him by the PW.3/Tahasildar or for capturing photograph in Kaveri

Digital photo studio.

124)Therefore the conduct of the accused with respect to his presence at kaveri Digital photo studio on working day of 01-10-2010 in working hours of the accused and leaving the office for the purpose of meeting the

PW.1/complainant at a commercial place i.e., Kaveri Digital photo studio 82 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 more particularly during the office hours also shows the unnatural conduct of the accused i.e., by way of leaving his office at working hours and meeting

PW.1 for the purpose of handing over the EXP.2/title deed on the other hand revealing the apprehension of the accused that the motive of the accused in receiving bribe from the PW.1/complainant with regard to handing over the

EXP.2/title deed would be noticed and watched by the other office employees and visitors to the office of Mandal Revenue officer/PW.3 and hence the accused had chosen the place other than the office of Mandal Revenue officer/PW.3 with an motive for receiving the bribe towards illegal gratification from PW1/complainant for handing over the EXP.2/Title deed to

PW.1/complainant.

125)The evidence of PW.1/complainant during course of cross examination dated 10-10-2017 on behalf of the defence that he was taken to the office of Deputy superintendent of police Anti corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar by one T.Indira Sena Reddy and that the MO.1/tainted amount of rupees 1500/- was also provided by the said T.Indira Sena Reddy and that accused had not demanded any bribe from the PW.1/complainant for the issuance of title deed/EXP.2 and that PW.1 had thrusted the tainted amount under MO.1 when compared with the evidence of PW.1 during chief examination conducted by the learned public prosecutor for anti corruption cases at the cost of repetition discloses that when PW2/mediator had questioned the PW1/complainant about the proposed bribe amount,

PW1/complainant replied in affirmative and had accordingly produced the proposed bribe amount of rupees 1500/- which was subsequently smeared 83 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 with Phenolphthalein powders under MO.1 and there is whisper by the

PW1/complainant before the PW2/mediator and Trap laying officer/PW6 that

Mo.1 was provided to the PW1 by the said T. Indrasena Reddy.

126)PW.1/complainant has admitted before this court that he had given his statement under section 164 of code of criminal procedure before a

magistrate and the contents of the said statement is true and correct.

PW.1/Complainant also admitted that he examined by the Anti Corruption

Bureau Officials and statement is recorded under section 161 of code of criminal procedure code however PW.1/complainant has denied the contents of his previous statement under section 161 of code of criminal procedure code under EXP.4. is clearly disclosing that the PW.1/complainant is won over by the defence from the date of chief examination of PW.1 conducted by the learned special public prosecutor dated 18-07-2017, 08-08-2017, 05-09-2017 and 03-10-2017 by seeking adjournment for cross examination of

PW.1/complainant by not conducting the cross examination of

PW.1/complainant on the same day.

127)The evidence of PW2/mediator clearly discloses that when the

Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW6 had questioned the accused about the tainted amount under Mo.1 for which the accused had taken out a wad of tainted currency notes from his right side back pant pocket and produced the same before the mediators and upon the instructions of Deputy

Superintendent of Police/PW6, it was verified with the denomination and currency note numbers mentioned in mediator report-I/Ex.P6 the same found 84 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 tallied and when the contacted portion of the tainted amount of Mo.1 was subjected to sodium carbonate solution test it also yielded positive result under MO.7 and when both the hands of the accused were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test the right hand of the accused yielded positive under MO.5 and left hand wash remained as it under MO.6 and there is no denial of receipt of tainted amount under Mo.1 by the accused before

PW2/mediator when accused was questioned about the demand and acceptance of tainted amount by PW6/Trap laying officer. Therefore this court in this regard do not find force in the contention of learned counsel for the accused that Mo.1 was thrusted into the back hip pant pocket of the accused.

DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED:

128)It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that T. Indrasena

Reddy has implicated the accused due to grudge by joining hands with PW1 as accused has lodged report against the said T. Indrasena Reddy on 23.03.2004 while accused was discharging official duty, the said T. Indrasena

Reddy had beat the accused and as such the accused had lodged report against the said T. Indrasena Reddy before Station House officer, Elkathurthy

Police Station and basing on the report of the accused a case in Cr.No.

30/2004 under section 353 IPC of Elkathurthy PS was registered against the said T. Indrasena Reddy.

129)It is further argued that accused had also given report against the said T. Indrasena Reddy on 08.04.2005 stating that while he was discharging his duties, the said Indrasena Reddy had assaulted upon the accused and had 85 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 used criminal force and had also caused damaged to the official records and in that connection Cr.No.39/2005 was registered against the said T. Indrasena

Reddy for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC and the said fact is admitted by PW1.

130)It is argued further by the learned counsel for the accused that the scribe of report under Ex.P1 is T. Indrasena Reddy were admitted by PW1,

PW2, PW6 and PW7 and he was deliberately not cited as prosecution witness by the Anti Corruption Bureau in this case due to fear that the said two criminal cases i.e., Cr.No. 39/2005 for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC and Cr.No. 30/2004 for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC of Elkathurthy PS on the report given by accused will be exposed and therefore non-examination of material witness by the prosecution is fatal to the case of prosecution.

131)Per contra the learned special public prosecutor for the Anti

Corruption Bureau has argued that since the evidence of PW.1/complainant is consistent and stable having corroborated with the contents of EXP.1/report, there is no necessity for the prosecution to examine the scribe of EXP.1.

132)It is pertinent to mention that accused had not disputed and denied by way of giving suggestion to PW1 during the course of cross examination on behalf of the defence that the contents of report under EXP.1 is either false or incorrect and that same is lodged at the instance and instigation of the said T. Indrasena Reddy.

86 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

133)No doubt the accused had lodged two reports i.e. Cr.No. 39/2005 for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC and Cr.No. 30/2004 for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC of Elkathurthy PS.

134)Mere filing the two reports i.e. Cr.No. 39/2005 by the accused for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC and Cr.No. 30/2004 for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC of Elkathurthy PS does not suffice to prove that said T.Indira Sena reddy had any grudge against the accused as there is no proximity in time between lodging of the said reports of the accused against the said T.Indira Sena reddy to the present report under

EXP.1 lodged by the complainant/PW.1 and in between the said time, there were several waters flown in Godavari river to keep the alleged grudge of said T.Indira Sena reddy intact and live waiting for the PW.1/complainant to file EXP.3/application before PW.3/Tahasildar for issuance of pattedar pass book and title deed under EXP.2 and to process the said application under

EXP.3 by the accused and then to implicate the accused through

PW.1/complainant in this case through EXP.1/report more particularly for the acts of the accused in intentionally retaining EXP.2/title deed of PW.1 inspite of EXP.2/title deed personally collected by the accused on 22-09-2010 from

PW.8/Revenue divisional officer .

135) It is not the case of the accused that EXP.3/Application is also pressed into service by the said T. Indira Sena Reddy through

PW.1/complainant anticipating that the accused may retain the title deed/EXP.2 of PW.1 for the purpose of demand of bribe for handing over the 87 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 title deed/EXP.2 to PW.1 and then the said said Indira Sena Reddy can take his revenge or fulfill his grudge through PW.1 by scribing EXP.1/report.

136)It is not brought in evidence of complainant that PW.1/Complainant is either closely associated or related with the said T.Indira Sena reddy or that PW.1/complainant is acting as puppet in the hands of of said T.Indira

Sena reddy to blindly obey the terms of the said T.Indira Sena reddy as in

EXP.1/report.

137) Admittedly PW.1/complainant is an illiterate person and does not know reading and writing Telugu language except putting signature in Telugu and therefore PW.1/complainant require assistance for scribing report through the assistance of literate person and hence mere scribing of report under

EXP.1 by said T. Indirasena reddy cannot be the ground for prove of grudge against the accused either by the PW.1/Complainant or said T.Indira Sena reddy.

138)The defence try to explain the presence of phenolphthalein in the right hand and back pant pocket of the accused and plead Court should doubt the recovery. The accused has brought into evidence through

PW.2/Mediator that the accused had represented before the Deputy

Superintendent of police/PW6 that PW1 is having a tractor and doing sand business and same was recently detained by the Revenue officials of

Elkathurthy and fine of Rs.5000/- was imposed upon PW1 and PW1 had requested the accused to release the said tractor and the accused had informed to PW1 that the superiors have detained the tractor and as such, 88 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 accused is helpless and that PW1 keeping the above incident in mind had trapped the accused and falsely implicated in this case was admitted by

PW2/mediator, however, there is no representation of the accused in the form of the explanation submitted to PW.6 during course of EXP.8?Mediator-report-

II regarding denial of receipt of the tainted amount/MO.1 and there is no representation made by the accused to PW.6 that the tainted amount was forcibly thrusted into the back pant pocket of the accused by the

PW.1/complainant.

139)It is pertinent to mention that the defence of thrusting theory adopted by the accused for the first time during course of trial and as discussed supra, the same do not find place in EXP.8/Mediator-report-II When accused was caught red handed with those currency notes/MO.1 by PW6 in presence of PW2/mediator he never denied or raised any objections to PW-6 that those notes were not received by him. In fact, the story that such currency notes were thrusted into his pant pocket was concocted by the accused only when accused faced the trial in the court. From those proved facts the court can legitimately draw a presumption that accused had voluntarily received or accepted the said currency notes . Of course, the said presumption is rebuttable one, as the accused could rebut it either through cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence.

140)Though the defence made attempt to explain through the evidence of PW.1/complainant that the tainted amount was not demanded and 89 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 accepted by the accused and that the tainted amount is actually thrusted by the PW.1/complainant seems highly improbable as no person who is face to face talking to a person would move or turn around the said person to thrust the tainted amount into back pant pocket of the accused unless the said person turn back voluntarily while leaving the said place and that the natural human tendency of any person is to handover the amount to a person to his hands or to put the amount into front shirt pocket.. It is not the case of the accused that PW.1/complainant had applied any criminal force upon the accused for thrusting the tainted amount/MO.1 into back pant pocket of the accused. If really the PW.1/complainant had thrusted the tainted amount/MO.1 into into back pant pocket of the accused, then what made the accused not to lodge any report or take any action before any competent

Authority against the PW.1/complainant regarding thrusting of the tainted amount/MO.1 into into back pant pocket of the accused when according to accused PW.1 is allegedly in enemical terms in respect of interception of tractor of PW.1 covered under EXD.2. Therefore the defence of thrust theory taken by the accused found to be highly improbable and not believable.

141)Thus it is proved that accused had received the tainted amount/MO.1 voluntarily with his right hand and and had kept in the back pant pocket of the accused. . The Prosecution has further proved that official favour was pending with the accused by examining P.Ws.3, and 8 and phenolphthalein test conducted on fingers of both hand of the accused under

MO.5 and MO.6 and contacted portion of back pant pocket of the accused.

under MO.7 and pant of MO.8 of the accused yielded positive result.

90 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

142)The recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused is established by the prosecution through the testimony of

PW1/Complainant and PW2 who is mediator for receipt and recovery of tainted money from the accused. Besides this there is evidence of the trap laying officer (PW-6), the Mediator-11 under (Ex.P8). Except bald denial, no material evidence is placed to disprove the recovery. Therefore, from the material facts placed by the prosecution, this Court without any doubt hold that the demand and acceptance of money by the accused is proved. The accused has not come out with any explanation to rebut the presumption that the money he received from PW1 is a gratification other than legal remuneration. Therefore, the presumption under section 20 of the Act works against him. This court having relied upon the portion of PW-2 deposition which say, the accused was found shocked and was speechless on seeing the trap team, the trap laying officer/PW.6 got prepared sodium carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip his hands in to the glass tumblers separately and on doing so the fingers of right hand of the accused yielded positive and left hand washes of accused remained as it is and thus accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

143)In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused through valid and reliable evidence.

91 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

144)The prosecution through its witnesses had not only proved mere recovery of tainted money but had also proved that the money so recovered was received by the accused on demand for the purpose of handing over the title deed under Ex.P2 in the name of PW1/complainant to PW1/complainant.

145)Thus, this Court in the forgoing discussion and after evaluating the entire evidence on record, it is clear that prosecution by cogent evidence established the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused and deserved itself to claim presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in its favour. On the other hand, accused failed to rebut the presumption by submitting a cogent explanation. Therefore, he is liable for the charges under sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

146)Therefore this court from the foregoing discussion, on point No.1 to 4 taking into consideration of reliable part of evidence of Complainant/PW1, official witnesses/PW2, PW.3 PW5, PW.7, PW.8,PW.9, Section Officer/PW.4, and

Investigation Officer/PW6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P19 and MOs 1 to 8, hold that, the prosecution in this case, has proved the guilt against the accused for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt therefore, the accused is liable for conviction accordingly. Points No. 1to 4 are answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused .

147)In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption 92 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Act, 1988 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-III), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2023.

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

148)The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that is to be imposed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim).

149)Accused stated that he is aged about 68 years and he has got a wife and three sons among which the elder son is aged about 39 years, second son aged about 38 years and the younger son aged about 32 years and they are unemployed and depending upon the accused. The accused submitted that he is suffering with hyper tension disorder and thereby, he has requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against Accused are socio-economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, as such, on ground of sickness, accused can not escape from the compulsory imprisonment provided under the Act, for the offences proved against him, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and 93 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015 benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, are also can not be extended in these type of cases. When once, offences under Prevention of

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

150)Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

151)Accused is also further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed against the accused is Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only i.e., Rs.5,000/- + Rs.7,000/- under two counts).

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

153)The remand period already undergone by the accused i.e., from 02-10-2010 to 18-10-2010 shall be set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

94 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

154)M.O.1 (tainted amount of Rs.1,500/-) is ordered to be returned to

P.W.1/complainant if not reimbursed earlier by the Department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects i.e., M.Os. 2 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

155)The Accused shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of

Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the Accused.

156)The material on record reveals that, PW1/Velpula Venkanna, gave evidence before the Court contra to his earlier statement given to the ACB official u/s.161 Cr.P.C., and also the statement given before Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on oath, recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., and resiled from his earlier statement, Velpula Venkanna (P.W.1), turned hostile. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, that it would be in the interest of justice that Velpula Venkanna (P.W.1) should be prosecuted for giving false evidence before the Court, for the offence of Perjury appears to have been committed by him in the above proceedings hence, issue show cause notice to

PW1/Velpula Venkanna, to appear before this Court, for preliminary enquiry to be conducted by this Court, as contemplated under section 340 Cr.P.C., to take further action, by 28-02-2023.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-III), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 31st day of January, 2023.

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.

95 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1Velpula Venkanna -None- P.W.2Gogulakonda Mohan P.W.3Nidaragommula Ravi P.W.4Rathod Gurusingh P.W.5Galipelli Sathish P.W.6P. Jaipal P.W.7Ch. Nagender P.W.8Chiluka Sunanda P.W.9V.V. Ramana Murthy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1Original complaint given by PW1 Ex.P.2Photostat copy of title deed in the name of PW1 Ex.P.3Application of PW1 for title deed Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C statement portion of PW1 Ex.P.5Photostat copy of complaint Ex.P.6Mediator report-I Ex.P.7Rough sketch Ex.P.8Mediator report-II Ex.P.9Office note file B/72/2009-17 Ex.P.10Memo dated 30.05.2010 Ex.P.1130.05.2010 Notice under Form No.7 and 8 issued by PW3 (2) Sheets Ex.P.1215.07.2010Enquiry Reports along with sworn statement of legal heirs Ex.P.1319.07.2010Mutation proceedings Ex.P.1429.03.2012Sanction proceedings to prosecute the accused vide G.O.Ms.No.207 Ex.P.1501.10.2010Original First Information Report Ex.P.16 15.11.2010Requisition of Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption 96 Of 96 CC No. 68 of 2015

Bureau, Karimnagar. Ex.P.17 22.11.2010Letter from the office of Tahasildar, Elkathurthy mandal in Lr.No. A/393/2010 (2 sheets) Ex.P.18Service particulars of accused (containing two sheets) Ex.P.19Job chart of accused (containing five sheets)

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D116.09.2010Attested copy of report of accused Ex.D229.09.2010Report of accused submitted to Tahasildar Ex.D3Attested copy of challan of Rs.5,000/- paid by PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1Tainted amount of Rs.1,500/-.

M.O.2Sealed cover containing sample phenolphthalein powder used in the pre trap proceedings.

M.O.3One sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate powder used in the pre trap proceedings.

M.O.4One sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used during post trap proceedings.

M.O.5One sealed bottle containing right hand wash of accused.

M.O.6One sealed bottle containing left hand wash of accused.

M.O.7One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contacted portion of right side back pant pocket.

M.O.8One black colour pant.

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

1 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB CASES,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: SMT.P.LAKSHMI KUMARI,

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

Friday this the 23nd day of February, 2023

CALENDAR CASE NO.84 OF 2015

Between:

The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar.

….Complainant.

and

Sri Indurthi Ramchander Rao, S/o Janardhan Rao, aged 50 years, Occ: Village Revenue Officer, Ambala (V), Kamalapur (M), Karimnagar District, R/o H.No. 1-318/2, Srinagar colony, Bheemaram of Hanmakonda, Warangal District.

…Accused.

OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13 (1) (d) READ WITH 13 (2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

This Calendar Case is coming before me on 17-01-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, Sri S. Chandrahas Rao and Sri V. Parshaiah, Advocates for the accused, upon perusal of material on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.14/ACB-

KNR/2011 to prosecute him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 2.01)The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet are that complainant/Veerati Madhava Reddy had performed marriage of his daughter by name Mounika and on 13.07.2011 PW1/complainant along with wife had gifted the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.5-08 guntas in Sy.No. 206/E, 212/E, 213, 214/A, 214/B, 210/E, 211/A, 210/A, 211/C, 211/B, 209/A and 209/B located at

Sriramulapally village under Pasupu Kumkuma through registered gift deed under EXP.1 and for the purpose of issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed in respect of said gifted land, and for mutation of the above said gift land in the name of his daughter Mounika, the PW1/Complainant had approached the office of Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW3 and that PW3/Tahasildar, Kamalapur was not present on the said date, as such PW1 along with father of LW2/V. Raji Reddy went to Ambala village and met accused who was Village Revenue Officer (A.O) of Ambala village and submitted an application for mutation of the said gifted land and for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed enclosed with the old passbooks and filled up forms to the accused and the accused had given assurance to PW.1 to handover the old Pass books by completing the mutation process within 40 days and had demanded Rs.5,000/- for expenditure, upon which the PW1 complainant had expressed his financial inability and requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount and the accused upon the request of

PW.1/complainant had reduced the bribe amount from 5000/- to Rupees 2000 and instructed PW1 to give the said bribe amount after completion of mutation work and meanwhile PW1 had enquired with the accused for 2 or 3 occasions about his work, but there was no progress upon the process of application of PW1 and on 14.11.2011 PW1 had approached to the office of Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW5 3 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 along with LW2/V. Raji Reddy and had made representation under Ex.P4 to the

LW7/Tahasildar, Kamalapur and that on the same day at about 1.00 pm, PW1 and

LW2/V. Raji Reddy had again approached the accused at Ambala village and then accused has demanded Rs.2,000/- towards bribe and also promised to complete the mutation work within week days and had instructed PW1 and LW2/V. Raji

Reddy to handover the said bribe amount at the residence of accused on 24.11.2011 at Hanmakonda. That the complainant/PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- as such approached the office of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 and had lodged report under Ex.P2.

2.02)After receipt of the report under Ex.P2, PW7/P. Jaipal, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had informed the facts to the Joint Director, Telangana and made discreet enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the report under Ex.P2 and reputation of the accused and that after obtaining the permission from the superior officer and as per the contents of the report under Ex.P2, PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar had registered a case in Cr.No. 14/ACB-KNR/2011 under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 24.11.2011 at 7.00 am and proceeded to conduct the investigation and during the course of investigation

PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had secured the services of PW1 and LW2/V. Raji Reddy as decoy and had filed requisition for obtaining the services of PW2/Gangarapu Ramakrishna and LW4/B.

Vijayender Reddy as mediators in this case and had laid trap against the accused at the residence of the accused bearing H.No. 1-318/2, Srinagar Colony, 4 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

Bheemaram, Hanmakonda, Warangal District and that during the course of trap on 24.11.2011 the trap party members including the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and the mediators PW2 and LW4/B.

Vijayender Reddy along with the complainant/PW1 and accompanying the witnesses LW2/V. Raji Reddy left the suit No.6 of Sriram Sagar Project, Kakathiya

Canal, Guest House, Chinthgattu, Hanmakonda at 9.45 am in Government vehicle i.e., TATA Sumo bearing registration No. AP-09-BC-3186 and had reached to the house of the accused at 10.00 am and parked vehicles by the side of the road and then PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had instructed the PW1 and LW2/V. Raji Reddy to go to the house of the accused and to offer the bribe to the accused only upon on the further demand of the accused and not otherwise and that PW1 was also remained by the PW7 about the signal to be given in case the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount from him and that PW1 was also cautioned not to shake hands with the accused before or after demand and acceptance of tainted amount from him and thereafter PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar permitted PW1 and LW2/V. Raji Reddy to go to the house of accused and thereafter PW1 and LW2/V. Raji Reddy proceeded to the house of accused and meanwhile the trap party members had followed the PW1 and LW2/V.Raji Reddy at some distance on foot and that PW1 and LW2/V. Raji

Reddy were seen entering into the house of accused and then the trap party members had taken the vantage positions in and around the house of the accused situated at Srinagar Colony, Bheemaram, Hanmakonda to receive the pre arranged signal from the complainant and then at about 1.20 am the trap 5 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 party members saw the complainant/PW1 who came out from the residential hose of the accused by wiping his face with hand-kerchief indicating that the accused had demanded and accepted the tainted amount of rupees 2000/- under MO.1 and on observing the pre-arranged signal of the trap party members and mediators rushed into the house of accused and then PW7/ Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had asked the PW1 and LW2/V.Raji Reddy to wait outside for some time and that after entering into the house of the accused the trap party members had found the accused in Lungi and Banian and who was standing in front room and the PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had ascertained the name of the accused and also disclosed his identity to the accused and about the purpose of his visit, upon which the accused was found shocked and was speechless for sometime and then the fingers of left and right hand of the accused were subjected for phenolphthalein test and on doing so, both the hands washes of accused had yielded positive and then PW7/ Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar recovered the tainted amount under

MO.1 from the bed room shelf of the residential house of the accused and seized the same with the attestation of the PW2 and LW4/B. Vijayender Reddy and thereafter the contacted portion of the bed room shelf was swabbed with cotton and was subjected for sodium carbonate solution test and on doing so it had also yielded positive and then PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar had asked PW1 to produce the pattedar passbook/EXP.5 and title deed book/EXP.6 and the proceedings of the Tahasildar, Kamalapur, upon which PW1 had produced the same i.e., 1). original pattedar passbook with patta 6 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

No. 778 and Sl.No. 508475, photo of Pesaru Mounika w/o Rajesh affixed on the front page and the Tahasildar Kamalapur has attested the above photo and signed at the bottom and the 2nd and 3rd page contained particulars of survey numbers Sy.No. 206/E, 212/E, 213, 214/A, 214/B, 210/E, 211/A, 210/A, 211/C, 211/B, 209/A and 209/B total admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-08 gts, situated at

Sriramulapally village with the signature of the Tahasildar, Kamalapur at column

No. 8, 2). The original title deed book under EXP.6 with patta No. 778 and Sl.No.

508475, photo of Pesaru Mounika W/o Rajesh affixed on the front page and the

Tahasildar, Kamalapur had attested the above photo and signed at the bottom and 3) original proceedings No.B/2214/2011 dated 08.09.2011 of Tahasildar,

Kamalapur mandal pertaining to mutation proceedings under EXP.7 effected infavour of Pesaru Mounika in respect of the lands mentioned in pattadar passbook and title deed and that the above lands mutated from the name of complainant and his wife by name V. Roopa Devi in the name of P. Mounika and the proceedings containing the signature of the Tahasildar, Kamalapur on the bottom of the proceedings.

2.03)That PW7 got photostat copy of the above pattedar passbook and title deed under EXP.6 and the proceedings of Tahasildar, Kamalapur under EXP.7 and seized the photostat copies with the attestation of the mediators PW2 and

LW4/B. Vijayender Reddy in their presence and original pattedar passbook and title deed along with proceedings handed over to the complainant under proper acknowledgment and thereafter PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had effected the arrest of the accused at 1.30 pm after duly informing arrest formalities and produced for remand on 25.11.2011 7 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

before the learned 2nd Addl. Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad and

thereafter PW7 had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and LW2/Raji

Redy and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence under EXP.10 in presence of

PW2 and LW4/B. Vijayender Reddy and during the course of trap proceedings,

PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, had conducted the search of the residential house of the accused bearing H.No. 1-318/2, Srinagar Colony,

Bheemaram, Hanmakonda, Warangal district in presence of the mediators PW2 and LW4/B. Vijayender Reddy and later PW8/Ch. Nagender, Inspector of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had conducted the investigation and examined the witnesses i.e., PW3, PW4 and PW5 and recorded their statement and thereafter requisition was filed for recording the statement of PW1 and

LW2/Raji Reddy under section 164 Cr.P.C statement and thereafter sanction of prosecution under EXP.18 against the accused was obtained from the office of

Principal Secretary, Government, Revenue (Vigilance-VII) Department, AP,

Hyderabad vide G.O.Ms.No. 154 dated 23.04.2014 and subsequently PW9 had conducted the investigation and after completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, by PW9.

3)This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and assigned C.C.No. 84 of 2015 to the crime.

4)On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

8 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

5)The learned Predecessor of this Court has examined the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and as the accused denied the offences, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed, read over and explained to him, for which the accused denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)Subsequently, Calendar Case No. 16 of 2014 was transferred from

Hon’ble II Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Hyderabad, FAC: II

Addl. SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad vide ROC. No. 240/2010-D11 (BLDGS),

dated 21.04.2015 to this Court and the Hon’ble Special Judge for trial of SPE and

ACB Cases, Karimnagar has re-numbered the case as Calendar Case No. 84 of 2015.

7)In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1 to 7. On behalf of the defence none were examined.

8)After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him are recorded separately.

9.01)The accused has filed his Written Statement contending that the above case is registered on the basis of a false complaint lodged by the complainant under Ex.P2 and subsequently a charge sheet was filed against him 9 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

before this Court and this Court had frame charges against him under section 7 &

13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

9.02)The accused submitted that he has joined the services of Revenue

Department as a Village Revenue Officer in the year 1999 to 2009 and had rendered his blemish less service and he was kept under suspension on account of this case before he is reinstated in to service.

9.03)The accused denied to have demanded and accepted bribe for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the defacto-complainant (PW1) on 24-11-2011 for doing an official favour i.e., to hand over the Pattadar Pass Book, Title deed Book and Mutation proceedings of the Tahasildar to the complainant after effecting the mutation of the lands in the name of the complainant's daughter.

9.04)The accused submitted that allegation made by the PW1 is falsified by the PW3 and all the prosecution witnesses. PW3 stated that on 20-07-2011, he received a petition (Ex.P3) form one Mounika mutation of lands on her name in the revenue records and also to issue Pattadar Pass book and title deed and on the same day he issued Memo No. B/2214/2011 (Ex.P12) to the concerned

Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer (Ram Chander Rao) and also issued notices in Form No.7 (Ex.P13) & Form No.8 (Ex.P14) with instructions to display the same at Gram Panchayath office as well as notice board of our office for obtaining objections and also to submit report and after completion of 10 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 45 days on 05-09-2011 the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue

Officer submitted their reports under (Ex.P15) stating that there are no objections in mutation for the said lands. That basing on Ex.P15, PW3 had issued mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 and also issued Pattadar Passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 in the name of Mounika. That as per procedure the title deed book under Ex.P6 has to sent to Sub-Registrar office for signature and thereafter it has to be send along with 1-B register to the Revenue

Divisional Officer for counter signature.

9.05)The accused had also submitted that according to PW3 the application for mutation under (Ex.P3) was received from one Mounika who is the daughter of PW1 on 20-7-2011 and on very same day he had issued memo under Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 & 14 notices. That PW1 had testified that on 20-7-2011 when PW1 along with his father /(Lw2) went to the office of the Tahasildar, the and Tahasildar was not available as such, he approached to accused (V.R.O.).

whereas the evidence of PW3 before this court coupled with Ex.P12 to P14 had falsified the allegations made by the PW1 and that PW7 had also admitted that the application was submitted by one Mounika who is the daughter PW1 and that once the Tahasildar is available in the office and had issued Ex.P12 to P14, the question of pw.1 meeting with accused does not arise and that after submission of report by the Village Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Inspector, there no role of accused in the mutation proceedings as per revenue guidelines and same is confirmed by the PW4 who is Revenue Divisional Officer (Smt. K.Hymavathi).

PW4 testified that all the entries in the Title Deed and Pattadar pass books are to be done by the concerned Tahasildar and that after preparation of Pattadar Pass 11 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 books and title deeds, the same will be sent to the office of Revenue Divisional

Officer for attestation through the staff of Tahasildar office concerned. PW4 also testified that prior to signature of Revenue Divisional Officer, the signature of the Sub-Registrar will be obtained by the concerned Tahasildar on the said

Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds.

9.06)The accused also submitted that PW3 had testified that Ex.P12 contains his signature and after submission of report by Mandal Revenue

Inspector and Village Revenue Officer there is no role of them in preparation of

Pattadar Pass book and title deed. According to him "Sakala Janula Samme" was held during 13-9-2011 to 24-10-2011. PW.3 also testified that in the office of

Tahasildar, there will be dispatch section to hand over any documents, Passbooks and title deeds and also any certificates issued by the Tahasildar to the concerned applicants and that the passbooks and title deeds and certificates will be issued to the concerned applicants only but not to others.

9.07)The accused further submitted that PW6 who is the section officer from the office of Principal Secretary to the revenuehas testified that prior to issuance Ex.P18 they received specimen sanction order from the Anti Corruption

Bureau and that Ex.P18 was issued mechanically basing on the specimen sanction order sent by the Anti Corruption Bureau which also shows the false implication of the accused in this case.

9.08)The accused also submitted that the PW7 who was issued

Ex.P19(F.I.R.) also testified that as per Ex.P3, Pesaru Mounika is the applicant.

12 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

And according to PW.7, the Pesaru Mounika is crucial witness in this case, but the

PW.7 had purposefully not examined the said monunika in this case and that

PW9 not even cited the said Pesaru Mounika as prosecution witness in this case and had the said mounika examined before this court in this case, actual facts would have come to light as such the said mounika is not examined before this court. It is further submitted that PW7 had admitted that Ex.P3, Ex.P5 to P7 was seized from the office of the Tahasildar, Kamalapur and that Ex.P7 no where suggests any necessity for the complainant to meet accused.

9.09)The accused also submitted that the PW8 had testified that as per

Ex.P3, PW1 has not submitted the application under Ex.P3 and PW9 who filed filed charge sheet in this case had admitted that the specimen sanction order was sent to the office of Director General, Anti corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and from there, the specimen sanction order was sent to the office of Principal

Secretary to the Government (Revenue Dept.) and basing on it, the the sanction order Ex.P18 was obtained.

9.11)The accused submitted that the Anti Corruption Bureau has not cited and examined the Pesaru Mounika and Mandal Revenue Inspector concerned and had intentionally not examined Lw2/v.Raji reddy before this Courtonly to supress the actual facts which will will come to light on their examination before this court and which will be falsify the case against the accused.

9.12)The accused also submitted that there is no official favour pending with the accused pertaining to works of complainant or his daughter and that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that the accused had 13 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 neither demanded nor accepted any bribe amount in this case and accused nothing to do with this case.

9.13)The accused submitted that the evidence of all the witnesses i.e

PW1 to PW9 and the material documents marked under Ex.P1 to P19, would clinchingly falsify the case of the prosecution case against the accused regarding the demand and acceptance of any bribe for an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the defacto-complainant/PW1 for doing an official favour i.e., to hand over the Pattadar Pass Book, Title deed Book and Mutation proceedings of the

Tahasildar to the complainant after effecting the mutation of the lands in the name of the complainant's daughter and prayed to acquit the accused from all the charges framed against him in this case.

10)Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the accused has demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.2,000/-?

2. Whether there was any official work of P.W.1 pending with the accused as on the date of the Trap ?

3.Whether the accused by corrupt of illegal means accepted Rs.2,000/- from P.W.1 as gratification by abusing his position as Public Servant ?

4.Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

14 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

POINT NO.1

11)It is not in dispute that accused had worked as village revenue officer at Bavupet village ,Elkathurthy mandal Karimnagar District from 01-09- 2010 to 01-10-2010 and by virtue of post held by him, he was a Public Servant in the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Sanction:

12)PW6 is the Section Officer at Revenue Department Hyderabad deposed that on 26.11.2011 the office of Revenue Department had received radio message regarding the trap of accused and upon which the accused was kept under suspension vide RC.No.A3/3966/2011, dated 30.11.2011 and on 01.12.2011 the office of Revenue Department had received primary report along with copy of radio message, First Information Report Copy and the copies of

Mediator reports I and II, model sanction order along with other connected documents of signature of prosecution against the accused and also having departmental action against the accused and on verification of connected documents and after obtaining advise of Vigilance Commission and after due verification of the file the then Principal Secretary to the Government Sri S.P.

Singh had issued sanction orders for prosecution against the accused under

Ex.P18.

13)Learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that the accused officer had never received a single charge memo during his entire service and his departmental record is good and false discreet enquiry is 15 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 conducted by the investigating officer by making table endorsement and in support of his contention he relied upon the following authorities

14) The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the authority in AIR 1971 SC 520 between P. Sirajuddin etc., Appellants Vs.

The State of Madras etc., Respondents wherein it is held that provisions of code of criminal procedure are aimed at securing a fair investigation into the facts and circumstances of the criminal case how so ever serious the crime and how so ever incriminating the circumstances may be against the person supposed to be guilty of crime the code of criminal procedure aims at securing a conviction if it can be had by use of utmost fairness on the part of the officers investigating into the crime before the lodging of charge sheet, clearly the idea is that no one should put to the harassment of a criminal trial unless there are good and substantial reasons for holding it.

15)It is held further that before a public servant whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amounts to serious misdemeanor or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such report against a person, specifically one who like the appellant occupied the top position in department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular, but to the department he belongs to in general. The enquiry officer must not act under any preconceived idea of guilt of the person whose conduct was being enquired into or pursue the enquiry in such manner as to lead to an inference 16 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 that he was bent upon securing the conviction of the said person by adopting the measures which are doubtful validity or sanction.

16)Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW6 to say that the Revenue Authority had not applied his mind before issuing Ex.P18 and that

Ex.P18 had caused any injustice or prejudice to the accused.

17)PW6 had identified the signature of the then Principal Secretary to government Sri S.P Singh under Ex.P18. PW6 denied during course of cross examination that Ex.P18/Sanction order was mechanically issued based on only specimen sanction order for prosecution by the sanctioning authority without application of mind to the facts of the case.

18)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal

Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1979 SC 677 has held as under...It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.

19)A suggestion was given to PW6/Section Officer that the sanction proceedings under Ex.P.18 is issued without any application of proper mind and the same is issued mechanically and not valid in the eye of law was denied by 17 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

PW.6. There is no suggestion given to PW6/ Sri. M.P Janardhan Reddy that the sanction proceeding under Ex.P18 has caused the prejudice to the rights of the accused or any in justice is caused to the accused.

20)In the present case, PW6/ Sri. M.P Janardhan Reddy has proved the signature of the Sanctioning Authority under EXP.18 . He had brought the record also. He denied that the Sanctioning Authority had issued the sanction order without going through the papers. Sanction order dated 23-04-2014 is a detailed order.

21)The authority to remove the accused is Principal Secretary to government Sri S.P Singh and his order granting sanction to prosecute is Ex.P18.

This exhibit and the deposition of PW.6 nowhere indicates that the authority has not applied his mind or not acted independently . It is not the case of the accused that any injustice is caused to the accused by virtue of EXP.18. Therefore, it is held that the sanctioning authority had considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of Section 19(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the sanction was granted after due application of mind, and in absence of any failure of justice.

22)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined

PWs.1 to 9 though cited twelve witnesses. PW1 is the complainant/Veerati

Madhava Reddy. PW2/G.Rama Krishna is the mediator who participated in pre and post trap proceedings. PW3 is the then Tahasildar, Kamalapur, Mandal at the relevant period and immediate superior officer of the accused. PW.4/Revenue

Divisional Officer, Karim nagar at the relevant period, PW.5/Tahsildar Kamalapur 18 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 and successor in office of PW.3/Tahsilar, Kamalapur, PW6 is the Section Officer,

Revenue Department, Secretariat through him Ex.P18 was marked vide

GO.Ms.No. 154 dated 23.04.2014. PW7 is is the Trap Laying Officer who also issued first information report under Ex.P19. PW6, PW8 is the Inspector of police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar at the relevant period who assisted the trap laying officer/PW7. PW9 is the investigating officer who filed charge sheet against the accused.

Demand and Acceptance:

23)The specific case of the prosecution that PW1/complainant had submitted Ex.P3 application on behalf of his daughter/Mounika for mutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of agricultural lands to an extent of

Ac.5-08 guntas in Sy.No. 206/E, 212/E, 213, 214/A, 214/B, 210/E, 211/A, 210/A, 211/C, 211/B, 209/A and 209/B located at Sriramulapally village under Pasupu

Kumkuma through registered gift deed under EXP.1 in the office of Tahasildar,

Kamalapur/PW3 and since the Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW3 was not available as such PW1/complainant along with his father LW2/V. Raji Reddy had approached the accused at Ambala village and submitted the application under Ex.P3 by enclosing his old pattedar passbook to effect the mutation and the accused assured the PW1/complainant that he will complete the work of PW1 within 40 days and the accused had demanded Rs.5,000/- towards bribe for issuance of pattedar passbook/Ex.P5 and title deed/Ex.P6 and to give the bribe amount after completion of the work and that after 40 days PW1/complainant had met the accused on two to three occasions and the accused had assured the 19 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

PW1/complainant that his work will be processed and on 14.11.2011

PW1/complainant went to the office of Tahasildar/PW3 and on enquiry in the office of Tahasildar/PW3 it came to the knowledge of PW1/complainant that his application under Ex.P3 is not available and not pending in the office and as such

PW1/complainant upon the advice of some of the staff in the said office had submitted fresh application under Ex.P4 and had met the accused on the same day and had enquired about his work upon which the accused had promised the

PW1/complainant that he will complete the work of PW1/complainant within one week and had demanded Rs.2,000/- towards bribe to be payable at his residence

Bheemaram, Hanmakonda on 24.11.2011 and to take pattedar passbook under

Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 ans since PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe of Rupees 2000/- to the accused had lodged EXP.2 /report with the PW.7/Deputy superintendant of police, Anti corruption Bureau against the accused .

24)PW1 is the complainant deposed before this Court that he is the resident of Sriramulapalli village and agriculturist and LW2/V. Raji Reddy is his father and that he know the accused who worked as Village Revenue Officer at

Ambala village of Kamalapur mandal at the relevant period and that Mounika who is the daughter of the PW1 and that PW1 had performed the marriage of his daughter Mounika about four years ago and had gifted property under Ex.P1/gift settlement deed, dated 13.07.2011 in respect of Sy.No. 206 to 214 to an extent of Ac.5-08 guntas and on 20.07.2011. PW1 and his father LW2/Raji Reddy approached to the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamalapur/PW3 to effect the mutation and to obtain pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under

Ex.P6 in the name of his daughter Mounika and that Tahasildar/PW3 was not 20 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 available and then immediately PW1 and his father LW2/Raji Reddy had approached the accused who was the Villager Revenue officer at Ambala village and submitted an application under Ex.P3 by enclosing old pattedar passbook and filled forms to effect the mutation for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed covered under Ex.P5 and P6 and that accused had assured to

PW1/complainant and LW2/V. Raji Reddy that he will complete the work within forty days and had demanded the PW1/complainant to pay Rs.5,000/- towards expenses for issuance of pattedar passbook/Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 and that PW1 had expressed his financial inability to pay such huge amount and hence upon the requests, the accused had reduced the bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/- and told PW1/complainant to handover the said bribe amount after completion of the work and that after 40 days the PW1/complainant had met accused for two or three occasions and accused had assured the PW1 that his work will be completed and on 14.11.2011 PW1 and his father LW2/Raji

Reddy had again approached to the office of Mandal Revenue Office,

Kamalapur/PW3 and enquired about the application under Ex.P3 upon which

PW1/complainant and LW2/V.Raji Reddy were informed that there is no such application of PW1 pending in the office of Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW3, as such

PW1 had again submitted fresh application under Ex.P4 on the advice of some of the staff in the office and thereafter PW1/complainant and LW2/Raji Reddy had again approached the accused on the same day and had enquired about his work for which the accused had promised that he will complete the work within one week and had demanded PW1/complainant to pay Rs.2,000/- towards bribe and the accused had told the PW1/complainant to pay the said amount of Rs.2,000/- 21 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 at his residence situated at Bheemaram, Hanmakonda on 24.11.2011 and to take pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 and that PW1 was not willing to give the said bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to accused, as such PW1 had approached to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW7 and lodged

Ex.P2/report. The PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar after receiving the report under Ex.P2 from PW1 had asked PW1 to come after two days to Chinthagattu camp Kakatiya Guest House along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and accordingly PW1/complainant along with his father LW2/Raji Reddy had attended the Guest house, Hanmakonda at 7.00 am and met PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar and asked PW1 and LW2/Raji Reddy to wait for some time and at 7.45 am, the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had called PW1 and introduced him to the mediators and vice-versa and mediators had enquired the contents of the copy of the report with PW1 and accordingly the PW1 had affirmed the contents of the report as true and later

PW7 called the father of the PW1 i.e., LW2/Raji Reddy inside and mediators have also enquired contents of the report that the father of the PW1 who affirmed the contents of the report and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar got enquired with PW1 about procurement of proposed bribe amount and on affirmative reply by the PW1, PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had asked the PW1 to handover the said amount of Rs.2,000/- (500x3=1500, 100x5=500) to the mediators who verified the currency notes and noted down in separate papers and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, 22 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

Karimnagar had called one of the constable to smear currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and accordingly the said constable smeared the currency notes and placed the same in the left side empty shirt pocket of PW1 and then PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had given instructions to PW1 to pay the bribe amount to the accused only on his further due and not other-wise and in case if the accused demands and accepts the amount to give signal by wiping his face with hand- kerchief and further instructed not to shake hands with the accused either before or after meeting and then PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar also ascertained from PW1 as to whether the PW1 and his father LW2/Raji Reddy got any financial transaction with the accused for which the PW1 and his father replied no and then PW7/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had instructed the LW2/Raji Reddy to accompany with the PW1 and to watch the proceedings. The PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and then got demonstrated the chemical test and explained the significance of the chemical test and then all the trap party members boarded in TATA Sumo vehicle and proceed to the house of accused situated at Bheemaram village and the

PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had stopped the vehicle near the house of the accused and reiterated his earlier instructions to PW1 and then permitted PW1 and his father LW2/Raji Reddy to enter into the house of the accused at 10.00 am and accordingly the PW1 and

LW2/Raji Reddy entered into the house of accused and found the accused in front room and greeted him and the accused asked PW1 and LW2/Raji Reddy to sit and 23 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 then accused enquired about the bribe amount and on affirmative reply by PW1 the accused had asked the PW1 to handover the said amount and accordingly

PW1 had picked up the amount from his left side shirt pocket and handover the same to accused who collected with the right hand and counted with both the hands and entered into his bed room and kept the said amount in the bed room and came out and picked up the pattedar passbook and title deed along with mutation papers from the shelf and handover the same to PW1 and then the PW1 came out and had given pre-arranged signal to the trap party by wiping his face with hand-kerchief and on receipt of the signal, PW7/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and trap party members rushed to the house of accused and asked PW1 and LW2/Raji Reddy to wait outside for sometime and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar had called the PW1 and his father LW2/Raji Reddy inside the house of accused and enquired about the happenings and PW1 had narrated the entire happenings which was recorded and that after 10 days the statement of

PW1 was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.

25)As per the evidence of PW1 during the course of cross-examination discloses that the application under Ex.P3 contained the endorsement of

PW3/Tahasildar, Kamalapur as “please to put up” and office note to that effect was also made on the application under Ex.P3 containing the signature of Section

Assistant, Superintendent and Tahasildar/PW.3. PW1 deposed that after executing gift deed dated 20.07.2011 under Ex.P1 infavour of the daughter/Mounika of PW1, he had submitted the entire relevant documents to the

Tahasildar/PW3 on 20-07-2011 for the purpose of mutation on the name of his 24 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 daughter. PW1 denied that accused had never demanded bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/- and had never reduced the said bribe amount from rupees 5000/- to rupees 2000/- and that PW1 had never met accused at any point of time on 20.07.2011.

26)The learned counsel for the accused argued that except the tainted evidence of PW.1/complainant, there is no other evidence of accompany witness to prove that accused had ever demanded and accepted any bribe amount from

PW1 for the purpose of effecting mutation and for issuance of pattedar passbook in the name of Pesaru Mounika and that no official favour of pending with the accused as on the date of trap pertaining to the application of the complainant or his daughter.

27)In support of his contention the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the authority in 2011 (2) ALD (Crl. 672) (AP) between Trilok

Chandra Maurya (T.C. Maurya) Vs. State, wherein it is held that mere receiving of tainted cash by accused cannot be equated with acceptance of said amount as bribe. In the above said case the prosecution has miserably failed to prove not only demand for bribe by the accused but also acceptance of MO.1 cash by the accused as bribe and also existence of any official favour with the accused either in respect of the first contract or in respect of the second contract of sankarrappa & Co either on the date of demand i.e on 25-09-2000 or on the date of the trap 19-10-2000.

28)Whereas in the given case at hand, the prosecution has proved the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of the tainted amount/MO.1 by the 25 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 accused and has also proved pendency of the official favour with the accused with regard to issuance of pattedar pass book/EXP.5 and title deed/EXP.6 to

PW.1/complainant in pursuance to EXP.3 and EXP.4/applications as on the date of demand as well on the date of trap. Hence the authority quoted by the learned counsel for the accused is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this present case.

29)The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the authority in 2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) 109 (TS) between S. Shankar Vs State,

ACB, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the authority in 2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) 109 (TS) S. Shanker Vs

State, ACB, Karimnagar, wherein it is held that in the case of hand, such consistent evidence is not found. The evidence produced by the prosecution

before the trail court does not lead the case towards the establishment of guilty

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

30)In the above said case the both the aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved by the prosecution through any of the witnesses examined by it and the prosecution tried somehow to cover something regarding the actual date of presentation of the complainant to suite the case and when the said discrepancy is put to PW.10 during course of the cross examination, clearly stated that as per his endorsement on EXP.4, he received the said complainant on 21-09-2000 as deposed by him in his chief examination.

This discrepancy in the statements made by the PW.10 during the course of his chief and cross examinations is fatal to the case of the prosecution as when the 26 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 complaint was received on 22-09-2000 at 10.00 a.m, securing the witnesses on the said date at 9 a.m does not arise and fetching PW.2 by PW.1 to the office of

ACB at 8 a.m on the said does not arise. Presumption cannot be drawn when there is no prima facie case found that accused has accepted or obtained gratification as alleged by prosecution.

31)Whereas it is present case at hand there is no discrepancy in the evidence of complainant with respect to aspect of demand and same is proved with the direct evidence of the complainant and the acceptance of illegal gratification is proved through the circumstantial evidence by way of recovery of tainted currency amount under MO.1 in cupboard shelves under the clothes of bedroom of the accused in presence of the mediators. Therefore the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above said case is no way applicable to the present case at hand.

32)The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau has argued that except the evidence of PW1/Complainant there is no evidence of demand of bribe and the solitary testimony of PW1 is consistent and stable and cannot be doubted.

33)In support of his contention the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, Anti

Corruption Bureau relied upon the authority in Tara Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1999 CCR 487(Punjab & Haryana), wherein it was held that such bargains takes place in secrete and isolated places and it is too far for the courts to presume that there would be independent evidence for such demand, therefore, 27 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 there is no necessity and also no possible in all the cases for corroboration to the evidence of complainant.

34)The evidence of PW1/complainant discloses that on 20.07.2011 when PW1/complainant had approached the accused inrespect of Ex.P3 application at Ambala village for mutation of name of his daughter in the revenue records and for issuance of Pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under

Ex.P6, the accused had assured the PW1/complainant and father of PW1 i.e.,

LW2/V. Raji Reddy that the work of PW1/complainant will be done in pursuance of

Ex.P3 application within 40 days and had demanded Rs.5,000/- initially towards bribe for doing the work of PW1/complainant and upon the request of

PW1/complainant expressing his financial inability, the accused had reduced the bribe amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/- and told the PW1/complainant to give the said amount after completion of the work at the residence of the accused situated at Bheemaram, Hanmakonda, Warangal district on 24.11.2011 and then

PW1/complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- had lodged the Ex.P2/report against the accused.

35)A suggestion was given to PW2/mediator by the learned counsel for the accused that ACB officials had intentionally planted the said tainted amount in the cupboards of accused bed room inorder to falsely implicate in this case is disclosing the inconsistency of plea of defence of the accused regarding planting of tainted amount/Mo.1 in the bed room of the house of the accused which on the other hand discloses that the said inconsistent plea taken by the accused is for the first time during the course of trial regarding planting of the tainted amount 28 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 by PW1/complainant in the shelf underneath the clothes available in the bed room of the house of the accused and on the other hand the accused had taken another plea of defence that the tainted amount under Mo.1 was planted by the

ACB officials intentionally in the cupboards of the accused available in the bed room proves that the accused had taken false plea of defence of planting theory only to escape from the offence.

36)PW1 had expressed ignorance about the issuance of any notices under form 7 and form 8 inviting the objections in respect of the mutation in the name of P.Mounika after submission of application under Ex.P3 and about issuance of mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 dated 08.09.2011 issued by

Tahasildar after due enquiry and on the other hand the evidence of

PW.1/complainant discloses that he had submitted another application to the

Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.P4 in the month of on 14-11-2011 which discloses that the application under EXP.3 was not implimented for the issuance of pattedar pass book under EXP.5 and the title deed under EXP.6 till the submission of the EXP.4/application. The questions that were posed to the

PW.1/complainant that after submission of application under EXP.3 dated 20.07.2011, the notices under form-7 and form-8 were issued under EXP.13 and

EXP.14 respectivelly basing on the order of the tahsildar under EXP.12 inviting the objections if any for effecting any mutation in the name of the daughter

PW.1/complainant by name P.Mounika and that basing on the enquiry report submitted by Mandal revenue inspector and the accused as the village revenue officer under EXP.15, the tahsildar had issued mutation proceeding under ExP.7 though expressed in ignorance by the PW.1/complainant is on the other hand 29 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 disclosing that the accused was very much part of the process in preparation of the pattedar pass book under EXP.5 and the title deed under EXP.6 in pursuance of the mutation proceedings.

37)The suggestion that the given to the PW1/Complainant that he and his father used to visit the house of the accused on every Thursday for worshiping Saibaba was denied by the Pw.1. PW1 further denied that he had got any civil dispute in respect of the land in Sy.No. 334 situated at Sriramulapalli village with one G. Mallamma and that due to the said civil dispute PW1 had approached the accused along with his father to record the name of the PW1 in the pahani in respect of Sy.No. 334, for which the accused had refused to do.

PW1 denied further that since the accused had refused to record the names of

PW1 and his father in respect of the land in Sy.No. 334/A, as such PW1 along with his father LW2/Raji Reddy had created false story and lodged false report against the accused to the Anti Corruption Bureau officials.

38)A suggestion was given to the PW1 that on the date of trap when

PW1 had entered into the house of the accused and when PW1 had asked the accused about the pattedar passbook under EXP.5 and title deed under EXP.6, then the accused had shown the same to PW1 stating that the signatures of

Revenue Divisional Officer/PW.4 is pending and that soon after the completion of the signatures it will be handed over to PW.1 is clearly discloses that PW1 had met the accused on the date of trap I.e 0n 24-11-2011 and the pattedar passbook under EXP.5 and title deed under EXP.6 was pending with the accused as on the date of the trap in his custody at his house.

30 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

39) Learned counsel for the accused had given a suggestion that during 13.09.2011 to 24.10.2011 all the Government officials and staff had participated in the agitation in the name of Sakala Janula Samme for Telangana State and during such period, no official work were done. The said suggestion with regard to the non performance of the official duty from the period 13.09.2011 to 24.10.2011 is also impliedly disclosing that there was official favour pending during the said period with the accused .

40)PW.1 had denied the suggestion that was given to PW1 that on the date of trap, the accused had not received any amount with his hands and that

PW1 had forcibly tried to handover the amount to accused and then accused had refused and that PW1 had himself kept the tainted amount in the cup board in the bed room of the house of the accused and that PW1 had never met accused at any point of time on 20.07.2011 and accused had never demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe and that accused had never reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- from

Rs.5,000/- and that PW1 had never handed over the old pattedar passbook and title deed to the accused on 20.07.2011 and that PW1 has nothing to do with the mutation process of the land covered under Ex.P1 when the same is gifted under

Ex.P1 to his daughter Mounika.

42)The evidence of PW2/mediator and PW.7/Trap laying officer that all the trap party members including the PW.1/complainant and his father LW.2/V.Raji

Reddy and another mediator/LW4/B. Vijayender had attended the Kakatiya

Canal Guest House, Chinthagattu, Hanmakonda on 24.11.2011 at about 8.00 or 8.30 am in the Suit No.6 of the said guest house and then Anti Corruption 31 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

Bureau official had called PW1 and introduced him to the mediators and vice- versa and then PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had given a copy of report of PW1 to the mediators who gone through the contents of the copy of report under EXP.8 and verified about the genuineness and correctness of the contents of copy of the report under EXP.8 with the PW.1/complainant for which PW1 had confirmed the contents of the said report as true and correct given against the accused and thereafter PW2 and another mediator had attested the copy of the report under Ex.P8 and thereafter the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had secured the presence of father of PW1 by name Raji Reddy/LW2 and also introduced him to the mediators and that PW2 and LW.4/B.Vijender had questioned the father of PW1 about the contents of report of the PW1 against the accused for which the LW2/Raji Reddy had also confirmed the contents of the report as true and correct and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had questioned PW1 about the procurement of proposed bribe amount upon which PW1 had produced the proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- (500x3 and 100x5) and the same was given to mediators to note down the denomination of the currency note numbers and then PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had called the police constable and directed to smear the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter the constable by name G. Laxman had smeared the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and placed the same in the left side shirt pocket of PW1 after ensuring that nothing else inside the said pocket of PW.1 and the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption 32 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

Bureau, Karimnagar had given instructions to the father of PW1 to accompany

PW1 and to observe the entire proceedings and happenings and thereafter on the same day the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had shown the demonstration of the chemical test to mediators, PW1 and his father and also explained the significance of the chemical test and thereafter the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had given instructions to PW.1 to proceed to the house of accused along with his father i.e., LW.2/V.Raji Reddy and to give the tainted amount to the accused only upon his further demand and not otherwise and in case the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount to give signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief.

43)It is the further evidence of the PW.2 and PW.7 that the PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had questioned

PW1 and his father i.e., L.W.2/V. Raji Reddy about any financial dealings with accused for which the PW1 and his father stated no such financial dealings and personal enmity with the accused and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had seized the sample powder of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder in two separate polythene covers under Mo.2 to Mo.4 under the cover of mediator report-I having scribed by PW2 in presence of L.W.4 /B. Vijendra Reddy as well as Anti Corruption Bureau officials, two inspectors and after completion of pre-trap proceedings under

Ex.P.9/Mediator report.-I, the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar all of trap party members proceeded in one

Government TATA Sumo vehicle at about 9.45 am and reached to Srinagar 33 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 colony, Bheemaram near to the house of accused at 10.00 am and stopped the vehicle there itself and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had reiterated the previous instructions to P.W.1 and his father, L.W.2/V. Raji Reddy and permitted PW1 and his father LW2/Raji

Reddy to go to the house of the accused and accordingly PW1 and LW2/Raji

Reddy had left the trap party and entered into the house of accused and meanwhile the trap party members had followed the PW1 and LW2/Raji Reddy on foot to some distance and PW1 and LW2/Raji Reddy were seen entering into the house of accused and meanwhile the trap party members had taken vantage positions in and around the house accused and at about 10.20 am PW1 and

LW2/Raji Reddy came out of the house of accused and PW1 had given pre- arranged signal and after receiving the pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with handkerchief to the trap party members, the trap party members had rushed into the house of accused and the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had directed the PW1 and LW2/Raji Reddy to wait outside for some time and that the trap party members had entered into the first room of the accused and had found the accused wearing Lungi and Banian and the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had ascertained the name of the accused and also introduced himself to the accused along with the trap party members to the accused and also revealed the purpose of visit to the house of accused, for which the accused found shocked and was speechless for some time and thereafter sodiu corbonate solution test was conducted separately to fingers of both the hands of the accused and on doing so it yielded positive and the resultant solution of left and 34 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 right hand wash of the accused were seized in two separate bottles and after duly sealed, labelled and attested by the mediators and PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar under Mo.5 and 6 and thereafter the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had questioned the accused as to whether he had demanded and received any bribe amount from PW1 and accused has admitted and the version given by the accused was recorded and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had asked accused to produce the tainted amount which he received from PW1 upon which the accused had taken the trap party along with Anti Corruption Bureau officials to the bed room and shown the tainted amount under M.O.1 which was kept in shelf underneath the clothes and as per the instructions of PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar, mediators picked up the amount under neath clothes and verified the currency note numbers with reference to Ex.P9/Mediator

Report-I and on doing so same were tallied and then the PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had got prepared sodium carbonate solution in separate glass tumblers and the contacted portion of tainted amount subjected for sodium carbonate solution test and on doing so, it also yielded positive and the resultant solution was seized with due attestation having sealed and labelled under Mo.7, then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had called PW1 who was waiting there and questioned about the happenings and the version given by PW1 was recorded and then on further questioning PW1 had shown the relevant documents i.e., pattedar passbook and title deed under Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 which 35 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 was handedover by the accused after accepting the tainted amount and the said documents was produced by the accused from his front room shelf of house and those documents were seized under Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 by the PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and the

PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had then called the father of the PW1 i.e., LW2/Raji Reddy who was waited outside and had questioned him about the happenings and the version given by LW2/Raji

Reddy was also recorded and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had confronted the version of PW1 and

LW2/Raji Reddy with the accused and the version of accused has been recorded and in turn the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar had also confronted the version of accused with PW1 and LW2/Raji

Reddy and the same were also recorded and that as per the instruction of

PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar, mediators had conducted search of accused, but no incriminating material were found and then the PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar had prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P10 and thereafter the accused was taken into custody on 1.30 pm and the post trap proceedings was scribed by PW2 and it was signed by PW2 and another mediator and the copy of the mediator report-I under Ex.P11 was handed over to the accused on proper acknowledgment.

44)The suggestion that was given to PW2 by the learned counsel for accused that the accused had represented before the PW7/Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar that he refused to 36 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 receive tainted the tainted amount and the same was not incorporated in

Ex.P11/Mediator report-II and that the Anti Corruption Bureau official had intentionally planted the said tainted amount under M.O.1 in the cup boards of accused bed room inorder to falsely implicate the accused in this case. Was denied by P.W.2. The evidence of PW2 that the documents were seized in his presence and in the presence of another mediator by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials and the said documents were attested by the PW2 was not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion to P.W.2 by the learned counsel for the accused.

45)PW3 is the Tahasildar, Kamalapur at the relevant period and immediate superior officer of the accused who deposed that on 20.07.2011 PW3 had received a petition under Ex.P.3 in the name Mounika for mutation of lands on her name in the revenue records and also to issue pattedar passbook and title deeds and on the same day PW3 had issued a memo under Ex.P12 to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer and to the Village Revenue Officer (A.O) who was in charge of Ambala and Srirampur villages and had also issued notices in

Form No.7 and 8 under Ex.P13 and 14 with an instruction to display the same at

Grampanchayath office as well as notice board of their office for obtaining objections and also to submit the report and that after completion of 45 days on 05.09.2011, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the accused as Village Revenue

Officer had submitted their report stating that there are objection in the mutation of said land under Ex.P15/report submitted by Mandal Revenue Inspector and

Village Revenue officer dated 05.09.2011 and that on 08.09.2011 basing on the said report PW3/Tahasildar, Kamalapur had issued mutation proceedings under 37 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

Ex.P7 and had also issued pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under

Ex.P6 in the name of Mounika.

46)PW3 had deposed about the procedure regarding title deed book which has to be sent to the said registrar office for signature of the Sub-Registrar and after receiving the same, it has to be sent along with the 1-B register to the office of Revenue Divisional office for counter signature and that in the meantime

PW3 transferred on 22.09.2011 and handed over his charge to his successor

PW5/Tahasildar, Kamalapur by name Jagadeeshwar Rao and later PW3 came to know that the accused was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials on 24.11.2011 by accepting the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to handover the pattedar passbook and title deed. During the course of cross examination of PW3 deposed that he was on duty on 20.07.2011 and after receiving Ex.P3 application, PW3 had issued a memo under Ex.P12 to Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village

Revenue Officer (A.O) to issue notices in Form No.7 and 8 under Ex.P13 and P14 with instructions to display the same on notice board of Grampanchayath office and Tahasildar officer for any objections in respect of any mutation in the name of daughter of P.?W.1 by name, Mounika and to submit the report. PW3 deposed that Ex.P12 contains the signature which was issued on 20.07.2011 and after issuance of Ex.P12, the Village Revenue Officer (A.O) and Mandal Revenue

Inspector had submitted report under Ex.P15 on 05.09.2011.

47)The evidence of PW3/Tahasildar reveals that after receipt of the application of Pesaru Mounika on 20.07.2011 under Ex.P3, PW3 had issued memo under Ex.P12 to the concerned Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue 38 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

Officer for issuance of notice under Form No.7 and 8 under Ex.P13 and EXP 14 and thereby issuance of mutation proceedings in favour of Mounika under Ex.P.7 pattedar pass book and the title deed thereafter enquiry report of the accused as village revenue officer and mandal revenue inspector was submitted under

EXP.15 for non objection in respect of mutation of land infavour of said P.

Mounika and basing on the same , mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 were issued and in pursuance of the mutation proceedings under Ex.P7, the pattedar passbook under EXP.5 and title deed under EXP.6 were prepared thereafter in the name of Pesaru Mounika and that as per the procedure, the pattedar passbook under EXP.5 and title deed under EXP.6 has to be issued to the applicant concerned after obtaining the acknowledgment in concerned issuance register. The evidence of PW3 also discloses that as per the general procedure after receiving the title deed from the office of Revenue Divisional officer, the same will be handedover to the Village Revenue officer with instructions to handover the same to the applicant concerned.

48)No suggestion was given to PW3 that the title deed under Ex.P.6 and pattedar passbook under EXP.5 were not pending as on the date of the trap.

49)PW4, Revenue Divisional officer, Karimnagar at the relevant period deposed that the Kamalapur mandal falls under her jurisdiction and that she came to know that on 24.07.2011 the accused was trapped by the Anti

Corruption Bureau officials while accepting the amount of Rs.2,000/- as bribe from PW1/complainant inorder to issue pattedar passbook and title deed after effecting mutation. PW4 had deposed that she has received the title deed from 39 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 the concerned Tahasildar, Kamalapur after the trap of the accused for attestation and in this regard she was examined by the Anti Corruption Bureau inspector and her statement was recorded.

50)The evidence of PW4 discloses that the title deed under EXP.6 was received from the office of concerned Tahasildar after the trap of accused which also proves that as on the date of trap the title deed and pattedar passbook was pending with the accused.

51)It is pertinent to mention that a suggestion was given to PW1 by the learned counsel for the defence that on the date of trap when PW1 had met the accused at the house of accused and questioned about his pattedar passbook and title deed for which the accused had shown the pattedar passbook and title deed to PW1 and his father LW2/Raji Reddy the pattedar passbook and title deed stating that the signatures of Revenue Divisional officer/PW4 was pending and soon after the completion of the signatures it will be handed over to them which corroborates the version of the PW4 that Ex.P5 pattedar passbook and Ex.P6 title deed was pending with the accused for official favour as on the date of the trap and that after the trap of the accused, the title deed under EXP.6 was received by the PW.4/Revenue divisional officer for attestation.

52)PW5 is the Tahasildar of Kamalapur and successor of PW3 deposed that he know PW3 who was his predecessor and that he know the accused who worked as Village Revenue officer at Ambala village of Kamalapur mandal and he know the PW4/Revenue Divisional officer and that as per the record the 40 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 predecessor of PW5 i.e., PW3 had received EXP.3/application of Mounika daughter of Madhava Reddy/PW.1 for mutation and on receiving the said application under

EXP.3, PW3 had issued order under EXP.12 directing the accused and mandal

Revenue Inspector for issuance of the notice in Form No.7 and 8 under Ex.P13 and under EXP. 14 respectivelly for any objections for mutation of land in the name of Smt.P. Mounika and accordingly the Revenue Inspector and Village

Revenue Officer (A.O) had submitted their respective enquiry reports under

EXP.15 and there was no objections received and hence PW.3/tahsildar basing on their report, had issued mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 and later PW5 had taken charge from PW3 on 22.09.2011.

53)The evidence of PW5 proved that on 14.11.2011 he had received representation from PW1 regarding non implementation of mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 upon which PW5 had instructed the concerned Village Revenue

Officer (A.O) to get the signature of Sub-Registrar on the title deed and after getting the signature of Sub-Registrar the same was sent to Revenue Divisional officer along with 1-B register for attestation which also proves that the title deed under EXP.6 was attested by the Revenue Divisional officer/PW4 after the trap of the accused and was pending with the accused as on the date of trap.

54)PW8 is the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar at the relevant period had deposed that on 24.11.2011 PW8 as per the instructions of PW7 had recorded the statement of PW3 to PW5 and thereafter on his transfer he had handed over the case diary file to PW9/V.V. Ramana Murthy for further investigation.

41 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

55)PW9 is the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had deposed that he had received th case diary file from PW8 and had proceeded to conduct the investigation and during the course of investigation he had obtained the sanction order under Ex.P18 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

OFFICIAL FAVOUR:

56)The evidence of PW1/complainant proved that on 20.07.2011 he had submitted Ex.P3 application on behalf of his daughter/Mounika for mutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of agricultural lands to an extent of

Ac.5-08 guntas in Sy.No. 206/E, 212/E, 213, 214/A, 214/B, 210/E, 211/A, 210/A, 211/C, 211/B, 209/A and 209/B located at Sriramulapally village under Pasupu

Kumkuma through registered gift deed in the office of Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW3 and since the Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW3 was not available as such

PW1/complainant along with his father LW2/V. Raji Reddy had approached the accused at Ambala village and submitted the application under Ex.P3 by enclosing his old pattedar passbook to effect the mutation and the accused assured the PW1/complainant that he will complete the work of PW1 within 40 days and the accused had demanded Rs.5,000/- towards bribe for issuance of pattedar passbook/Ex.P5 and title deed/Ex.P6 and to give the bribe amount after completion of the work and that after 40 days PW1/complainant had met the accused on two to three occasions and the accused had assured the

PW1/complainant that his work will be processed and on 14.11.2011 42 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

PW1/complainant went to the office of Tahasildar/PW5 and on enquiry in the office of Tahasildar/PW5 it came to the knowledge of PW1/complainant that his application under Ex.P3 is not available and not pending in the office and as such

PW1/complainant upon the advice of some of the staff in the said office had submitted fresh application under Ex.P4 and had met the accused on the same day and had enquired about his work upon which the accused had promised the

PW1/complainant that he will complete the work of PW1/complainant within one week and had demanded Rs.2,000/- towards bribe to be payable at his residence

Bheemaram, Hanmakonda on 24.11.2011 and to take pattedar passbook under

Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6.

57)A suggestion was given to PW1/complainant by learned counsel for the accused that the accused had never demanded Rs.5,000/- towards bribe and

PW1/complainant had never met the accused at any point of time more particularly on 20.07.2011 and the evidence of PW1/complainant that the accused had initially demanded Rs.5,000/- and had subsequently reduced

Rs.2,000/- is false is denied by PW1/complainant.

58)The evidence of PW2/mediator proved that the contents of copy of the report/Ex.P2 when verified with the PW1/complainant and his father I.e

LW.2/V.Raji Reddy , the contents of the report/Ex.P2 was affirmed by

PW1/complainant as true and correct given by PW1/complainant and his father

I.e LW.2/V.Raji Reddy voluntarily and that when Deputy Superintendent of

Police/PW7 had questioned PW1/complainant and his father LW2/V. Raji Reddy about any financial dealings with the accused, they have stated that there is no 43 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 financial transaction between PW1/complainant, LW2/V. Raji Reddy with the accused and also no personal enmity with the accused.

59)The evidence of PW2 also proved that after the receipt of pre arranged signal from PW1/complainant, the Deputy Superintendent of

Police/PW7 and the trap party members including PW2 and another mediator

LW4/B. Vijender Reddy had rushed into the house of the accused and had found the accused inside the house in a lungi and banian and then the Deputy

Superintendent of Police/PW7 had ascertained the identity particulars of the accused and had introduced himself and trap party members to the accused upon which the accused was found shocked and was speechless for some time and the chemical test was conducted to the fingers of both hands of the accused and the same yielded positive and that when Deputy Superintendent of

Police/PW7 had questioned the accused about the demand and acceptance of the tainted amount from PW1/complainant, the accused had produced the tainted amount which was kept in shelf underneath clothes in his bed room in presence of PW2 and another mediators LW4/B. Vijender Reddy and as per the direction of

Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW7 the mediators picked up the tainted amount underneath the clothes and verified the currency note numbers with the reference of the denomination and currency note numbers mentioned in mediator report-I under Ex.P9 and it was found tallied and then upon questioning by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW7 about the relevant documents to

PW1/complainant, PW1/complainant had shown the relevant documents covered under Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 I.e,, pattedar passbook, title deed and mutation proceedings of Tahasildar, Kamalapur which was handed over by the accused to 44 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

PW1/complainant after accepting the tainted amount under MO.1 and then the

Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW7 had seized the documents under Ex.P5 to

Ex.P7 after due attestation of PW2 and another mediator LW4/B. Vijender Reddy.

60)The evidence of PW2 also proved that when both the hands of the accused were subjected for sodium carbonate solution test, both the hands of the accused yielded positive under Mo.5 and Mo.6 and the contacted portion of the tainted amount when subjected for sodium carbonate solution test, it also yielded positive under Mo.7.

61)The evidence of PW3 proved that on 20.07.2011 PW3 had received application under Ex.P3 for mutation of agricultural lands in the name of the daughter of the PW.1/complainant by name Smt. P.Mounika revenue records and basing on the application under Ex.P3, PW3/Tahasildar had issued a memo No.

G/2214/2011 under Ex.P12 dated 20.07.2011 to the concerned Mandal Revenue

Inspector and village Revenue Officer (accused) of Ambala and Srirampur villages and had also issued notice in Form No.7 under Ex.P13 and notice in form

No. 8 under Ex.P14 dated 20.07.2011 with instructions to display the same at the

Grampanchayath office as well as on the notice board of the Tahasildar,

Kamalapur for inviting objections if any and to submit report and that after completion of 45 days on 05.09.2011, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the village revenue officer/accused submitted their report stating that there are no objections in effecting mutation and that basing on Ex.P15/enquiry report,

Tahasildar/PW3 had issued mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 on 08.09.2011 and had also issued pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 in the 45 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 name of Mounika and that on 22.09.2011 PW3/Tahasildar was transferred and handed over his charge to his successor PW5/Jagadeeshwar rao.

62)The evidence of PW5/J. Jagadeeshwar Rao/Tahsildar proved that PW3 is his predecessor and at the relevant period accused worked as village revenue officer, Amabala village of Kamalapur mandal and as per the record PW3 had received the application under Ex.P3 in the name of Mounika daughter of

Madahava Reddy/PW.1 and thereafter PW3/Tahasildar had issued Form No.7 and 8 notices under Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 respectively and had instructed the revenue inspector and village revenue officer (accused) for enquiry and accordingly the enquiry report under Ex.P15 was submitted by the accused and the Mandal

Revenue Inspector and basing on the said enquiry report under Ex.P15 dated 08.09.2011, the Tahasildar/PW3 had issued mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 in the name of Mounika D/o Madhava Reddy and that on 14.11.2011 PW5 had received a representation under Ex.P4 from Pw1/Madhava Reddy regarding non implementation of mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 and upon which PW5 had instructed the accused to get the signature of the Sub-Registrar on Ex.P6/title deed and after getting the signature of the Sub-Registrar on Ex.P6/title deed, the same was sent to the office of Revenue Divisional officer/PW4 along with 1-B register for attestation.

63)As discussed supra, the evidence of PW5 proved that till 14.11.2011 the application under Ex.P3 for mutation of the name of the Pesara Mounika D/o

Madhava Reddy (PW1) was not implemented though the mutation proceedings was issued by PW3/Tahasildar, Kamalapur on 08.09.2011 covered under Ex.P7 46 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 and though the pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 was signed by the Tahasildar/PW3, the same were kept pending with the accused till the submission another application of PW1 dated 14.11.2011 under Ex.P4 and that upon the instruction of PW5 Tahasildar i.e., successor of PW3/Tahasildar, the title deed under Ex.P6 was submitted before the office of PW.4/Revenue

Divisional officer, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar district along with 1-B register for counter signature of PW4.

64)The evidence of PW4 discloses that she has received the title deed under Ex.P6 from the Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW5 after the trap of the accused for counter signature which clearly discloses that there was official pending with the accused as on the date of trap i.e., 24.11.2011 and the pattedar passbook under

Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 it was intentionally retained by the accused for demand of the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW1/complainant for doing official favour for issuance of the pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 and the mutation proceeding under EXP.7 in the name of

Smt.P.Mounika the daughter of the PW.1/complainant. Thus with the above said discussion through the evidence of PW.1 to PW5 and PW.7, it is proved that as on the date of trap the official favour i.e., for issuance of the pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 and the mutation proceeding under EXP.7 was pending with the Accused.

47 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

RECOVERY:

The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence of all the witnesses i.e PW1 to PW9 and the material documents marked under

Ex.P1 to P19, had falsified the case of the prosecution case against the accused regarding the demand and acceptance of any bribe for an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the defacto-complainant/PW1 for doing an official favour i.e., to hand over the Pattadar Pass Book, Title deed Book and Mutation proceedings of the

Tahasildar to the complainant after effecting the mutation of the lands in the name of the complainant's daughter andthat the tainted amount under MO.1 was planted by the PW.1 in the cupboard in shelves available in the bedroom of house of the accused only due to grudge that the accused had refused to incorporate the names of PW.1 and his father in phanies in respect of survey number 334/A of sriramullapally village and mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.

65)The learned counsel further relied upon the authority in AIR 2015

SC (3549) between P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Dist. Inspector of

Police and Anr wherein it is held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offences Under Section 7 and 48 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 13(1)(d) (I)(II) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two section of the

Act.

66)In the given case at hand the evidence of PW.1/complainant has proved the aspect of demand and voluntary acceptance of tainted amount under

MO.1 by the accused on the date of trap from the PW.1/complainant and the recovery of the tainted amount proved with the evidence of PW.2/mediator by the

PW.7/Trap laying officer. Therefore the authority cited by the learned counsel for the accused is no way helpful to the defence of the accused.

67)It is argued further by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, Anti

Corruption Bureau that the evidence of PW2/Mediators and the evidence of

PW7/Trap Laying officer proved that the recovery of tainted amount is made from the bed room shelf of the accused and when the fingers of both the hands of accused subjected for sodium carbonate solution test, the same yielded positive and the official favour documents were also seized under Ex.P5 to P7 and same is incorporated in mediator report-II and that the official favour was pending with the accused as on the date of the demand and the date of trap is proved with the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and PW5 who are officials who categorically deposed

before this Court that on 14.11.2011 the application from PW1 received by PW5

on 14.11.2011 and he had instructed the concerned Village Revenue Officer (A.O) to get the signature of Sub-Registrar on the title deed /EXP.6and after getting the 49 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 signature of Sub-Registrar, the same was sent to office of Revenue Divisional officer along with 1-B register for attestation and that since 08.09.2011 to till the date of trap, the documents under Ex.P5 to 7 were pending with the accused for implementation of mutation proceedings dated 08.09.2011.

68)Learned special public prosecutor in support of his contention the learned Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau relied upon the authority in

Indur Dayal Das Advani Vs State of Bombay, 6 th April 1951, wherein it is held that section 7 does not require that the public servant must himself have power or himself be in a position to show favour or disfavour, for doing or showing which the bribe was paid. Therefore, it is not necessary to constitute an offence under section 7 that the Act for doing which the bribe is given should actually be performed.

69)He relied further upon the authority in Chatrudas Bhagawan Das

Vs. State of Gujarat, 1976, wherein it is held that to fix up a person, it is enough that if a public servant induces a belief that he would render assistance to the giver and the giver gives the gratification under that belief.

70)The evidence of PW1/complainant proved that on the date of trap when PW1/complainant had entered into the house of accused at 10.00 am accused was found in the front room and PW1/complainant had greeted the accused and the accused had asked PW1/complainant to sit and then the accused had enquired PW1/complainant as to whether PW1/complainant brought the amount or not and then upon the affirmative reply given by

PW1/complainant, the accused had told PW1/complainant to handover the 50 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 amount to him and accordingly PW1/complainant had picked up the amount from his left side shirt pocket and handedover the same to the accused who collected with his right hand and counted with his both hand and then entered into his bed room and kept that amount in the bed room and came out and had picked up the pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 along with mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 from the shelf available in the room and handed over the same to PW1/complainant.

71)The evidence of PW2/mediator and Deputy Superintendent of

Police/PW7 proved that during the course of post trap proceedings when the accused was questioned about the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount from PW1/complainant, the accused had lead the trap party members to his bed room and had shown the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- under Mo.1 which was kept in shelf underneath the clothes and as per the instructions of Deputy

Superintendent of Police/PW7, the mediators i.e., PW2 and LW4/B. Vijender reddy had picked up the tainted amount underneath clothes and had verified the currency note numbers with the currency numbers mentioned in mediator report-

I/Ex.P9 and on verification it found tallied.

72)A suggestion was given to PW1 by the learned counsel for the accused that on the date of trap when PW1/complainant had entered into the house of the accused and had enquired with the accused about the pattedar passbook/Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6, the accused had shown the same to

PW1/complainant stating that the attestation of Revenue Divisional officer/PW4 was pending and soon after the completion of the attestation of the Revenue 51 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

Divisional officer/PW4 it will be handed over to PW1 which clearly proves that the pattedar passbook/Ex.P5 and title deed/Ex.P6 was pending with the accused as on the date of trap i.e., 24.11.2011 for official favour and hence the demand of bribe of rupees 2000/- for issuance of the pattedar passbook under Ex.P5, title deed under Ex.P6 and mutation proceedings by the accused to PW.1/complainant is proved with the evidence of PW1/complainant which was not denied in material particulars by the learned counsel for the accused by way of giving suggestion to PW1/complainant stating that there was no demand and acceptance of tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- made by the accused more particularly on 24.11.2011.

73)There is no denial and dispute by way of giving suggestion to

PW1/complainant by the learned counsel for the accused on the date of trap i.e., on 24.11.2011 that when PW1 along with his fatheri.e LW.2/V.Raji Reddy had entered into the house of the accused, the accused had not enquired with

PW1/complainant regarding the bribe amount and had not demanded to give the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW1/complainant and received the tainted amount under MO.1 considering it to be bribe from PW1/complainant with his right hand and had not counted with his both hands and had never kept the tainted amount under MO.1 into his bed room in self underneath the clothes.

74)Except mere giving suggestion to PW1/complainant by the learned counsel

for the accused that on the date of trap the accused did not receive any amount

with his hands and that PW1/complainant had forcibly tried to hand over the amount to accused and that the accused refused to receive the same and then 52 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

PW1/complainant had kept that tainted amount into his cupboards in the bed room was denied by PW1/complainant no rebuttable evidence is produced in support of the above said contention of the accused .

75)The evidence of PW1/complainant discloses that on the date of trap i.e., on 24.11.2011 the accused had demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW1/complainant and had kept the tainted amount in the shelf underneath the clothes available in the bed room of the accused and had handed over Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 to PW1/complainant.

76)The evidence of PW2/mediator discloses that during post trap proceedings under Ex.P11/mediator report-II when the Deputy Superintendent of

Police/PW7 had questioned the accused about the demand and acceptance of tainted amount the accused had produced the tainted amount from his bed room which was kept in shelf underneath the clothes and on verification by the mediators as per the instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW7 regarding the tainted currency notes with the denomination and currency note numbers mentioned in mediator report-I/Ex.P9 it found tallied and when both the hands of the accused were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, the same yielded positive result under Mo.5 and Mo.6 respectively and the contacted portion of the tainted amount i.e., the shelf underneath the clothes in the bed room of the accused had also yielded positive under Mo.7.

77)The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused had not demanded or accepted any bribe amount for doing official favour from PW1 for issuance of pattedar passbook/Ex.P5, title deed/Ex.P6 and mutation 53 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 proceeding/Ex.P7 and no official favour was pending with the accused either of the complainant/PW1 or the daughter of the complainant by name Mounika and accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that the prosecution witness

LW2/V Raji Reddy is intentionally not examined before this Court by the prosecution and the original applicant of Ex.P3 by name Pesara Mounika who is crucial witness to the case of the prosecution is also not examined before this court in order to suppress the true and actual facts before this Court.

78)The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption of Bureau on behalf of the prosecution has argued that the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused is proved by the prosecution with the evidence of

PW1/complainant and the aspect of acceptance of tainted amount/MO.1 is proved with the evidence of PW2/mediator and the Trap Laying Officer/PW7 who participated in the pre and post trap proceedings on the date of trap when PW1 and his father entered into the house of accused, the accused had demanded to give the bribe amount and accordingly PW1 had given the bribe amount to the accused and the accused accepted the same, counted with his both hands and kept the same in the bed room shelf and the evidence of PW1 was corroborated in material parts of PW2/Mediator and the Trap Laying officer/PW7 who categorically deposed before this Court that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount and the test conducted on both the hands of the accused were yielded positive and Mo.1 tainted amount was seized from the bed room shelf at the instance of the accused and on verification of the currency notes by the mediators with the pretrap proceedings the same also tallied. It is argued further that if the accused does not want to accept the bribe amount, 54 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 what made the accused to instruct PW1 to come to his residence and to that effect no explanation is offered by the defence.

79)In support of his contention the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, Anti

Corruption Bureau relied upon the authority in Phula Singh Vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh on 3 rd March, 2014 wherein it is held that failure to explain the reason as to why the accused visited the house of complainant and did not even deny the visit, no explanation in respect of recovery of the amount from the bed room shelf and no explanation as to how the fingers of both the hands turned into pink, therefore, the acceptance part is proved by the evidence of PW1, 2 and 7.

80)The said argument of the learned counsel for the accused is untenable as the evidence of the tahsildar/PW.3.PW.4/Revenue Divisional Officer and PW.5/tahsildar has proved that the official favour was pending with the accused as on the date of the trap I.e on 24-11-2011 for issuance of pattedar pass book under EXP.5, title deed under EXP.6 and mutation proceeding under

EXP.7issued by the PW.3/tahsildar pertaining to the daughter of the complainant by name P.Mounika and till submission of the application under EXP.4 on 14-11- 2011 and as rightly argued by the learned special public prosecutor that what necessiated the accused to retain the pattedar pass book under EXP.5, title deed under EXP.6 and mutation proceeding under EXP.7 issued by the PW.3/tahsildar pertaining to the daughter of the complainant by name P.Mounika at the house of the accused till the date of trap and till submission of the application under

EXP.4 on 14-11-2011 by the complainant/PW.1 before the PW.5/Tahsildar who 55 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 admittedly called for the report from the accused as village revenue officer and mandal revenue inspector on 14-11-2011 for the delay caused in respect of the the application under EXP.3. Therefore under such circumstances, the said contention of learned counsel for the accused that there was no official favour pending with the accused with respect to issuance of the pattedar pass book under EXP.5, title deed under EXP.6 and mutation proceeding under EXP.7 issued by the PW.3/tahsildar pertaining to the daughter of the complainant/PW.1 by name P.Mounika as on the date of the demand and as on the date of the trap and that accused is no way concerned to the issuance of pattedar pass book under EXP.5, title deed under EXP.6 and mutation proceeding under EXP.7 issued by the PW.3/tahsildar pertaining to the daughter of the complainant by name

P.Mounika is untenable.

81)The argument of leaned counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW7/Deputy Superintendent of Police discloses that the documents under

Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 were seized from the office of Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW3 appears to be unfounded with the actual evidence of PW.7 before this court as the evidence of PW7 no where discloses that the documents under Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 were seized from the office of Tahasildar, Kamalapur and on the other hand it is disclosing that the documents under Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 recovered from the possession of PW1/complainant on the date of trap having handed over by the accused immediately after receiving of the tainted amount under MO.1 and hence no weightage can be given to the said argument of the learned counsel

for the accused.

56 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

82)It is further argued by the leaned counsel for the accused that the allegation made by PW1/complainant is falsified by the evidence of

PW3/Tahasildar and all the prosecution witnesses regarding Ex.P3 application

dated 20.07.2011 wherein PW3/Tahasildar, Kamalapur had testified before this

Court that on 20.07.2011 he had received a application under Ex.P3 from one

Mounika for mutating the lands on her name and also to issue pattedar passbook and title deed and on the same day PW3/Tahasildar had issued the memo

No.B/2214/2011 under Ex.P12 to the concerned Mandal Revenue Inspector and village revenue officer (accused) and had also issued notices under Form No.7 and 8 covered under Ex.P13 and P14 with instruction to display the same at the

Grampanchayath office as well as the notice board inviting for objections and to submit report and hence the meeting of PW1/complainant with the accused and submitting an application under Ex.P3 before the accused and the accused demanding Rs.5,000/- initially and reducing the bribe amount subsequently upon the request of PW1/complainant to Rs.2,000/- is falsified as after completion of 45 days on 05.09.2011, Mandal Revenue Inspector and accused as village revenue officer had submitted their reports under Ex.P15 stating that there are no objections received for mutation in the name of Pesara Mounika and as such basing on Ex.P15 enquiry report, Tahasildar/PW3 had issued mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 and had also issued pattedar passbook under Ex.P5 and title deed under Ex.P6 in the name of Mounika.

83)The said contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW3 had falsified the evidence of PW1/complainant regarding meeting of PW1/complainant with the accused and submitting the application 57 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 under Ex.P3 to the accused and the accused demanding Rs.5,000/- and subsequently reducing to Rs.2,000/- is falsified, is not tenable for the reason that the evidence of PW5 the successor of PW3/Tahasildar clearly discloses that on 14.11.2011 PW1/complainant along with his father I.e LW.2/V.Raji reddy had again approached to the office of Tahasildar/PW5 enquiring about his application under Ex.P3 in the office of Tahasildar/PW5 and it came to the knowledge of

PW.1/complainant and LW.2/V.Raji reddy that Ex.P3/ application was not available and pending in the office of Tahasildar, Kamalapur/PW5 and as such, the

PW1/complainant had submitted another fresh application under Ex.P4 for implementation of mutation proceedings under Ex.P7 and for issuance of the pattedar passbook/Ex.P5 and title deed Ex.P6 and upon the said application under EXP.4, the PW.5/tahsildar had called for the report of the accused as village revenue officer and mandal revenue inspectoron 14-11-2011 and PW5 had also directed the accused to get the signature of the sub-registrar on Ex.P6/title deed and after getting the signature of Sub-Registrar on Ex.P6/title deed, to send the same to the office of Revenue Divisional officer/PW.4 for her attestation was also corroborated by the Revenue divisional office/PW.4 that she received the title deed under EXP.6 for the attestation after the trap of the accused which on the other hand discloses that till 14.11.2011, the application under Ex.P3 was not implemented by way of issuing pattedar passbook/Ex.P5 and title deed under

Ex.P6 to PW1/complainant.

84)The contention of the accused with regard to the meeting of the

PW1/complainant with the accused in pursuance of Ex.P3 application is concerned on 20.07.2011, a suggestion was given to PW1/complainant by the 58 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 learned counsel for the accused during course of cross examination of

PW1/complainant that the application under Ex.P3 is submitted by the daughter of PW1 by name Mounika dated 20.07.2011 for which PW1/complainant had volunteered that after executing the gift deed under EXP.1 in favour of his daughter, he had submitted all the relevant old documents for the purpose of mutation on the name of his daughter on 20.07.2011 was not specifically disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion to the PW.1.

85)The evidence of PW.1 proved that on 20-07-2011 PW.1/complainant along with the his father had approached the accused along with the EXP.3 /application and handed over old relevant documents/ old pattedar passbook to the accused for the purpose of effecting mutation in the name of the daughter of the PW.1/complainant and the same was corroborated with the evidence of

PW.3 who categorically deposed before this court that on 20-07-2011 the PW.3 had directed the accused to display the notices under form-7 and form -8 under

EXP.13 and EXP.14 respectively basing on the order of PW.3/tahsildar under

EXP.12 through memo no.2214/2011 dated 20-11-2011 and same is further corroborated with the evidence of PW.5/tahsildar through EXP.4/application that the application under EXP.3 dated 20-07-2011 in pursuance of the mutation proceedings under EXP.7 was not implemented.

86)The evidence of the PW.2/mediator proved that when the contents of copy of the report under EXP.8 were verified by the PW.2 and LW.4/B Vijayender reddy with the PW.1/complainant and his father LW.2/V.Raji reddy, the same were 59 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 affirmed by the as true and correct, by the PW.1/complainant and his father

LW.2/V.Raji reddy.

87)Perusal of the EXP.2 clearly discloses that on 20-07-2011

PW.1/complainant along with the his father had approached the accused along with the EXP.3 /application and handed over old relevant documents/ old pattedar passbook to the accused for the purpose of effecting mutation in the name of the daughter of the PW.1/complainant. There is no specific denial of the contents of report under EXP.2 lodged by the PW.1/complainant by way of giving suggestion either to the PW.1/complainant and the PW.2/mediator.

Defence theory:

88)The defence of the accused is that he had never demanded and accepted tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW1/complainant and that

Mo.1/tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- was planted by PW1/complainant in the cupboards available in the bed room of house of the accused and that on the date of trap, the accused did not receive the tainted amount/MO.1 with his hands and that PW1/complainant had forcibly tried to handover the tainted amount

Rs.2,000/- and the accused had refused to receive the tainted amount/MO.1 and then PW1/complainant had kept that tainted amount in the cupboards in the bed room out of grudge that the accused had not incorporated the names of

PW1/complainant and his father LW2/V. Raji Reddy in the pahanies in respect of land in Sy.No. 333/A situated at Sriramulapalli village and had refused to do the 60 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 same and then a false story has been created by PW1/complainant and false report has been lodged before the ACB officials.

89)It is further defence of the accused that due to Telangana Agitations occurred in between 13.09.2011 to 24.10.2011, no official work was done during that period and that no official favour was pending with the accused as on the date of the trap.

90)Learned counsel for the accused has argued that all the allegations leveled against the accused is false and that accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe amount from the complainant /Pw1 on 24-11-2011 and all the allegations are falsified by the prosecution witnesses and that when the accused had refused to receive the tainted amount under MO.1, the PW.1/complainant had kept the tainted currency notes/MO.1 in the shelf available in the bedroom of house of the accused andhad came out of the house after planting the tainted amount under MO.1 underneath the cloths and had relayed the prearranged signal and thus accused is falsely implicated by Pw1 on the basis of a false and motivated complaint.

91)As discussed in my foregoing paragraphsthe evidence of PW.1 proved that the transaction took place in the residence of the accused situated at

Beemaram, Hanumakonda on the date of trap on 24-11-2011 and on seeing the

PW.1, the accused had enquired with the PW.1 as to whether PW.1 brought the amount or not and on affirmative reply given by the PW.1, the accused had asked the PW.1 to give the bribe of R.2,000/- and upon the demand made by the 61 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 accused, the PW.1 had handed over the tainted amount/MO.1 to the accused who received with his right hand and counted with his both hands and entered into his bedroom and kept the tainted amount/M.O.1 in bedroom and came out and picked up the pattedar pass books/EXP.5 and title deed/EXP.6 along with mutation proceedings covered under EXP.7 from the shelf and handed over the same to PW.1and then PW1 came out of the house of accused officer and had given prearranged signal.

92)The evidence of PW.2 also proved that when the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had questioned the accused officer about the tainted amount/MO.1 upon which the accused officer had lead the trap party members to the bedroom and had shown the amount which was kept in shelf underneath the clothes and produced before them and then at the request of the PW.7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar the mediators have verified the denomination and currency note numbers of the amount with the numbers already mentioned in

Ex.P9/Mediator report-I and on doing so both were tallied.

93)There is no denial on the part of the accused officer that the tainted amount/MO.1 was not recovered at the instance of the accused from the bedroom shelf underneath the clothes in the house of the accused and on the other hand a suggestion was given for the first time during the course of trial that PW.1 had forcibly tried to handover the tainted amount/MO.1 to the accused 62 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 and when the accused had refused, the PW.1/complainant had kept that tainted amount under M.O.1 in the cupboard underneath the cloths in the bedroom .

94)It is pertinent to mention that a suggestion was given to

PW.2/mediator that the anti corruption Bureau officials had intentionally planted the said bribe amount in the cub boards available in the bedroom of house of the accused in order to falsely implicate the accused which is quite contrary to the defence taken by the accused for the first time during course of trial regarding alleged planting of the tainted amount/MO.1 by PW.1 in the cupboard shelves under the clothes in the bedroom of the house of the accused.

95)It is also pertinent to mention that during course mediator report-II proceedings under EXP.11 when the PW.7/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had questioned the accused about the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount from the PW.1/complainant upon which, the accused had stated that the complainant and his father had voluntarily offered the bribe amount without the demand of the accused and had forcibly kept the tainted amount/ MO.1 into the hands of the accused and then the accused had delivered the pattedar pass books/EXP.5 and title deed/EXP.6 along with mutation proceedings covered under EXP.7 from the shelf and handed over the same to

PW.1.

96)It is true that an accused though not furnished any explanation at the time of the trap, can submit his defence plea during the evidence or in the examination under section 313 of code of criminal procedure and it cannot be 63 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 discarded on the mere ground that it was furnished at a belated stage on the other hand, it has to be accepted if it is trustworthy , however it must be noted that an accused cannot take the different inconsistent pleas at different pleas at differerent stages in which case it must be said that his defence will lose sanctity . That is the case now in this present case.

97)If really the PW.1 or the Anti corruption Bureau officials had allegedly planted the tainted amount/MO.1 in the cub boards available in the bedroom of house of the accused what made the accused not to resists the same more particularly when accused had got knowledge of allegedly planting of the tainted amount/MO.1 either by PW.1 or the Anti corruption Bureau officials for the alleged implantation of tainted amount under MO.1.

98)The defence taken by the accused is highly improbable that the

PW.1 or the Anti corruption Bureau officials had allegedly planted the tainted amount/MO.1 in the cub boards underneath the cloths available in the bedroom of house of the accused without the knowledge of the accused. It is not the case of the accused that the PW.1 or the Anti corruption Bureau officials had allegedly planted the tainted amount/MO.1 in the cub boards available in the bedroom of house of the accused during the absence of the accused in bedroom of house of the accused.

99)It is also not the case of the accused that PW.1 or the Anti corruption Bureau officials had trespassed into the house of the accused and had allegedly planted the tainted amount/MO.1 in the cub board available in the 64 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 bedroom of house of the accused during the absence of the accused in bedroom of house of the accused. Thus it is proved that accused had received the tainted amount with his right hand and counted with both hands and had kept in the cub boards available in the bedroom of house of the accused where admittedly

PW.1 or the Anti corruption Bureau officials had got no access directly without proper authority.

100)If really the PW.1 or the Anti corruption Bureau officials had allegedly planted the the tainted amount/MO.1 in the cub boards available in the bedroom of house of the accused what made the accused not to complain against the PW.1 or the Anti corruption Bureau officials for allegedly implanting the the tainted amount/MO.1 in the cub boards available in the bedroom of house of the accused. The Prosecution has proved that official favour was pending with the accused officer by examining P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 and sodium carbonate solution test conducted on fingers of both hand of the accused officer under MO.5 and MO.6 and contacted portion of electricity bill and contacted portion of tainted amount/MO.1 under MO.7which yielded positive result and thus accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

101)In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused through valid and reliable evidence that the accused had received the tainted amount/MO.1 voluntarily with his right hand and had kept in the cupboard under the clothes in the bed room of the house of the accused. The Prosecution has further proved 65 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 that official favour was pending with the accused by examining P.Ws.3 to 5 and sodium carbonate solution test conducted on fingers of both hand of the accused under MO.5 and MO.6 and contacted portion of shelves in cupboard in the bedroom of the house of the accused under MO.7 also yielded positive result.

102)The recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused is proveed by the prosecution through the testimony of

PW1/Complainant and PW2 who is mediator for receipt and recovery of tainted money from the accused. Besides this there is evidence of the trap laying officer/ PW-7, the Mediator-11 under (Ex.P11). Except bald denial, no material evidence is placed to disprove the recovery. Therefore, from the material facts placed by the prosecution, this Court without any doubt hold that the demand and acceptance of money by the accused is proved. The accused has not come out with any explanation to rebut the presumption that the money he received from PW-1 is legal remuneration and not illegal gratification. Therefore, the presumption under section 20 of the Act works against him. This court having relied upon the portion of PW-2 deposition which say that, the accused was found shocked and was speechless on seeing the trap team, the trap laying officer/PW.7 got prepared sodium carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip his hands in to the glass tumblers separately and on doing so both the hand washes of the accused had yielded positive. Thus accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

103)In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused through valid and reliable evidence.

66 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

104)The prosecution through its witnesses had not only proved mere recovery of tainted money but had also proved that the money so recovered was received by the accused on demand for the purpose of effecting the mutation in the name of daughter of the PW.1/ the complainant by name Smt. P. Mounika

105)Thus, this court in the forgoing discussion and after evaluating the entire evidence on record, it is clear that prosecution by cogent evidence established the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused and deserved itself to claim presumption under section 20 of Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988 in its favour. On the other hand, accused failed to rebut the presumption by submitting a cogent explanation. Therefore, he is liable for the charges under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

106)Therefore this court from the foregoing discussion, on point No.1 to 4 taking into consideration of reliable part of evidence of Complainant/PW1, official witnesses/PW2, PW.3 PW5, PW.4, PW.8, PW.9, Section Officer/PW.6, and

Investigation Officer/PW7 coupled with Ex.P1 to P19 and MOs 1 to 7, hold that, the prosecution in this case, has proved the guilt against the accused for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt therefore, the accused is liable for conviction accordingly. Points No. 1to 4 are answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused .

67 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

107)In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the Tuesday, the 31st day of January, 2023.

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

108)The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that is to be imposed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim).

109)Accused stated that he is aged about 63 years and he has got a wife and two sons and his both sons are married and residing separately with their families by doing private jobs. The accused submitted that he is suffering with hyper tension disorder and bodily pains and his wife is diabetic and thereby, he has requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against Accused are socio-economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, as such, on ground of sickness, accused can not escape from the compulsory imprisonment provided under the Act, for the offences proved against him, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the Statute, hence there 68 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015 is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under Probation of

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

110)Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

111)Accused is also further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed against the accused is Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only i.e.,

Rs.4,000/- + Rs.6,000/- under two counts).

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

69 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

113)The remand period already undergone by the accused i.e., from 25-11-2011 to 02-12-2011 shall be set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

114)M.O.1 (tainted amount of Rs.2,000/-) is ordered to be returned to

P.W.1/complainant if not reimbursed earlier by the Department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects i.e., M.Os. 2 to 7 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

115)The Accused shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of

Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the Accused.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-III), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2023.

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1Veerati Madhava Reddy -None- P.W.2Gangarapu Ramakrishna P.W.3Thumma Gangadhar P.W.4Katta Hymavathi P.W.5Janagama Jagadeshwar Rao P.W.6M.P. Janardhan Reddy P.W.7P. Jaipal 70 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

P.W.8Ch. Nagendar P.W.9V. V. Ramana Murthy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1Attested copy of gift settlement deed Ex.P.2Original Complaint given by PW1 Ex.P.320.07.2011Application submitted by PW1 in the name of his daughter Ex.P.414.11.2011Application submitted by PW1 to the Tahasildar Ex.P.5Attested copy of pattedar passbook Ex.P.6Attested copy of title deed Ex.P.708.09.2011Proceedings issued by Tahasildar Ex.P.8Copy of complaint Ex.P.9Mediator Report-I Ex.P.10Rough Sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P.11Mediator Report-II Ex.P.1220.07.2011Memo B/2214/2011 Ex.P.1320.07.2011Form No.7 Ex.P.1420.07.2011Form No.8 Ex.P.1505.09.2011Report submitted by Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer Ex.P.16Letter sent by PW5 to the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar along with service particulars and job chart of the accused (containing three sheets) Ex.P.17Authorization letter Ex.P.1823.04.2014Order for sanction of prosecution against the accused vide G.O.Ms.No. 154 Ex.P.19First Information Report

FOR THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1Tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- (100x5 and 500x3).

71 Of 71 CC No. 84 of 2015

M.O.2Sealed cover containing phenolphthalein powder.

M.O.3Sealed cover containing powder of sodium carbonate.

M.O.4Another sealed cover containing sample powder of sodium carbonate seized at the scene of offence.

M.O.5(right hand) Sealed bottle containing sodium carbonate solution.

M.O.6(left hand) Sealed bottle containing sodium carbonate solution.

M.O.7Sealed bottle containing with sodium carbonate solution of contract portion in the bed room shelf.

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

1 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB CASES,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: SMT.P.LAKSHMI KUMARI,

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

Saturday, the 24th day of December, 2022

CALENDAR CASE NO.169 OF 2015

Between:

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

….Complainant.

And

Sri Bangaru Hanmandlu, S/o Ramulu, aged 42 years, Occ: Village Revenue Officer, Binola Village, Nizamabad District, R/o H.No. 4- 22, Venkateshwara Colony, Navipet (Vill & Mdl) of Nizamabad district.

…Accused.

OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13 (1) (d) READ WITH 13 (2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

This Calendar Case is coming before me on 22-12-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Varaprasad, Advocate for the accused, upon perusal of material on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

1)The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad

Range, Nizamabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.25/RCT-NZB/2013 to prosecute the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

2.01)The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet are that on 30.10.2013 at 1500 hrs, the PW.1/defacto-complainant had lodged report in Telugu stating that he is the native of Binola village and he is cultivating the Government assigned agricultural land from the last 20 years situated in Sy.No. 879 admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts in the outskirts of

Binola village which is on the name of his father and that since 1996 he has been representing before the revenue officials for issuance of patta passbook, title book and other relevant documents of the said assigned land and that during the month of March, 2013 the complainant/PW.1 had also represented before the office of Tahasildar, Navipet and that he had also represented the matter during the revenue sadassu held in the month of April, 2013 but not action was taken and that again in the month of July, 2013, PW1/Complainant had again made representation with the

Tahasildar, Navipet/PW.3 for issuance of patta passbook, title book and proceedings upon his name upon which the Tahasildar, Navipet/PW.3 had 3 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 endorsed on the application of the complainant/PW1 directing the Village

Revenue Officer, Binola village/Accused to cause enquires and to furnish the report and that PW1/complainant had personally went to Binola village and handed over the application containing the endorsement of

Tahasildar/PW3 to accused who was Village Revenue Officer of the Binola village at the relevant period and the accused had demanded bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- to process the said work and that the complainant/PW1 had requested the accused expressing his financial inability to give such huge bribe amount for which the accused had stated to complainant/PW1 that in order to get pattedar passbook, title deed and other documents for Government lands, the amount of Rs.15,000/- is required as the required books have to be brought from the office of

Revenue Divisional officer and the signatures of the Revenue Divisional officer and the Tahasildar has to be taken and for this all works some of the money has to be given to the Revenue Divisional officer and

Tahasildar and by saying so, the accused did not heed the request of complainant/PW.1 and insisted upon his demand of bribe to PW1 and that on 30.10.2013, the complainant/PW1 had approached to accused and had again requested to reduce the bribe amount stating that he is agricultural labour and considering the same, the accused had reduced the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/- and informed to PW.1/Complainant that he would issue the passbook only for Ac.1-00 guntas of land and asked the 4 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

PW.1/complainant to submit his representation for the remaining land in next revenue sadassulu and told the complainant/PW1 to come tomorrow i.e., on 31.10.2013 during morning hours to his residence situated at

Navipet village and to give the demanded bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- and also warned the complainant/PW1 that if he failed to pay the demanded bribe amount, he will not handed over the pattedar passbook and other documents pertaining to his land and that the complainant had reluctantly agreed to give the bribe amount and since the complainant was unwilling to give bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- to accused had approached to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad/PW11/N. Sanjeev Rao and lodged report under EXP.1 against the accused. After receipt of the report of PW1/Complainant , the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11/N.

Sanjeev Rao had directed the PW.12/R.Raghunath to conduct the discreet enquiry regarding the genuineness of the report of the complainant/PW.1 and the reputation of the accused and thereafter a case in Cr.No. 25/RCT-

NZB/2013 for the offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 31.10.2013 at 7.00 hrs after obtaining permission from the competent authority and then the PW11/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad after verification of the report given by the PW1/complainant against the accused had secured the presence of two Government servants i.e., LW2/B. Naveen Kumar and 5 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

PW2/B. Kiran Kumar to act as mediators in this case and after observing the necessary formalities, PW11/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

CorruptionBureau,Nizamabadwiththeassistanceof

LW.14/A.Venkateshwar, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad range, PW12/R. Raghunath, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Nizamabad, the mediators PW.2 and LW.2 B. Naveen Kumar had laid a trap against the accused and during the course of trap proceedings when the phenolphthalein test was conducted on fingers of both hands of the accused, the same yielded positive result under MO.5 and MO.6 and then the PW11/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad had recovered the tainted amount under MO.1 which was hidden in between papers of A4 size white printed Indira Kranti Patham prescribed application and Adangal Pahani printed proforma written as

Binola village, Navipet mandal, Nizamabad district for the year 2011-2012 placed on the table in the residence of accused under EXP.14 and EXP.15 and on verification by the mediators/PW.2 and LW.2/B.Naveen kumar, the said recovered tainted currency notes when compared with the denomination and the currency notes mentioned in the Mediator Report-

I/Ex.P4, the same found tallied and thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/ PW11 had conducted sodium Carbonate solution test on the surface of the papers laid on the table with the help of the cotton swab and on doing so, the same had also 6 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 yielded positive result and thereafter the two papers were also seized after duly attestation by the mediators and the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 under EXP.14 and EXP.15 and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad/PW11 had seized the recovered tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- under MO.1 and that the sample of sodium carbonate powder which was used for conducting test was also seized in one small separate cover under MO.4 having attested by the mediators and the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 and thereafter PW.11 had asked the accused to show the documents pertaining to PW1/Complainant upon which the accused had taken some papers from the nearby shelf and had produced before the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 and on verification of those documents the said documents were contained (1) original application dated 01.07.2013 under EXP.2 having addressed to the

Collector signed by PW1 and the said application also obtained the endorsement of Tahasildar, Navipet mandal/PW3 in which the direction was given to Village Revenue Officer/accused, Binola village to enquire and to submit the report, under EXP.2 and same is also enclosed with letter addressed to Mandal Revenue Officer Navipet dated 23-03-2013, (2) the original proceedings of the Tahasildar, Navipet mandal infavour of the PW1 under EXP.5 and also communication given to Village Revenue Officer, 7 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

Binola village directing him to implement the changes and to issue the ownership papers to the concerned (3) the pattedar passbook along with the photograph of PW1 containing 63 pages under EXP.6, (4) original title deed passbook containing photo of PW1 infavour of the PW1 having signed by Village Revenue Officer, Binola village, Tahasildar Navipet attested by

Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad under EXP.7 thereafter the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had seized the original documents covered under Ex.P5 to Ex.P15 after the attestation of the mediators and the originals were handed over to the

Deputy Tahasildar, Nizamabad and later the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had also found the following documents beside the table where accused was staying i.e., (1) 1-B register of Binola village under EXP.8, (2) Register of Revenue Sadasu

dated 12.03.2013 to 10.04.2013 under EXP.9, (3) Register pertaining to

entries made about the details of the pattedar passbook pertaining to the villages including Binola Village containing 90 pages under EXP.10, (4) The book of Adangal Pahani under EXP.11 of Binola village, Navipet mandal containing 1 to 120 pages and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW.11 had got photostat copy of the relevant papers of the above said records and had seized the same after duly attestation by the mediators and the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 all the above documents 8 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 covered under Ex.P5 to P15. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had also seized Mo.2/Sealed cover containing the phenolphthalein powder used in pre-trap proceedings,

Mo.3/one sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in pre- trap proceedings, Mo.4/one sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used during post-trap proceedings, Mo.5/one sealed bottle containing right hand wash of the accused, Mo.6/one sealed bottle containing left hand wash of the accused, Mo.7/sealed bottles containing the resultant solution of sodium carbonate on the surface of Ex.P14 and

Ex.P15 and the originals of the above said records were handed over to

Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad and then the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had called the PW1 and questioned him as to what had happened from that time he left the trap party till relaying the pre-arranged signal and the version given by the PW1 was recorded and thereafter the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad had examined the accused and the version given by him was recorded, thereafter rough sketch of scene of offence was drafted under EXP.17 and the same was attested by the mediators and the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad and later the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11, PW2 and the other mediators LW2/B. Naveen Kumar along with trap party had 9 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 proceeded to the office of Tahasildar, Navipet mandal and the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had secured the presence of Tahasildar, Navipet mandal by name E. Raju/PW3 and recorded his statement and that as per the instructions of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11,

PW3/Tahasildar Navipet mandal had produced the original proceedings and also the computer statement and both the original documents were seized after duly attestation by the mediators and the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had examined the

Deputy Tahasildar, Navipet mandal by name Sri K. Ranganath/PW4 and also examined Junior Assistant by name M. Rajeshwar/PW5 and recorded their statement and thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had confronted the version given by the PW1 to the accused upon which the accused had kept the mum and did not deny the version of the complainant/PW1 and thereafter the post- trap proceedings which was commenced at 10.15 am was concluded by 2.10 pm under Ex.P16 and the copy of the mediator report-II/Ex.P16 was also furnished to the accused on proper acknowledgement. During the course of investigation, the PW11/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and thereafter the statement of PW1 was also recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, 10 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

Nizamabad district and thereafter PW12/R. Raghunath, Inspector of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad had re-examined PW1 under section 161(3) Cr.P.C and collected the records i.e., with respect to the service particulars of accused covered under Ex.P23 and Ex.P24 thereafter the sanction for prosecution of the accused was obtained under EXP.19 enclosed to EXP.18 from the office of the District Magistrate and Collector,

Nizamabad of Telangana State who being competent authority to accord sanction order to prosecute the accused and thereafter the completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

3)This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and assigned C.C.No. 169 of 2015 to the crime.

4)On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The learned Predecessor of this Court has examined the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and as the accused denied the offences, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)

(d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed, 11 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 read over and explained to him, for which the accused denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.24 and M.Os.1 to 7 and

Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 got marked on behalf of defence.

7)After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him are recorded separately.

8.01)Accused has filed his Written Statement contending that he is not guilty of the charges framed against him and that he has been falsely been implicated in this instant case. The accused submits that he never demanded any bribe from the complainant nor accepted any such amount from him.

8.02)The accused further submitted that sans verifying into the allegations made, the Antecedents of the accused and the oblique motives of the complainant, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption

Bureau/PW11 had hastily proceeded with the laying of trap against the accused.

8.03)The accused humbly further submitted that PW11 Deputy

Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau without verifying the 12 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 genuineness of the report or its contents mechanically proceeded with the formalities of trap against the accused. That there is absolutely no evidence to show that there was any preliminary enquiry done before acting on the complaint endorsed to PW11 Deputy Superintendent of

Police Anti Corruption Bureau.

8.04)The accused also submitted that PW1 defacto complainant is not simpleton person and that he had criminal background in Binola of

Navipet Mandal and that the application under Ex.P2 was directly given to him by Mandal Revenue Officer to be handed over the same to accused and that it did not bear any official seal. The accused submitted that as per the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, PW1 was assigned only Ac.1-00 of land in his name and that the accused prepared pass book and title deeds in favour of PW1 and told him that they cannot be delivered at his door steps and the accused asked the complainant to come to the office Mandal Revenue Officer and take delivery of the documents by signing in the issue Register.

8.05)The accused further submitted that PW1 was not satisfied with the order of Mandal Revenue Officer in assigning Ac.1-00 of land in his favour and that PW1 got Ac.2-20 Gts by playing fraud on the Government by suppressing the earlier proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue

Officer A2/87/2013 in Sy. No.879 Ex.P5 proceedings issued by the Mandal 13 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

Revenue Officer. The accused further submitted that PW1 got assigned land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts of land in favour of his wife by name G.

Hamsa and Ac.1-20 Gts., in favour of PW1 covered under Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

8.06)The accused submitted that the PW1 defacto complainant started quarreling with accused and raised hue and cry infront of house of accused number of times and it has been witnessed by the neighbours and this fact also brought to the notice of Mandal Revenue Officer through correspondence and that the Deputy Superintendent of Police did not seize the above said file though it was available in the Mandal Revenue Office besides the facts also admitted by PW3.

8.07)The accused further submitted that the PW1 stated during the course of cross examination that he came to the house of the Accused for 100 times is absolutely false and concocted story set-up by the PW.1 with an oblique motive to inspire the confidence of this Court. The accused also submitted that PW3, PW4 and PW6 and also PW7 admitted during the course of cross examination that after preparation of the document by the accused, it is the bounden duty of the applicant (PW1) to come to the

Mandal Revenue Office and collect the documents by signing in the issue

Register.

8.08)The accused further submitted that PW1 did not come to the

Mandal Revenue Office to receive the documents and he deliberately and 14 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 wantonly created as if the accused demanded bribe from PW1 and that his intention is either by Hook or Cook to implicate the accused in a false case. The accused submitted that even on the date of trap i.e., on 31- 10-2013 at 9:30 AM, PW1 came to his house and requested to deliver the documents and that accused did not heed his request and told him to come to the office and collect the same. PW1 immediately took out the money while thrusting the money, accused resisted with his both hands,

PW1 immediately took out one paper which is lying under the table and folded it and kept the money in it and placed the same on the table and went away in a jet speed.

8.09)The accused submitted that within a fraction of seconds the

Trap Party entered into his house then the Deputy Superintendent of Police questioned the accused about the bribe amount and the accused told the

Deputy Superintendent of Police that it is lying on the table then the

Deputy Superintendent of Police asked one of the mediator to collect the tainted amount from the Table. The accused also submitted that as per the Job chart issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad Mandal as per Ex.P23 a duty is cast upon the accused to protect the Government

Lands, tanks, trees and other Government properties and take effective steps to safeguard the interest of the Government.

15 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 8.10)The accused further submitted that as against the actual events, PW11 the Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau got prepared Ex.P16 (Post Trap Proceedings) as if the accused demanded and voluntarily accepted the bribe amount. That though the accused informed the said version to the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials, the same was not incorporated in Ex.P16 (Post Trap Proceedings) which was recorded against the actual events and version of the accused and same is to the dictation of PW11 Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption

Bureau. The accused submitted that there is absolutely no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused either demanded or accepted any bribe amount from PW1 other than the unreliable and motivated and interested evidence of PW1.

8.11)The accused submits that PW11 who received the complaint registered the same as an First Information Report led the Trap for a statistical purpose. The accused submitted that he is innocent and had represented regarding his innocent to the Trap Party on the date of Trap and subsequently when explanation was called for. That accused never demanded nor accepted any bribe amount from PW1 at any time much less on 31-10-2013 and that PW1 out of grudge only had deliberately and wantonly implicated me in this false case.Therefore, the accused prayed this Court may be pleased to Consider this written statement and acquit him from the false charges levelled against him.

16 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

9.Now the points for determination are:

Whether the accused had demanded and accepted an 1. amount of 10,000/- from the complainant to issue pattedar pass book, title deed and order copy of Tahasildar for the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 acre assigned land in the name of the Defacto complainant Gottimukkala Venkati (LW.1) Complainant. ?

Whether there was any official work of P.W.1 pending with 2. the accused as on the date of the Trap ?

3.Whether the accused by corrupt or illegal means accepted Rs.10,000/- from P.W.1 as gratification by abusing his position as Public Servant ?

4.Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

10.POINT NO.1:

The case of the prosecution is that since 1996

PW1/complainant has been representing before the revenue officials for issuance of pattedar passbook title deed in his name and that

PW1/complainant had also submitted an application in the month of

March, 2013 and there was no response to the application of PW1 and thereafter PW1/complainant had again submitted an application in the month of April, 2013 and there was also no response to the said application and finally on 01.07.2013 there was an application submitted

before the district collector, Nizamabad under Ex.P2 for issuance of

17 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 pattedar passbook and title deed having enclosed to the application of

PW1 dated 23.03.2013 for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed and other revenue documents under Ex.P5 to Ex.P15 and the same was endorsed by the Mandal Revenue Officer/PW.3 with a direction to Village

Revenue Officer/ accused in this case to submit an enquiry report and after making the endorsement by the Mandal Revenue Officer/PW.3, it was handed over to the PW1 to submit the said application before the accused and accordingly PW1/complainant had submitted the said application

before the accused for which the accused had demanded bribe of rupees

15000/ and on the requests of the PW.1, the said bribe amount of rupees was reduced to 10,000/- and accused had told to PW1 that patta documents will be issued for part of the land i.e., for one acre and for the remaining extent of land i.e., one acre and twenty guntas, PW1 has to submit another application and then PW1 had expressed his financial inability for payment of the bribe and then the accused/Village Revenue

Officer had considered the same and reduced to rupees 10,000/- to be paid to the accused at the house of accused.

Sanction:

11)PW9/M. Dattadri /Deputy Tahasildar, Collectorate complex,

Nizamabad from 2013 onwards, deposed that he has been authorized by the District Collector, Nizamabad to depose the evidence in this case 18 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 under Ex.P18 and he had produced the connected documents pertaining to this case from the section of Collectorate Nizamabad. PW9 deposed that on 31.10.2013 their office had received radio message about the trap of accused by the Anti corruption bureau officials on 31.10.2013 while demanding and accepting the bribe amount from the PW1 of Rs.10,000/- for doing official favour i.e., "to issue pattedar passbook and title deed", accordingly accused was kept under suspension vide proceedings

No.A4/3468/2013, dated 07.11.2013 issued by the then District Collector,

Nizamabad by name Sri. P.S. Pradyumna with effect from 31.10.2013 and on 06.11.2013, the preliminary report was sent by the Director General,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad to Principal Secretary to the government along with the copy of First Information Report and Mediator

Report-I and II proceedings, and thereafter the final report of the Director

General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad dated 30.04.2015 was received by Principal Secretary to Government on 04.05.2015 along with all connected documents, and later the government communicated all the documents along with final report sent to their office, the same was received by their office on 27.08.2015 and on verification of connected documents, the then District Collector Smt. Yogita Rana, I.A.S., had issued prosecution orders vide proceedings No.A4/3468/2013, dated 05.09.2015 under Ex.P19 against the accused, and PW9 had identified the signature of the then District Collector Smt. Yogita Rana, I.A.S.

19 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

12)In the present case, Sri M.Dattadri (P.W.9) has proved the signature of the Sanctioning Authority. He had brought the record also. He denied that the Sanctioning Authority had issued the sanction order without going through the papers. Sanction order dated 05-09-2015 is a detailed order. Even, the Accused did not raise any objection to the examination of M.Dattadri (P.W.9). The accused never claimed that since, he wants to raise the question of non-application of mind, therefore, the

Authority who had granted sanction must enter in the witness box.

Therefore, it is held that the sanctioning authority had considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and accused never raised an objection at the earliest regarding non-examination of sanctioning authority before this

Court as well as in the light of Section 19(3) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the sanction was granted after due application of mind.

13)The evidence of PW9 discloses that the sanction authority had issued the sanction order Ex.P19 after verification of the relevant and connected documents. It is not the case of the accused that any prejudice and any injustice is caused to the accused by virtue of EXP.19. Hence, the objection regarding sanction is hereby rejected as misconceived.

14)The charges ascribed against accused are under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/W 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

20 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

a)To prove the offence under Section 7 the prosecution shall establish the following ingredients.

i)That the accused was a public servant or expected to be a public servant at the time when the offence was committed.

ii)That the accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or agreed to obtain illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour.

b)Whereas to sustain charge under section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 the prosecution shall establish that a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

15)It has now to be seen whether the prosecution established the above ingredients with cogent evidence.

16)A bare reading of Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act indicates that the demand of illegal gratification must be on account of an official act and the favour or dis-favour must be done in the exercise of official functions, and that, the obtaining of a valuable thing or its pecuniary advantage must be by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing one's position as a public servant.

21 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

17)The first ingredient, which relates to the status of the accused at the relevant time is concerned. It is not in dispute that the accused had worked as village revenue officer of Sirnapalli village from 16- 08-2012 and he was holding incharge of Binola village of Nizamabad district as per the proceeding of the Tahasildar/PW.3 covered under EXP.13 from 16-08-2012 onwards and by virtue of post held by him, he was a

Public Servant in the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

18)As per prosecution, the accused made first demand for bribe after receipt of application under EXP.2 containing endorsement of the

PW.3/ E.Raju/Tahasildar, Navipet on 01-07-2013 for rupees 15,000/- and thereafter on 30-10-2013 and that on persistent requests of

PW.1/Complainant, it was scaled down to rupees 10,000 and ultimately accused was trapped on 31-10-2013. Thus, it is clear that accused was public servant during the relevant period of offence.

19)Then pendency of official favour during the relevant period of offence prompting accused to demand bribe is concerned, EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the Tahsildar,

Navipet/PW.3 and pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and Ex.P7 respectively. These documents also contains the signature of accused and Tahasildar/PW.3.

22 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

20)The suggestion given to PW.1 by the learned counsel for the accused that accused had asked the PW.1 to come to the office of Mandal

Revenue officer, on 31-10-2013 stating that the accused had signed in the pass books in front of office of Mandal Revenue officer and that after making necessary entries in the 1B Register and also in Form no.7, the accused will deliver the passbooks to PW.1 is clearly proving that in pursuance of EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the PW.3/Tahsildar, the pattedar pass book and title deed pass books covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively were already prepared and made ready before the date of trap i.e 31-10-2013 for issuance of same to the PW.1 in respect of application of PW.1 covered under EXP.2 and same was pending with the accused till the date of trap of the accused.

21)PW.6/Senior Assistant in the office of Tahasildar at the relevant period while explaining the procedure for issuance of pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively has deposed that Tahasildar/PW.3 had issued mutation proceedings in favour of

PW.1/complainant in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas under

EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 having signed by the Tahasildar, and in pursuance of EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the Tahasildar, pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively were prepared accordingly by the accused and same was pending with the 23 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 accused to hand over the same to the PW.1/complainant by obtaining the signature of the complainant/PW.1 in the issue register.

22)Thus, it is clear that even after preparation of pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively and signed by the PW.3/Tahasildar, the said documents were lying pending with the accused till the date of the trap. The accused being village revenue officer of said office of Binola village, it is needless to emphasize that he was the authority to return the documents covered under

EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the

Tahsildar/PW.3, and pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively to PW1. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that official favour was pending with the accused during the relevant period of offence.

23) The demand and acceptance of bribe by accused is concerned, the prosecution case mainly pivots on the evidence of

PW1/complainant and supporting evidence of PW2/mediator and PW.11/ deputy superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau Trap Laying officer and PW12/Inspector who participated in the trap. To know the guilt of accused their evidence has to be scrutinized.

24)According to PW1, he has been making representation before the revenue officials since 1996 onward and that PW.1/complainant had 24 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 also made representations for issuance of EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the Tahasildar/PW.3 and pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively as such, he filed application under EXP.2/ in Grama Sabha

dated 01-07-2013 and the application under EXP.2 was submitted before

the PW.3/Tahsildar Navipet and the PW3/Tahasildar had endorsement upon

Ex.P2 directing the accused to submit the enquiry report.

25)The evidence of PW3/Tahsildar, Navipet at the relevant period also discloses that Ex.P2/attested copy of the application dated 01.07.2013 was addressed to the District Collector, Nizamabad was handed over to PW3 at Gramasabha which contains the endorsement of

PW3 and after enquiry, the accused had submitted his enquiry report in respect of EXP.2/Application dated 01-07-2013 and thereafter the mutation proceedings was issued by PW.3 in favour of PW.1 under

EXP.5 /copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the

Tahasildar, and that pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively were prepared and signed by the

PW.3/Tahasildar and same was pending with the accused for the issuance of EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the

Tahasildar, and pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively to PW.1 after obtaining the signature 25 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 of PW.1/complainant in issue register maintained in the office of Village revenue officer.

26)PW1 deposed that for issuance of the EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the Tahsildar/PW.3, and pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively, the accused had initially demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe.

PW1 further deposed that he had roamed around the office of the accused on several occasions for his work, but in vain and that the accused had demanded the PW1 to give bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- to prepare the pattedar passbook and title deed of PW1 and on 30.10.2013, the PW.1 had again met the accused and on the request of the PW1, the accused had scaled down the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/- and also stated to PW1 that unless the said bribe is paid, he will not do the work of PW1 and that he will only prepare and issue the pattadar passbook for the land to an extent one acre and further told to PW1 to bring the bribe amount to the house of accused on the next day. PW1 had reluctantly agreed and returned.

27)PW1 further deposed that, as he was not willing to pay bribe he gave Ex.P1/Report dated 30-10-2013 to Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau/PW.11 who had laid trap against the

Accused on 31-10-2013. On that day, as per the instructions of Deputy 26 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

Superintendent of Police/PW.11, he took the tainted bribe amount and met the accused at the house of the accused and asked for issuance of the documents under the EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide

A.2/87/2013 signed by the Tahsildar/PW.3, and pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively, and the accused had reiterated his earlier demand and enquired whether he brought the demanded bribe amount. PW1 deposed that he affirmed and handed over the tainted currency notes under MO.1 from his left side shirt pocket with his right hand and accused received the tainted amount with his right hand and counted with his both hands and kept the the tainted amount in between the A4 size papers lying on the table and then

PW.1/complainant had asked about EXP.5/copy of mutation proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by the Tahasildar, and pattedar pass book and title deed pass book covered under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively, and the accused had told the PW.1/complainant that he will handover the same tomorrow in the village of PW.1 and then PW.1 went outside and had given pre-arranged signal to trap party members and they came and went inside the house of the accused and caught hold the accused red- handed. This is precisely the evidence of PW1 relating to demand and acceptance of bribe by accused.

28)PW1 was cross-examined at length and suggested that PW1 has no capacity to give Rs.10,000/- towards bribe and that the said 27 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 amount of Rs.10,000/- was arranged by Anti Corruption Bureau official and same was denied by the PW1.

29)The further suggestion that on the date of trap, PW1 had planted the tainted currency in between papers and folded the same papers covering the tainted amount under it and placed the same on the table and came outside and had left the house of accused hurriedly in a jet speed and gave signal was also denied by PW1.

30)A suggestion was also given to PW1 that accused had never stated to PW1 that he will come and deliver the passbooks to PW1 was denied by PW1. A suggestion was also given to PW.1 that PW.1 had thrusted the amount into the shirt pocket of accused and accused resisted the same with his both hands and pushed away the same and that PW.1 had planted the tainted amount under MO.1 by keeping the tainted in the papers and folded the said papers and had placed the same in the house of the accused and left the house of the accused in a jet speed and relayed the signal to the trap party was also denied by the

PW.1/Complainant.

31)A suggestion was also given to PW.1/complainant the he and his wife had already obtained the pattas in their name as such, PW.1 and his wife are not entitle for any further assignment and that by playing fraud upon the government, PW.1 had attempted to obtain pattas against 28 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 the rules for which accused had objected and therefore, the present case is filed based on false allegations against the accused was also denied by the PW.1. Thus, PW1/complainant refused the defence suggestion. No evidence is adduced.

32)A careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1 would show that nothing tangible could be brought on record to impeach the credibility of his evidence. Nowhere in the cross-examination it was suggested that the issuance of pattedar pass book and title deed was not pending with the accused from the date of first demand till the date of trap.

33)As can be seen from the evidence of PW.3, the accused was placed incharge village officer for Binola village from 16-08-2012 as per

EXP.13 while the accused was working as village revenue officer for

Sirnapaly village. In such an event there can be no reason for PW1 to nurture grudge against accused who is an utter stranger to him. So, on a threadbare analysis, the evidence of PW1 appears to be trustworthy there were no inconsistencies or contradictions in his evidence of PW.1.

34)The evidence of PW1 was corroborated on material particulars by PW2 and PW11. PW2 is an Junior Assistant in the office of Assistant

Director Agriculture, Ditchpalli, Nizamabad has acted as one of the mediators along with LW.2/Naveen Kumar. PW2 clearly deposed in his evidence about the pre-trap and trap proceedings.

29 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

35)Regarding trap incident, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.11 that trap party reached near the house of the accused at 09.15 AM and

Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW.11 reiterated his earlier instructions to

PW1 and then PW1 proceeded to the house of the accused followed by trap party members and they waited outside the house of the accused and PW1 had alone went inside and at about 9.40 AM, PW1 came out and gave pre- arranged signal and on receiving it, all the trap party members rushed into the house of the accused and the Deputy Superintendent of

Police introduced himself and others to accused and the accused became fumbled and tried to rub his both hands and thereafter the movement of accused were restricted as per the instructions of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabada/PW11 and then accused was questioned with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe from PW1 and the version given by accused was recorded and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad/PW.11 had got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and asked the accused to dip his fingers of left and right hand in the said two glasses separately and on doing so both the fingers of right and left hands washes had yielded positive result under

MO.5 and MO.6 and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad had got the transferred the resultant solutions in two separate glass bottles after duly sealed, affixed with 30 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 identity slips and attested by the mediators and then the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had questioned the accused about the tainted amount and the accused had shown the tainted amount under MO.1 kept on the table covered with A4 size papers in which one paper mentioned as Indira Kranthi Patham and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad/PW.11 had instructed the mediators to collect and to verify the bribe amount and accordingly mediators had verified the denomination and currency note numbers of the tainted amount found on the table with the denomination numbers mentioned in Ex.P4 /Mediator report-I and on doing so, the same got tallied and thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW.11 had conducted phenolphthalein test on the surface of papers laid on the table with the help of cotton swabs and on doing so the same yielded positive under

MO.7 and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Nizamabad had seized the resultant solutions in a separate bottles after duly sealed and attested by him and the mediators and both the papers were seized under EXP.14/Indira Kranthi Patham in the name of applicant Vanjari Gangamani and EXP.15/Adangal Pahani nakal of Binola village for the year 2011-2012 after due attestation of the mediators and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad/PW.11 and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti 31 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW.11 had asked the accused to show the documents pertaining to the PW1 upon which the accused move a side and had taken some papers from the nearby shelf and produced before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad who verified the documents and found that they are (1) original application dated 01.07.2013 under EXP.2 having addressed to the

Collector signed by PW1 and the said application also contained the endorsement of Tahasildar, Navipet mandal /PW.3 in which the direction was given to Village Revenue Officer, Binola village i.e., accused to enquire and to submit the report, under EXP.2 and same is also enclosed with letter addressed to Mandal Revenue Officer, Navipet dated 23-03- 2013, (2) the original proceedings of the Tahasildar, Navipet mandal infavour of the PW1 under EXP.5 and also communication given to Village

Revenue Officer, Binola village directing him to implement the changes and to issue the ownership papers to the concerned (3) the pattedar passbook along with the photograph of PW1 containing 63 pages under

EXP.6, (4) original title deed passbook containing photo of PW1 infavour of the PW1 having signed by Village Revenue Officer/accused, Binola village and PW3/Tahasildar, Navipet attested by Revenue Divisional Officer,

Nizamabad under EXP.7, thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had seized the originals of above said documents after the attestation of the mediators and the 32 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 originals were handed over to the Deputy Tahasildar, Nizamabad and later the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad/PW11 had also found the following documents beside the table where accused was staying i.e., (1) 1-B register of Binola village under

EXP.8, (2) Register of Revenue Sadasu dated 12.03.2013 to 10.04.2013 under EXP.9, (3) Register pertaining to entries made about the details of the pattedar passbook pertaining to the villages including Binola Village containing 90 pages under EXP.10, (4) The book of Adangal Pahani under

EXP.11 of Binola village, Navipet mandal containing 1 to 120 pages.

36)The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad/PW11 had also seized Mo.2/Sealed cover containing the phenolphthalein powder used in pre-trap proceedings, Mo.3/one sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in pre-trap proceedings,

Mo.4/one sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used during post-trap proceedings, Mo.5/one sealed bottle containing right hand wash of the accused, Mo.6/one sealed bottle containing left hand wash of the accused, Mo.7/sealed bottle containing resultant solution of sodium carbonate on the surface of Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 and the originals of the above said records.

37)Thus, in the cross-examination of PW2 and PW11 except denying the prosecution case nothing specific was elicited to hold that a 33 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 false case was fabricated against the accused. Thus, a conspectus of evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 11 would clearly show that accused had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 to do an official favour i.e. to issue EXP.5 and pattedar pass book and title deed and prosecution could establish these facts. Hence, the presumption under section of Prevention of Corruption Act will clearly follow to the effect that accused had accepted the bribe as a motive to do an official favour.

38)Now, the arguments raised by the accused have to be discussed to know whether defence could satisfactorily dispel the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and consequently the prosecution case.

39)The first argument is that PW1 is not simpleton person and that he has criminal background in Binola of Navipet mandal and that the application under EXP.2 was directly given to him by the Mandal Revenue officer to be handed over to the same to the accused officer and that it did not bear any official seal.

40)In support of his contention he relied upon the authority in

2016(2) AICLR 87 (Bombay) in between Ravindra Mahadeo

Kothamkar Vs. State of Maharashtra wherein it is held that appreciating the evidence in trap cases character of complainant assumes importance and when the trap was being laid without verification of the 34 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 demand, it was essential to have truly independent witnesses as panchas and that there had been no verification of the demand before the laying of a trap and that the trap was laid since the complaint was made and rather hurriedly, with the details regarding the manner and place of acceptance of the bribe amount given by the prosecution witnesses deferred, it was not safe to hold the appellant guilty of the alleged charges.

41)Admittedly there is no such suggestion given to PW.1 by the learned counsel for the accused to PW.1 that PW.1 has got any criminal back ground in Binola of Navipet mandal and no such facts was ever suggested or elicited during the course of cross examination of any of the prosecution witnesses examined before this court that PW.1 has got any criminal back ground in Binola of Navipet mandal. Hence under such circumstances the said contention of learned counsel for the accused is not tenable and has no legs to stand.

42)It is argued further by the learned counsel for the accused that

PW1/ defacto complainant started quarreling with accused and raised hue and cry infront of house of accused number of times and it has been witnessed by the neighbours and this fact was also brought to the notice of Mandal Revenue Officer through correspondence and that the Deputy

Superintendent of Police/PW.11 did not seize the above said file though it 35 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 was available in the Mandal Revenue Office besides the facts also admitted by PW3.

43)It is pertinent to mention that no such suggestion given to either PW.1,PW.3, PW.11 and PW.12 during course of their cross examination that PW1/ defacto complainant had ever quarreled with the accused and had raised hue and cry infront of house of accused number of times and that it has been witnessed by the neighbours and that the said fact was also brought to the notice of Mandal Revenue Officer through correspondence and that the Deputy Superintendent of

Police/PW.11 did not seize the above said file though it was available in the

Mandal Revenue Office and on the other hand, it appears that said defence is introduced for the first time in the written statement filed on behalf of the accused after examination of accused under section 313

Cr.PC.

44)No documentary evidence produced by the accused to substantiate the above said claim of the accused by way of leading defence evidence by examining any of the alleged neighbors of the accused and that surprisingly no suggestion was even given to the PW.1,

PW.3/Tahasildar and PW.11/Deputy Superintendent of Police that the PW1/ defacto complainant had ever quarrelled with the accused and raised hue and cry infront of house of accused on number of occasions and that 36 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 it has been witnessed by the neighbours and that the said fact was also brought to the notice of Mandal Revenue Officer through correspondence and that the Deputy Superintendent of Police did not seize the above said file though it was available in the Mandal Revenue Office . Hence under such circumstances the said contention of learned counsel for the accused is also not tenable.

45)From all these facts accused wants to project

PW1/complainant as a habitual petition monger and his evidence is not trustworthy. It must be stated that mere allegations that PW1 is a habitual petition monger by itself his evidence cannot be stamped as untrustworthy unless it is established that the complainant is having any previous criminal history and that there are criminal cases registered by the complainant and same were proved to be utter false in a court of law with an observation that he was a petition monger. So, the testimony of

PW1 cannot be viewed with coloured glasses in the absence of proof that there is previous history of criminal complainant and the said previous complaints were false ones. It must be noted that accused did not even give such a suggestion to PW1. So, the otherwise trustworthy evidence of

PW1 cannot be denounced on the grounds of mere oral allegations.

46) The further argument of leaned counsel for the accused is that without verifying into the allegations made by the complainant/PW1 37 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 against the accused in EXP.1/Report and without verifying, the antecedents of the accused and the oblique motives of the complainant, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau/PW11 had hastily proceeded with the laying of trap against the accused and that

PW11/Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau without verifying the genuineness of the report or its contents mechanically proceeded with the formalities of trap against the accused. That there is absolutely no evidence to show that there was any preliminary enquiry done before acting on the report endorsed to PW11/Deputy

Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureauimpossibility of demanding and accepting bribe before trap.

47)In support of his contention the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the authority in AIR 1971 SCC 520 between P.

Sriajuddin, Appellants Vs State of Madras, Respondents wherein it is held that before a public servant whatever be his status is public charged with acts of dishonesty which amounts to serious misdemeanor or misconduct and a first information is lodged against him there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a respectable officer. The lodging of such report against the person has to one who got the position in the department if absolutely would do incalculable home not only to the officer but also to the department he dealings to in general.

38 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

48)In support of his contention he relied further upon the authority in AIR 1973 SC 498 between Ramprakash Arora Vs The

State of Punjab wherein it is held that the evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap must be tested the same way as that of other interested witnesses. In a proper case, the Court may look for independent witnesses corroborating before convicting the accused persons. It must be remember that the evidence of interested and partisan witnesses concerned in the success of the trap and other evidence must be tested in the same way as that of another interested witnesses and in a proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons.

49)The learned counsel further relied upon the authority in AIR 2006 SC 628 between State Vs. K.Narasimhachary wherein it is held that when two views are possible the material brought on record would lead to only one conclusion i.e., guilt of the accused when the circumstances agreed the suspension about the demand of bribe the accused acquittal was proper.

50)He also relied upon the authority in AIR 2006 SCC 836 between T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu wherein it is held that if two view were possible from the very same evidence, it cannot be 39 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the sum of Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification.

51)He further relied upon the authority in AIR 1974 SC 220 between Chandrakant Luxman Vs. State of Maharastra wherein it is held that if it was appeared that the story narrated immediately after the incident so any material parts put from the evidence of eye witnesses the benefit of such infirmity would have given to the accused but if on a proper valuation of the facts and circumstances it appears that the appellant under suspension in the case of the prosecution or a solely the result of remissness on the part of the investigating officer and not of any prevarication of prosecution witnesses, there would be no justification for discreeting the acquisition.

52)The evidence of PW11 /Deputy superintendent of the police of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad at the relevant period discloses that on 30.10.2013 at 3.00 PM he had received report from

PW1/complainant under Ex.P1 and he had gone through the contents of the report and that PW11 had entrusted the report to PW.12/Sri.R.

Raghunath, Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad to conduct discreet enquiries with regard to the genuineness of report and antecedents of accused/ by name B.Hanumandlu, Village Revenue Officer of Binola village of Navipet mandal of Nizamabad district, and thereafter 40 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 the complainant/PW.1 had asked to come to the office of PW.11 along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- before 7.00 AM on 31.10.2013 and thereafter on the instructions of PW11, the PW.12/Sri. R.Raghunath,

Inspector of Police had conducted the discreet enquiries and reported his enquiry on 31.10.2013 at 06.50 AM by way of endorsement on Ex.P1 and by stating that the report is found to be genuine and that reputation of the accused found to be corrupt and ill-reputed and that on the same day at 7.00 AM after obtaining permission from the Anti Corruption Bureau higher authorities, the PW12 had registered the case in crime No.25/RCT-

NZB/2013, under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 31.10.2013 and issued First Information Report under Ex.P21 and took up the investigation and thereafter with the assistance of the mediators/PW.2 and LW.2/L.Naveen Kumar, the PW.11 had laid trap against the accused as covered under EXP.4/Mediator-1 and EXP.16/Mediator-II

53)The evidence of PW12/R. Raghunath, Inspector of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad at the relevant period discloses that on 30.10.2013 PW11 had received original report under Ex.P1 and had instructed PW12 to conduct discreet enquiry regarding the genuineness of the report and reputation of accused, thereafter he had conducted the discreet enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the report of Ex.P1 and also the reputation of accused and had found that the report of the complainant is genuine and the reputation of accused is found to be bad 41 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 and the same was endorsed on the report/Ex.P1 and had submitted to

PW11 covered under Ex.P22/endorsement dated 31.10.2013 at 06.50 hours with regard to the discreet enquiry of report of Ex.P1 and the antecedents of accused and thereafter PW12 had assisted to PW11 during the course of investigation i.e., pre and trap proceedings and on 02.11.2013 PW12 had received case diary file from PW11 for further investigation and during his investigation he had examined and recorded the statements of PW3 to PW8 and PW10 and later he had collected the service particulars/EXP.24 and job chart/EXP.23 of accused and had re- examined the PW1/complainant on 07.12.2013 and recorded the statement under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. and later he had collected documentary evidence i.e., statement of PW1 recorded under section 164

Cr.P.C.

54)There is no suggestion given to either to PW.11 or PW.12 by the learned counsel for the accused that PW.11 and PW.12 without verifying into the allegations made by the complainant against the accused in EXP.1/Report and without verifying, the antecedents of the accused and the oblique motives of the complainant, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau/PW11 had hastily proceeded with the laying of trap against the accused and that PW11

Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Bureau without verifying 42 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 the genuineness of the report or its contents mechanically proceeded with the formalities of trap against the accused.

55)The evidence of PW.11 and PW.12 discloses that after verifying the report received under EXP.1 on 30.10.2013 at 3.00 PM by PW.11, he has gone through the contents of the report and thereafter the PW11 had entrusted the report to PW.12/Sri.R. Raghunath, Inspector of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad to conduct discreet enquiries with regard to the genuineness of report and antecedents of accused/ by name

B.Hanumandlu, Village Revenue Officer of Binola village of Navipet mandal of Nizamabad district and to that effect there is endorsement on

EXP.1/Report covered under EXP.22.

56)Except giving suggestion to PW.12 that endorsement under

EXP.22 is an table endorsement, nothing material particulars extracted from the evidence of PW.12 to disprove that the preliminary enquiry report or discreet enquiry in respect of EXP.1/Report in this case to be false. No evidence adduced to that effect by the accused to disprove that the discreet enquiry conducted by the PW.12 is false and improper.

57)The next argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that the chemical test conducted on both hands of accused did not yield positive result and the washes since inception remained colourless and even during the evidence also Mos.5 to 7 remained colourless and same 43 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 does not discloses that the chemical washes contain phenolphthalein and

Sodium Carbonate ions and therefore the prosecution failed to prove that accused has demanded and accepted the bribe and handled the same on the date of trap.

58) It may be noted that Mos 5 and 6 are the sealed bottles containing right and left hand washes of accused respectively. It should not be forgotten that chemical test in a trap case is only a corroborative piece of evidence to the main evidence of the complainant. Merely because the prosecution failed to substantiate the said corroborative evidence through chemical analysis, the evidence of complainant need not be automatically discarded unless his evidence too suffers inherent improbabilities and do not infuse confidence.

59)In this case, the evidence of PW1 is trustworthy throughout.

The very same amount which he brought and handed over to accused was found in between A4 size papers in which tainted amount was hidden

Therefore, in my view, the chemical test which was conducted on 31-10- 2013 whereas the evidence of prosecution witnesses took place in the year 2017. Because of such a long lapse of time also the chances of pink colour turning into white cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, this aspect will not mitigate the genuinety of the prosecution case.

44 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

60)The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the accused had never demanded and accepted any bribe amount of

Rs.10,000/- from PW1 for the purpose of issuance of any pattedar passbook and title deed and that the accused is falsely implicated by PW1 and that PW1 planted the tainted amount under MO.1 having covered with A4 size papers on the table and left the place and that the mere proof of recovery of money from the accused in absence of any proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification will not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in Corruption cases.

61)The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the recovery itself does not indicate demand or acceptance to satisfy the ingredients of section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and demand and acceptance have to be positively proved and the same cannot be assumed and that the very contents of Ex.P1 report appears to be mendacious and prevaricate and that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the grave man of the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act and in presence there of no mistakenly charge, therefore would fail and mere acceptance of amount dehorse the proof of demand, ipso facto would thus not upto sufficient to bring home the charges under the section of the act, as a corollary failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and 45 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 mere recovery of the amount from the accused of the offence under section 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under.

62)In support of his contention he relied upon the authority AIR 1975 SCC 1432 between Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan wherein it is held that when demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant not proved the story of payment of money by the complainant also not established beyond reasonable doubt then the presumption under section 4(1) cannot be drawn for convicting the accused.

63)He further relied upon the authority in AIR 1979 SC 1408 between Suraj Mall Vs. State (Delhi Administration) wherein it is held that mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive case is not reliable.

64)He further relied upon the authority in Jagdish Chandra

Maheija Vs. State of MP (Crl.A 1132 of 1983) wherein it is held that in trap cases when the initial testimony of complainant cannot be accepted.

65)He further relied upon the authority in AIR 2009 SCC 779

between CM Grish Babu Vs. CBI Cochin High Court of Kerala

wherein it is held that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the 46 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Mere recovery by itself cannot be proved the charge of the prosecution case against the accused, in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show accused voluntarily accepted the money.

66)He also relied upon the authority in Anand Prakash Vs.

State of Haryana 2008 date of the decision 10 th January, 2008 CRLJ

1825 wherein it is held that mere recovery of currency notes and positive result of phenolphthalein test is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant on the basis of prefunctionary nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence.

67)He further relied upon the authority in AIR 1987 Supreme

Court 2402 between G.V. Nanjundiah Appellant Vs State (Delhi

Administration) wherein it is held that when it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, Court will viewed the allegation on payment of bribe and to recovery of the same from the accused with suspicious.

68)On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti Corruption Bureau argued that it is not necessary that the work should be pending with the Accused Officer itself and it is sufficient that if the accused officer is working in that office and induce the complainant that he will do the favour and it is enough that the complainant believes 47 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 and hand over the amount to the accused officer. He relied upon the authority in State Vs Jhan Chand 1984 Crlj NOC (104) Delhi: where in it is held that regarding the question as to the capacity of accused to do favour or disfavour at the time of demand of bribe, the fact that he was not in a position to show any favour is of no consequence and inIndure

Dayal Das Advani Vs. State of Bombay on 6 th April,1951, wherein it is held that Sec.7 does not require that the public servant must himself have power or himself be in a position to show favour or disfavour, for doing or showing which the bribe had paid to him. Therefore, it is not necessary to constitute an offence U/sec.7 that the Act for doing which the bribe is given should actually be performed. He relied upon the authority in between 1968 AIR 1419 Shiv Raj Singh Vs. Delhi Administration and the authority in between AIR 1976 SC 1497 Chaturdas

Bhagwandas Vs. State of Gujarat 1976 wherein it is held that it is enough that if a public servant induces a belief that he would render assistance to the giver and the giver gives the gratification under that belief.

69)It was argued further by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti Corruption Bureau that every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not would be covered by section 7 of the Act and every acceptance of illegal gratification in pursuance of demand by a public servant would fall under 13(1)(d) of act 48 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 and to butress his argument in relied upon the authority in 2008 Crl.L.J 4772 S.C between State Vs. A.Parthiban and in A.I.R. 2014 Supreme

Court 1256 between Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.

70) The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also relied upon the authority in Tara Singh vs State of Punjab 1999 CCR 487 (Panjab and Haryana wherein it is held that demand of bribe takes place in secrete and isolated places therefore it is not possible in all the cases for corroboration to the evidence of the complainant.

71)In between Chaitanya Prakash Audichya Vs. C.B.I., reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Criminal) 186, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that “When the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification fully established and tainted currency notes recovered from the Accused person and phenolphthalein test proved positive, a presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act can be drawn.”

72)Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti Corruption

Bureau also relied upon the authority in Between Reparla Venkata

Gopala Ratnam Vs. State of AP wherein it is held that the presumption need not be proved by direct evidence.

49 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

73)He also relied upon the authority in Raghubit Singh Vs

State of Haryana AIR 1974 SC 1516: wherein The Hon'ble Supreme

Court held seizure of currency - trap is resipsa loquitut.

74)He further relied upon the authority in 2007 (1) SCC Crl. 711 between B.Noha Vs. State of Kerala and another wherein it is held that ‘’when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant, the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification – That burden was not discharged by the accused’’.

75)Learned special public prosecutor in support of his contention had further relied upon the Authority in between State Vs. Jhan Chand wherein it was held that ‘’regarding the question as to the capacity of accused to do favour or disfavour at the time of demand of bribe, the fact that he was not in a position to show any favour is of no consequence’’

76)Learned special public prosecutor has further relied upon the authority in 2014(1) ALT (Crl.) 302 (A.P) between Raparla Venkata

Gopala Ratnam Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it is held that ‘’demand and acceptance of bribe need not be proved through direct evidence – Prosecution can prove it by circumstantial evidence

77)The Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti Corruption

Bureau has also relied upon authority in A.I.R. 1984 SC 63 between State 50 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 of Maharastra Vs. Narsinga Rao Gangaram Pimple wherein it is held that minor contradictions and insignificance discrepancies not a ground to throw away the prosecution case.

78)In 1983 (1) Crimes – 77 Sham Swarup Bhatnagar Vs. The state: wherein it is held that even One truthful witness is sufficient to convict a person under Prevention of Corruption Act if tainted money is recovered.

79)In AIR 1978 S.C. 1571 State of Kerala Vs. M.M.Mathew and another: wherein it is held that Courts of law have to judge evidence before them by applying the well recognized test of basic human probabilities. Some of the observations made by the Sessions

Judge especially the one to the effect that 'the evidence of officers

constituting the inspecting party is highly interested because they want that the accused are convicted' cannot be accepted as it runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly, conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case.

80)Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti Corruption

Bureau has argued that the evidence of PW.1/complainant is consistent 51 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 and there is no contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 and that the evidence of PW.1 is trustworthy not shaken in material particulars by the accused officer during course of cross examination and to butress his contention he relied upon the authority in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 86 between Sukhdev Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar wherein, it is held that the trustworthiness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same – If the evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in evidence. It is held, non- production of seizure list is, undoubtedly, a lapse on the part of the prosecution - However, if there exists credible evidence on record, such a lapse would not affect the prosecution case - Lapses, if do not have the effect of causing any prejudice to the accused, cannot be used to impeach the testimony of eyewitnesses.

81)He also relied upon the authority in Mukut Bihari & another

Vs State of Rajasthan Crl. Appeal No.870 of 2012 SC:wherein it is held that it is not necessary that evidence of reliable witness is necessary to corroborate by another witness.

82)He also relied upon the authority in K. John Devasahayam

Vs State of AP 2014 (1) ALT (Crl) 280 Case of the prosecution is that chemical test conducted on the fingers yielded positive results. Bribe 52 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 amount was recovered. Numbers of the currency notes in the pre trap proceedings tallied with the notes recorded.

83)The very theory put-forth by the that PW1 thrusted the amount into his pocket and ran away is quite unconvincing and unacceptable.

84)He also relied upon the authority in J. Raghavendra Chary

Vs State of A.P., 2015 Cri. LJ (NOC) 25 (AP). Wherein it is held by the

Honourable High Court that the evidence of the complainant was

trustworthy though the accused joined place a month early year, that not sending phenolphthalein solution to chemical analysis for corroboration was not fatal, and that only the accused could have place bribe currency notes in Almarah in record room, since the complainant was a stranger and was not acquainted with the said place, and observing that the offence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was proved, up held the conviction.

85)He also relied upon the authority in V.Vaman Rao Vs State of A.P. 2011 (3) ALT (Crl) 246 (AP).wherein it is held that ‘’demand and acceptance of bribe need not be proved through direct evidence –

Prosecution can prove it by circumstantial evidence’’. The prosecution on the other hand has established the demand and acceptance of the tainted money.

53 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

86)As already stated supra. The evidence of PW.1, PWs.2 and 11 and Ex.P16/mediators report-II would show that apart from bribe amount under MO.1, There are certain documents were also found i.e., 1) original application dated 01.07.2013 under EXP.2 having addressed to the

Collector signed by PW1 and the said application also contained the endorsement of Tahasildar, Navipet mandal /PW.3 in which the direction was given to Village Revenue Officer, Binola village i.e., accused to enquire and to submit the report in respect of application of PW1 under

EXP.2 and same is also enclosed with letter addressed to Mandal Revenue

Officer Navipet dated 23-03-2013, (2) the original proceedings of the

Tahasildar, Navipet mandal infavour of the PW1 under EXP.5 and also communication given to Village Revenue Officer, Binola village directing him to implement the changes and to issue the ownership papers to the concerned (3) the pattedar passbook along with the photograph of PW1 containing 63 pages under EXP.6, (4) original title deed passbook containing photo of PW1 infavour of the PW1 having signed by Village

Revenue Officer, Binola village, Tahasildar Navipet attested by Revenue

Divisional Officer, Nizamabad under EXP.7, thereafter the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had seized the originals of above said documents after the attestation of the mediators and the originals were handed over to the Deputy Tahasildar,

Nizamabad and later the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption 54 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

Bureau, Nizamabad/PW11 had also found the following documents beside the table where accused was staying i.e., (1) 1-B register of Binola village under EXP.8, (2) Register of Revenue Sadasu dated 12.03.2013 to 10.04.2013 under EXP.9, (3) Register pertaining to entries made about the details of the pattedar passbook pertaining to the villages including Binola

Village containing 90 pages under EXP.10, (4) The book of Adangal Pahani under EXP.11 of Binola village, Navipet mandal containing 1 to 120 pages.

87)The seizure of the documents under EXP.2,EXP.5 to EXP.15 from the possession of the accused in the house of the accused at the instance of the accused on the date of trap is also not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion to either PW.1,PW.2 and

PW.11.

88)As rightly argued by learned Special Public Prosecutor, that there is no explanation offered by the accused as to why PW.1/complainant visited the house of the accused if the accused had not invited

PW.1/complainant to his house on the date of trap. PW1 being a stranger to accused and has admittedly no financial transaction with the accused.

89)There is also no evidence adduced by the accused with regard to proof of any personal enmity or grudge on the part of the complainant/PW.1 upon the accused. PW.1 was not expected to visit the 55 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 house of accused more particularly said place of recovery unless invited by the accused.

90)It is pertinent to mention that there was no suggestion given to the PW.1/complainant denying and disputing the said fact that PW1 had never requested the accused for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed during the said 100 visits of PW1 to the house of the accused and the accused did not heed the requests of the complainant/PW1.

91)There is no suggestion given to the accused that during the said visits of PW1 to the house of accused, PW1 had made any quarrel with the accused in the presence of neighbors and that PW1 had even attempted to plant the bribe amount in the house of accused or PW1 had made any forceful entry into the house of accused on even trespassed into the house of the accused.

92)The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. As such the he is liable to be punished for the offences committed under sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

93)The evidence of PW.1 during the course of cross-examination of PW1 discloses that when he went to the house of accused for hundred 56 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 times for his work under EXP.2 for issuance of pattedar pass book and title deed, the accused had not heed the words of the PW.1.

94)On the other hand, a suggestion was given by the learned counsel for the accused to PW.1 that PW.1 used to go to the office of the accused and used to make a quarrel with the accused from the date of giving application to the Mandal Revenue officer dated 23-03-2013 which is enclosed to the application under EXP.2 to till the date of giving report under EXP.1, and that though the PW.1 had met the accused for several times, the accused had never demanded any bribe since Mandal Revenue officer had assigned one acre of land in favour of PW.1 is further proving the contentions of PW.1 that the accused had made PW1 to roam around the office of the accused several times from the date of giving application

before the Mandal Revenue officer dated 23-03-2013 which is enclosed to

the application under EXP.2 to till the date of giving report under EXP.1 in respect of his work for mutation of assigned land to an extent of one acre based on the order of Tahasildar on the name of the complainant covered under EXP.5 in respect of application of PW.1 under EXP.2 for issuance of

Pattedar pass book, title Deed and inspite of the same, the accused had kept pending the documents Ex.P5 and pattedar pass book and title deed under EXP.6 and EXP.7 respectively which directly proves that the demand of rupees 10,000/- was made by the accused to PW.1 for the official favour.

57 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

95)A suggestion given to PW.1 that accused had stated to PW1 that he will prepare the patta for one acre of land as per the directions of

Mandal Revenue Officer and that accused will recommend for remaining

Ac.1-20 gts of land in the next revenue sadassulu meeting for which the

PW1 had volunteered before this Court that accused had demanded bribe for the remaining land also and the said fact was also not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion denying and disputing of the said fact contending that the accused had never demanded any bribe either for giving of patta passbook for the land to an extent of one acre or for remaining land to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts of land to the PW1 for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed.

96)The above said suggestion given to PW.1 also clearly proves that the documents of issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed under EXP.6 and EXP.7 were pending with the accused as a motive or reward for official favour from the date of demand i.e., after submission of application under Ex.P2 i.e., from the month of July, 2013 and on 30- 10-2013 till the date of trap on 31-10-2013.

97)A suggestion was also given to PW.1 by the learned counsel for the accused that accused had asked the PW.1 to come to the office of

Mandal Revenue officer, on 31-10-2013 stating that the accused had signed in the pass books in front of office of Mandal Revenue officer and 58 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 that after making necessary entries in the 1B Register and also in Form no.7, he will deliver the passbooks to PW.1 is on the other hand clearly proving that as on the date of the trap, the issuance of the Patta Pass book and title deed of PW.1 was pending with the accused.

98)PW10//B. Gangadhar who is the friend of PW.1 deposed that he is an agriculture labour residing at Dariyapur of Navipet mandal of

Nizamabad district and that he know PW1 who is his friend and he also know the accused who worked as Village Revenue Officer of Binola village of Navipet mandal, Nizamabad district and on 30.10.2013 PW1 came to the house of PW10 at 1.00 PM and had informed to PW10 that accused had demanded the bribe for an amount of Rs.10,000/- for issuance of pattedar passbook on the name of PW1 pertaining to immovable property and had requested him to scribe report under Ex.P1 against accused before the

Anti Corruption Bureau Officials and accordingly PW.10 had scribed

Ex.P1/report as per the oral instructions and dictation of PW1, and that

Ex.P1 contained the signature of PW10 as scribe under Ex.P1.

99)There is no suggestion given to PW10 that the accused had never demanded and accepted any bribe from PW1 for Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed on the name of

PW1 pertaining to immovable property of PW1 covered in the application 59 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 of PW.1 under EXP.2 and that the contents of report under EXP.1 scribed by PW10 is false.

100)The evidence of PW1/complainant clearly discloses that the accused had demanded the bribe amount of Rs 10,000/- at his house from the PW.1 and that Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Nizamabad had handed over the original title deed of PW1 under

EXP.7 after the trap of the accused the said fact was not disputed and denied by way of suggestion to PW1 by the learned counsel for the accused.

101)A suggestion was also given to PW.1 by the learned counsel

for the accused that PW.1 had not given any complaint either to the

Mandal Revenue Officer or to Revenue Divisional Officer against the accused for not attending the work of PW.1. The said suggestion given to

PW1 implidely goes to show that the work of PW1 was pending with the accused under Ex.P2 since the date of demand to till the date of trap and same is on the other hand also proving the facts that the accused had not attended the work of PW.1 in respect of EXP.2/application for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed and the work of the PW.1 was kept pending with the accused from the date of first demand when the PW.1 had approached the accused along with his application under EXP.2 dated 01-07-2013 demand to till the date of trap on 31.10.2013.

60 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

102)The evidence of PW3 discloses that the PW1 had submitted an application in the office of Village Revenue Office, Binola village for the purpose of mutation of assigned land in Sy.No. 879 of Binola village and that PW1 had also submitted his applications by way of representations in course of Revenue Sadassu in the month of April, 2013 and May, 2013 and had also given another representation at Grama sabha held on 01.07.2013 under EXP.2 representing that PW1 is in the possession of the land in Sy.

No. 879 and cultivating it and on request for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed in his favour for which PW3/E. Raju, Tahasildar had endorsed on the representation of PW1 directing the accused to hold enquiry and to submit the report at an early date in respect of application under Ex.P2 and thereafter the accused had submitted his enquiry report recommending for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deeds infavour of the PW1 and pattedar passbook and title deed were prepared by accused and it was produced before the office of PW3 for his signature and after verification, PW3 had signed on pattedar passbook and title deed and handedover the same to the accused to handover the same to the Applicant/PW1 and thereafter on 31.10.2010 PW3 came to know that accused was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the PW.1 to handover the pattedar passbook and title deeds and that the

PW.11/Deputy superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau and the 61 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 other officials of Anti corruption Bureau had visited the office of Tahsildar,

Navipet village and had examined him in this regard and asked about the connected file in respect of application of PW.1 but it was not found in the office as the concerned clerk was not available and PW.3 had told that he will produced the connected file later.

103)The evidence of PW3/Tahsildar, Navipet also discloses that

Ex.P2/attested copy of the application dated 01.07.2013 having addressed to the District Collector, Nizamabad was handed over to PW3 at

Gramasabha which contains the endorsement of PW3 and after enquiry the accused had submitted his enquiry report and mutation proceeding issued by PW.3 in favour of PW.1 under EXP.5.

104)The evidence of PW3 also discloses that the issue register with respect to issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed will be maintained by Village Revenue Officer i.e., accused and no such register maintained in the office of Tahasildar/Mandal Revenue officer. PW3 had admitted that the relevant records pertaining to the pattedar passbook and title deed will be maintained by the Village Revenue officer for the current years and the Village Revenue officer will submit the same to the office of Tahasildar on completion of calender year by the month of

December every year.

62 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

105) The evidence of PW4/Deputy Tahsildar, Navipet at the relevant period discloses that as per the instructions of Mandal Revenue

Officer/PW.4, the accused had processed the file of PW1 and prepared the pattedar passbook and other documents and the same were entered into 1-B register/record and that PW4 was questioned by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad to produce the connected file pertaining to the applicant/PW1 and since he was not available to trace the file as such, PW4 had not produced the file.

106)The recovery of connected file in respect of Ex.P2/application of PW1 was made at the instance of accused in the house of the accused on the date of trap in presence of PW2/mediator and LW2/B. Naveen

Kumar by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB/PW11 and the said fact is not disputed and denied by the accused.

107)The evidence of PW4 also discloses that though the documents under 1B Register, Adangal, Pahani will be under the custody of Tahasildar, the process of mutation of the documents will be taken up by the concerned Village Revenue officer and once the pattedar passbook and title deed is prepared, the complainant has to sign at the time of issuance of the document in the issue register and that in this case the accused had prepared the document for the land to an extent of one acre as per the

Ex.P5, however the accused was reluctant and had not attended the work 63 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 of PW1 inspite of preparation of the pattedar passbook and title deed in favour of PW.1 by the accused after issuance of the mutation proceedings issued by the Tahasildar under EXP.5 and inspite of oral instruction given by the PW.4 to the accused to attend the work of PW1 in respect of application under EXP.2 which clearly proves that though the pattedar passbook and title deed of PW1 were already prepared and the same were entered in 1-B register and it was pending with the accused as on the date of trap for official favour for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed to PW1/complainant.

108)PW5/M. Rajeshwar, Junior Assistant in the Tahasildar office,

Navipet mandal, Nizamabad district at the relevant period deposed that on 31.10.2013 at 1.00 PM while he was in his office on duty, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad/PW.11 along with mediators and accused came to their office and informed PW5 that accused was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 and that PW5, as per the instructions of Mandal Revenue Officer/PW.3 had given the on-line application of PW1 which was given by applicant/PW.1 in Revenue

Sadasslu to accused for processing the application and that the said application bears No.11348 and serial number 36 pertains to the complainant/PW.1 who preferred the said application and later accused 64 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 had processed the file of PW1 and had prepared pattedar passbook and other documents.

109) The said evidence of PW5 also discloses that the online application of PW1 under Ex.P2 which was received in prajavani programme was forwarded by PW5 to the accused for process of the application of PW.1 as per the instructions of PW3/Mandal Revenue officer and the file of PW1 was also processed and accused had prepared pattedar passbook and other documents and it was pending with the accused as on the date of trap for issuance of the same to the PW1.

110)PW6/G.Ranjith Kumar, Senior Assistant in the office of

Tahasildar, Navipet mandal at the relevant period deposed that the accused had worked as Village Revenue Officer, Binola at the relevant time and PW6 had joined in the office on 21.10.2013 as Senior Assistant and on 31.10.2013 as usual PW6 had attended the office and on the said day the accused was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau official while demanding and accepting the tainted amount under MO.1 of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 for issuing the pattedar passbook.

111)PW6 further deposed about the procedure for assigned land to issue pattedar passbook stating that the application will be received by the Mandal Revenue Officer and after endorsement on the said application, the Tahasildar will send the same before the concerned ROR 65 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 section and thereafter they issued note file to issue Form-8 notice and one copy of notice will be sent to Gramapanchayath and another copy will be handover to the applicant concerned and that if no complaints or objections received from the concerned Grampanchayath, the same will be given to Revenue Inspector and the Revenue Inspector will conduct enquiry and will sent the enquiry report before the Mandal Revenue Officer and on the instructions of Mandal Revenue Officer, the proceedings will be prepared by ROR section and the same will be put up to the concerned

Mandal Revenue Officer and the said proceedings will be signed by the

Mandal Revenue Officer for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed and thereafter the same will be sent before Revenue Divisional Officer for counter signature and after receiving the pattedar passbook and title deed from the office of Revenue Divisional Officer, it will be handover to the office of concerned Village Officer to handover the same to concerned applicant.

112)The evidence of PW6 discloses that the Ex.P5 proceedings was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned/PW3 in favour of the applicant PW1 for the land to an extent of one acre and as per the Ex.P5 only the pattedar passbook and title deed was prepared and the Village

Revenue Officer i.e., accused has to handover the passbook and title deed to the applicant/PW1 by taking the signature of the applicant/PW1 in the issue register.

66 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

113)The evidence of PW6 discloses also that the accused while working as Village Revenue Officer had prepared the pattedar passbook and title deed of PW1 and that Village Revenue officer who is the concerned person to issue pattedar passbook and title deed by obtaining the signature of the complainant or the applicant concerned in the issue register which also discloses that as on the date of trap there was official favour pending with the accused for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed to the PW1/complainant.

114)PW7/P. Yadi Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad at the relevant period deposed before this Court that Anti Corruption Bureau

Inspector Nizamabad came to his office and had requested him to explain the procedure in sanction of Powthi/Succession to issue the pattedar passbook and title deed and PW7 had explained the procedure that the application has to be filed before the Tahasildar concerned by the legal heirs or the family members of the pattedar and then the Tahasildar endorses for enquiry to the Revenue Inspector and then the Revenue

Inspector will visit the concerned village and conduct enquiry before the villagers and family members and then record their statement and thereafter submit the enquiry report to the Tahasildar for further action and then the Tahasildar thereafter issue form-8 notice calling for the objections and later if no objections are received, the Tahasildar will issue sanction proceedings in Form-9 and the same has to be collected by the 67 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 concerned Village Revenue Officer and that Village Revenue Officer has to also collect the photographs of the concerned pattedar and prepare the passbooks and to submit before the Tahasildar for signature and thereafter the signature of Tahasildar, the Tahasildar has to submit the title deed and form 1-B before the Revenue Divisional Officer for counter signature and after getting the signature of Revenue Divisional officer same will be returned to the office Tahasildar.

115)The evidence of PW7 also discloses that as per the procedure, the Village Revenue officer has to submit his report before the Mandal

Revenue officer after issuance of mutation proceedings in form No.9 and the same has to be collected by the concerned Village Revenue officer who has to collect the photos of the concerned pattedar and prepare the passbook and submit before the Tahasildar for signature and documents once it is prepared will be handed over to the applicant by the Village

Revenue Officer by taking the signature of the applicant in the issue register by the Village Revenue Officer i.e., accused office in this case.

116)PW8/Y. Narsimha Swamy in charge Mandal Surveyor in the office of Bhubharathi, Nizamabad deposed that he know the accused who worked as Village Revenue officer of Binola village at the relevant period and while PW8 was in Navipet mandal PW8 had not conducted any 68 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 survey/demarcation of the land in Sy.No.879 situated at Binola village of

Navipet mandal, Nizamabad district.

117)PW8 evidence also discloses that in Powthi/Succession cases if the pattedar dies, basing on the death certificate of pattedar, the successor name will be entered as per the report of concerned Village

Revenue Officer.

118)Learned counsel for the accused has argued that the present case is filed against the accused with a false allegations due to grudge upon the accused since the accused had refused to consider the illegal demand for issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed for the Ac.1:20 guntas of land of the PW1/complainant and that accused had never demanded any bribe from PW1 and that PW.1 had thrusted the amount into the shirt pocket of accused and accused resisted the same with his both hands and pushed away the same and that PW.1 had planted the tainted amount under MO.1 by keeping the tainted in the papers and folded the said the papers and had placed the same in the house of the accused and left the house of the accused in a jet speed and relayed the signal to the trap party.

119)As discussed supra, the recovery of the tainted amount under

MO.1 from the possession of the accused is established by the prosecution through the testimony of PW1/Complainant and PW2 who is mediator for 69 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 receipt and recovery of tainted money from the accused. Besides this there is evidence of the trap laying officer (PW11), the Mediator-II under

Ex.P16.

120)Learned counsel for the accused further argued that

PW.1/complainant and his wife had already obtained the pattas in their name as such, PW.1 and his wife are not entitle any further assignment and that by playing fraud upon the government, PW.1 had attempted to obtain pattas against the rules for which accused had objected and therefore the present case is filed based on false allegations against the accused.

121)There is no evidence brought before this Court adduced by the accused to prove that PW1 and his wife by name Gottemukkala Hamsa had obtained assigned land more than the extent of land assigned to a family by playing fraud and that any case is pending or filed against the

PW1 and his wife. Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 filed on behalf of the accused before this Court does not show that the land under Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are obtained through fraud and that it is invalid and canceled by the competent authority and that any finding of competent authority is given stating that PW1 and his wife had obtained the land under Ex.D1 and D2 70 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 by playing fraud upon the Government, hence this Court do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused in this regard.

122)It is argued further by the learned counsel for the accused that as per the job chart of the accused under Ex.P23, the accused is duty bound to protect the government land, tanks, trees and other Government properties and to safeguard the interest of Government and hence as a party of duty, the accused had objected the PW1/complainant for obtaining pattedar passbook against the rules.

123)Admittedly, there is no prosecution launched or any safeguard measures taken against the PW1/complainant and his wife for allegedly obtained the pattas illegally in respect of assigned lands against the rules by playing fraud upon the Government as a part of duty of the accused.

Hence in absence of any prosecution or any safeguard measures taken against the PW1/complainant and his wife for the alleged fraud played upon the Government by PW1/complainant and his wife in obtaining the assigned land to an extent of Ac.2-20 guntas respectively in the name of

PW1 and his wife covered under Ex.D1 and D2, the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable.

124) As discussed supra, there is no denial on the part of the accused that the tainted amount under MO.1 was not recovered at the 71 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 instance of the accused having hidden in A4 size papers and placed on the table in the house of the accused and on the other hand a suggestion was given to the PW.1 that PW.1 had planted the tainted amount under MO.1 having hidden in A4 size papers and placed the same on the table. If really the PW.1 had planted the tainted amount under Mo.1 hidden in A4 size papers and placing the same on the table, what made the accused not to resist the same more particularly when accused had got knowledge that

PW.1 is allegedly planting the tainted amount under MO.1 having hidden in A4 size papers and placed the same on the table in the presence of the accused.

125)It is not the case of the accused that apart from resisting the

PW1/complainant while PW1 was allegedly thrusting the tainted amount under MO.1 into the shirt pocket of accused, the accused had also resisted the PW1 more particularly when PW1 was allegedly planting the tainted amount under MO.1 having hidden in A4 size papers and placing the same on the table in presence of accused more particularly when it was allegedly refused by the accused.

126)The defence taken by the accused is highly improbable that

PW.1 had planted the tainted amount covering with papers in the table drawer in the house of accused. It is not the case of the accused that PW.1 had forcibly gained entry into the house of the accused or trespassed into 72 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 the house of the accused and had planted the tainted amount under

MO.1 having hidden in A4 size papers and placed the same on the table available in the house of the accused during the absence of the accused.

127)Thus it is proved that accused had received the tainted amount/MO.1 voluntarily with his right hand and counted with both hands and had kept the same in between A4 size papers and placed the same on the table available in the house of the accused where admittedly PW.1 had got no access. The Prosecution has further proved that official favour was pending with the accused by examining P.Ws.3, PW.4 ,PW.5, PW.6

PW.7,PW. 8 and PW.11 and PW12.

128)Except bald denial, no material evidence is placed to disprove the recovery. Therefore, from the material facts placed by the prosecution, this Court without any doubt hold that the demand and acceptance of money by the accused is proved.

129)The prosecution through its witnesses had not only proved mere recovery of tainted amount under MO.1 but had also proved that the money so recovered was received by the accused on demand for the purpose of issuance of the mutation proceedings covered under EXP.5 in the name of the PW.1/ the defacto complainant and for issuance of patta pass book and title deed under Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 respectively.

73 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

130)The accused has not come out with any explanation to rebut the presumption that the money he received from PW-1 is legal remuneration and not illegal gratification. Therefore, the presumption under section 20 of the Act works against him. This court having relied upon the portion of PW-2 deposition which say, the accused was found shocked and fumbled on seeing the trap team, and had attempted to rub his both the hands the trap laying officer/PW.11 got prepared sodium carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip his hands in to the glass tumblers separately and on doing so the fingers of both the hands of the accused yielded positive and contacted portion of tainted amount covered under Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 also yielded positive and thus accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

131)Therefore, the planting theory can be safely ignored. So, at the outset none of the grounds raised by the accused are strong enough to crumble the prosecution case. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

132)In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused through valid and reliable evidence.

74 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

133)Thus, on a conspectus of entire evidence on record, it is clear that prosecution by cogent evidence established the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused and deserved itself to claim presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in its favour. On the other hand, accused failed to rebut the presumption by submitting a cogent explanation. Therefore, he is liable for the charges under sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

134)Therefore this court from the foregoing discussion, on point

No.1 to 4 taking into consideration of reliable part of evidence of

Complainant/PW1, PW.10, official witnesses/PW2, PW3, PW4, PW.5 PW.6,

PW.7, PW.8, PW12, Section Officer/PW.9, and Investigation Officer/PW11 coupled with Ex.P1 to P24 and MOs 1 to 7, hold that, the prosecution in this case, has proved the guilt against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt therefore, the accused is liable for conviction accordingly. Points No. 1 to 4 are answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

POINT No .5:

135)In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention 75 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III and after corrections pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of December, 2022.

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

QUESTION ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

1.Accused was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim). Accused/Sri. Bangaru

Hanmandlu S/o Ramulu stated that, he is aged about 50 years and in service. He has got a wife and two sons, one son aged about 35 years and another son aged about 30 years and they are married and doing labour works. He is living along with his wife in a rented house. He further stated that recently he is effected with paralysis for the past one and half year ago and his wife is also effected with paralysis for the past one and half year ago and thereby, he requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against the Accused are socio-economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions 76 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders

Act, are also can not be extended in these type of cases.

2.Considering the circumstances under which the offence was committed, Accused/Sri Bangaru Hanmandlu S/o Ramulu /Village Revenue officer is awarded sentence of three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, Accused/Sri.

Bangaru Hanmandlu S/o Ramulu shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accused/Sri. Bangaru Hanmandlu S/o

Ramulu is further awarded sentence of three years Rigorous

Imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under

Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the Accused/Sri. Bangaru Hanmandlu

S/o Ramulu shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against

Accused shall run concurrently.

4.Remand period undergone by Accused, shall be set off u/s.428 Code of Criminal Procedure from 01.11.2013 to 22.11.2013.

77 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

5.Total fine amount payable by Accused is Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- =

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only).

6.MO1 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be returned to

Complainant-PW1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects Mo.2 i.e., Sealed cover containing sample of phenolphtalien powder used in pre-trap proceedings. Mo.3 is one sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in pre-trap proceedings,

Mo.4 one sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used during post-trap proceedings, Mo.5 one sealed bottle containing right hand wash of accused officer, Mo.6 one sealed bottle containing left hand wash of accused officer, Mo.7 sealed bottle containing resultant solution of sodium carbonate on the surface of Ex.P14 and Mo.7 sealed bottle containing resultatnt solution of sodium carbonate on the surface of

Ex.P15 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

7.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted u/s. 248(2) Code of Criminal Procedure and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and shall pay a fine of

Rs.15,000/- for the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in 78 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015 default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and Accused/Sri. Bangaru Hanmandlu S/o

Ramulu is further awarded sentence of three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the Accused/Sri Bangaru Hanmandlu S/o Ramulu shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

8.The Accused shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the Accused.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III and after corrections pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of December, 2022.

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1G. Venkati -None- P.W.2B. Kiran Kumar P.W.3E. Raju P.W.4K. Rangaiah P.W.5M. Rajeshwar P.W.6G. Ranjith Kumar P.W.7P. Yadi Reddy 79 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

P.W.8Y. Narasimha Swamy P.W.9M. Dattadri P.W.10B. Gangadhar P.W.11N. Sanjeeva Rao P.W.12R. Raghunath

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1Complaint Ex.P.2Attested copy of application of PW1 dated 01.07.2013 addressed to District Collector, Nizamabad Ex.P.3Copy of complaint Ex.P.4Mediator Report-I Ex.P.5Copy of proceedings vide A.2/87/2013 signed by Tahasildar, Navipet containing (1) sheet. Ex.P.6Copy of pattedar passbook bearing patta No. 1013 containing (2) sheets Ex.P.7Copy of title deed bearing patta No. 1013 (120782) containing (2) sheets Ex.P.8Copy of 1-B Register of Binola village contaiing (2) sheets Ex.P.9Copy of Register of Revenue Sadassu held from 12.03.2013 to 10.04.2013 containing (2) Sheets Ex.P.10Copy of Register pertaining to the entries made about the details of the pattedar passbook maintained of he villagers Sirnapally, Shakapur, Lingapur, Nizampur, Binola and Khadrabad villages containing (2) sheets Ex.P.11Copy of Book of Adangal pahani of Binola village, Navipet mandal maintaining for the year 2012-13 containing (2) Sheets 80 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

Ex.P.12Copy of computer statement pertains to petitions received in Revenue Sadassu 2013 containing (4) Sheets. Ex.P.13Copy of proceedings issued by MRO, Ex.P.14Indira Kranthi Patham in the name of applicant Vanjari Gangamani Ex.P.15Adangal Pahani Nakal of Binola village for the year 2011-12 Ex.P.16Mediator Report-II Ex.P.17Rough Sketch Ex.P.18Authorization letter, dated 12.05.2022 Ex.P.19Sanction proceedings dated 05.09.2015 Ex.P.20Signature of PW10 as scribe on Ex.P1 Ex.P.21First Information Report Ex.P.22Endorsement on report Ex.P.23Job chart of accused officer (02 pages) Ex.P.24Service particulars of Bangaru Hanmandlu S/o Ramulu (accused officer)

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D.1Pahani Copy Ex.D.2Pahani Copy

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1Tainted amount of Rs.10,000/-. M.O.2Sealed cover containing sample of phenolphtalien powder used in pre-trap proceedings.

M.O.3One sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in pre-trap proceedings.

M.O.4One sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used during post-trap proceedings.

81 Of 81 CC No. 169 of 2015

M.O.5One sealed bottle containing right hand wash of accused officer.

M.O.6One sealed bottle containing left hand wash of accused officer.

M.O.7Sealed bottles containing resultant solution of sodium carbonate on the surface of Ex.P14 and Ex.P15.

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

1 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB CASES,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: SMT.P.LAKSHMI KUMARI,

Special Judge,

For trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

KARIMNAGAR.

Thursday this the 15th day of December,2022

CALENDAR CASE NO.26 OF 2015

Between:

The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar.

….Complainant.

And

Sri Jupaka Mogili, S/o Malagama, Village Revenue Officer, Kamalapur village, HAC of Pambapur and Rampur village, Bhupalapalli Mandal, R/o H.No. 5-383, Jawahar nagar, Bhupalapalli village and Mandal, Warangal District.

…Accused.

OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13 (2) READ WITH 13 (1) (d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

This Calendar Case is coming before me on 14-12-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

E. Uma Maheshwar Rao and Sri S. Chandrahas Rao, Advocates for the accused, upon perusal of material on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

1)The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No.23/ACB-KNR/2008 to prosecute him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

2.01)The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet are that P.W.1/L. Venkatrajam had lodged report in Telugu on 06.11.2008 at 11.00 hrs before the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar at 11.00 hrs stating that he is resident of

Mahamutharam village and mandal, Karimnagar district and living by doing agricultural work and that on 21.06.2008 the P.W.1/Complainant had purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-38 guntas in Sy.No. 96, 97 and 102/A situated at Pambapur village of Bhupalapalli mandal, Warangal

District from P.W.3/Maragoni Bapu Goud vide sale agreement dated 21.06.2008 for sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and that on 15.09.2008 the complainant/P.W.1 along with P.W.3/ Maragoni Bapu Goud had approached the office of Tahasildar, Bhupalapalli mandal/PW.6 and had submitted an application under EXP.1 for change of his name in the occupation column in the pahani and also to issue pattedar passbook in 3 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 respect of the said agricultural land and that the Tahasildar/PW.6 had called the Assistant Revenue Inspector/P.W.4 and handed over the application of PW.1 under EXP.1 and then P.W.4/Assistant Revenue

Inspector had enquired with P.W.1/complainant and P.W.3/Maragoni Bapu and had taken written consent of P.W.3 for no objection to transfer the said agricultural land in the name of the complainant/P.W.1 in the revenue records and then P.W.4/Assistant Revenue Inspector had also made an endorsement on the said application as “Recorded by me” and put his signature and then P.W.4 had instructed PW.1 and P.W.3 to handover the said application to the concerned Village Revenue Officer (accused) for the process and accordingly the complainant/P.W.1 and P.W.3/Maragoni Bapu met the accused on the same day evening with the said application and had requested the accused to receive the application under Ex.P1 and that the accused made enquiry with P.W.3 about the sale of the said agricultural land to the complainant/P.W.1 for the purpose of change of name of the complainant in the pahani and that as per the demand of the accused, the complainant/P.W.1 had arranged for a party in a Dhaba (hotel) for the accused, where the accused had demanded the complainant/P.W.1 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards bribe to process his application and to prepare pattedar passbook. Upon which the complainant/P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, and that the accused did not heed to the request of the complainant/P.W.1 and 4 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 had told to the complainant/P.W.1 that unless the complainant pays the demanded amount, application will not be processed by the accused.

2.02)That on 03.11.2008 the complainant/P.W1 had met the accused and requested to receive the application/EXP.1 of the complainant for the purpose of including the name of the complainant/P.W.1 in the occupation column in pahani and to process for issuance of pattedar passbook for the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-038 guntas in Sy.No.

96, 97, 102/A situated at the outskirts of Pambapur village of Bhupalapalli mandal, Warangal District and again the accused had reiterated his demand to pay the bribe amount and on the persistent request of the complainant/P.W.1, the accused had reduced the bribe amount to

Rs.9,000/- and had informed to the PW.1/complainant to pay amount of

Rs.2,000/- initially along with the application/EXP.1 and to pay the remaining bribe amount later. That complainant/P.W.1 had reluctantly agreed to pay the demanded amount to the accused within 3 or 4 days.

Since complainant/P.W.1 was not willing to pay demanded bribe amount as such, he had approached to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and lodged Telugu written report on 06.11.2008 under EXP.3 at 11.00 hrs, before the Inspector of Police/P.W.8,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and after due verification of the genuineness of the report, the antecedents and reputation of the accused, had obtain necessary permission from the competent authority and had 5 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 registered a case in Cr.No.23/ACB-KNR/2008 under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 07.11.2008 at 5.00 hrs and proceeded to conduct investigation.

2.03)That PW.7/T. Janardhan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Warangal had secured the presence of

P.W.1/complainant as decoy and had filed requisition for the services of

LW.2/V. Janardhan and P.W.3/S. Surender as mediators and after observing the necessary formalities on 07.11.2008 a trap was laid against the accused at his residential house situated at Bhupalapalli village and mandal, Warangal district and that during the course of trap as on 07.11.2008 when the complainant/P.W.1 had approached the accused at his residential house at Bhupalapalli village and requested to receive the application/EXP.1 of the complainant and to include the name of the complainant/P.W.1 in the occupation column of the pahani and to process issuance of pattedar passbook for the agricultural land to an extent of

Ac.1-38 guntas situated at Pambapur village of Bhupalapalli mandal,

Warangal District, the accused had demanded bribe amount from PW1 and on an affirmative reply of the complainant, the accused had told the complainant/P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount and accordingly

P.W.1/complainant had given the tainted amount/MO.1 of Rs.2,000/- to the accused on demand of the accused and the accused had accepted the tainted amount along with the application/EXP.1 of the complainant/P.W.1 6 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 and counted the tainted amount/MO.1 and had placed the same in a wooden table in the kitchen cum bed room of the house of the accused and thereafter P.W.1/complainant came out from the house of the accused and had given prearranged signal to the trap party and that on receipt of the prearranged signal from P.W.1, The trap party members along with

P.W.7/Trap Laying Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Warangal Range, FAC: Karimnagar Range, mediators P.W.2 and

L.W.2/V. Janardhan and the Anti Corruption Bureau Staffs had entered into the house of the accused and apprehended him and thereafter the sodium carbonate solution test was conducted over the fingers of both hands of the accused and the fingers of the left and right hand of the accused had yielded positive result and then P.W.7/T. Janardhan had questioned the accused as to whether he had just demanded and accepted any bribe amount from the complainant/P.W.1, upon which the accused had stated that he had received the application/EXP.1 on 07.11.2008 from the complainant/PW.1 and that the complainant/P.W.1 came to his house and had given the said application along with Rs.2,000/- and said version of accused was recorded in post trap proceedings and thereafter the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Warangal/PW.7 had asked the accused to produce the bribe amount, upon which the accused had taken out a wad of currency notesfrom the table in the presence of mediators which was kept in the kitchen cum bed room of the house of the 7 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 accused and then upon the request of the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar one of the mediator had verified the ward of currency notes and found tallied with the currency notes mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings and then, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW.7 had seized the above mentioned tainted currency notes of Rs.2,000/- for further investigation and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW.7 had questioned the accused to produce the application/EXP.1 of the complainant/P.W1, upon which the accused had taken out the application/EXP.1 along with the enclosures from the said table and had produced before the mediators. That on perusal of the said application/EXP.1, it was tallied with the application which was produced by the complainant/P.W.1 at the time of pre-trap proceedings and thereafter Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW.7 had got prepared sodium carbonate solution in another two glass tumblers and subjected the applicationunder

EXP.1 and one electricity bill under EXP.9, upon which the tainted amount under MO.1 was kept by the accused and on doing so the same yielded positive result, thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had seized the same with the attestation of mediators for further investigation. The sample of sodium carbonate used for preparation of sodium carbonate solution was preserved in a 8 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 cover under MO.2 and MO.3. The resultant solutions were transferred into four bottles and they were labelled and duly attested by the mediators under MO.5 to MO.8 . Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had seized final official favour documents under EXP.1.EXP.2, EXP.5 and EXP.9 and the connected file.

Thereafter, the accused was arrested on 07.11.2008 at 11.40 am duly following the arrest formalities and the accused was produced for remand

before the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and Anti Corruption

Bureau Cases, Hyderabad on 08.11.2008. Thereafter the P.W.7/T.

Janardhan Trap laying officer had examined the complainant/P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W6 and recorded/therafter their statement under section 161 (3)

Cr.P.C and thereafter P.W.8 had examined and recorded the statement of

P.W.3. Thereafter the statement of P.W.1/complainant was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C by LW.7/B. Subhakar Rao learned Judicial First Class

Magistrate (PCR Mobile), Karimnagar. During course of investigation, PW.8

had collected the EXP.11 sanction for prosecution of the accused vide

G.O.Ms. No. 1058, dated 12.10.2009 of Principal Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vigilance-VII) Department for taking cognizance of the offence. After completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed by PW.8 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

9 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

3)This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the learned Principal Spl.Judge for

SPE and Anti Corruption Bureau Cases, FAC: II Additional Special Judge for

SPE and Anti Corruption Bureau cases at Hyderabad and assigned C.C.No.

07 of 2011 to the crime.

4)On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)The learned Predecessor of this Court has examined the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and as the accused denied the offences, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)

(d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed, read over and explained to him, for which the accused denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)Subsequently, Calendar Case No. 07 of 2011 was transferred to the Court of Hon’ble I Additional Special Judge for SPE and Anti

Corruption Bureau cases at Hyderabad, FAC: II Addl. SPE and Anti

Corruption Bureau Cases, Hyderabad vide ROC. No. 240/2010-11 (BLDGS),

dated 21.04.2015 and the learned Special Judge for trial of SPE and Anti

Corruption Bureau cases, Karimnagar has re-numbered the case as

Calendar Case No. 26 of 2015.

10 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

7)In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 to 8.

Ex.D.1 was got marked on behalf of the accused.

8)After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him are recorded separately.

9)Accused has filed his Written Statement contending that on the basis of a report lodged by the complainant, contents of charge sheet filed against the accused before this Court, this Court was pleased to framed charges against the accused under section 7 & 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

10)Accused submitted further that the accused had joined the services of Revenue department in the year 1999 as a Village

Administrative officer on honorarium, later he had joined in the

Panchayath Secretary in Panchayath Raj Dept in the year 2002, Later accused rendered his blemishless service as village revenue officer in

Revenue Department in the year 2007 and he was kept under suspension on account of this case before he is reinstated in to service.

11)Accused denied the prosecution case that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe for an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the 11 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 defacto-complainant (Pw1) for doing an official favour I.e., for change of name in occupation column in pahani and to issue of Pattadar pass book in respect of said agriculture land.

12)That Accused denies all the allegations leveled against him and that he has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe amount from the complainant(Pw1) on 07-11-2008 and all the allegations are falsified by the prosecution witnesses and he is falsely implicated by Pw1 in this above case on the basis of a false and motivated complaint.

13)Accused submits that Pw1/in his evidence stated that he had purchased Ac.1.38 guntas of land in Sy. No. 96, 97 and 102/A of Pambapur village from (Pw3) for Rs. 1,20,000/- under an unregistered agreement on 21-6-2008/Ex.P2 and that Pw1 he along with Bapu (Pw3) approached

Tahsildar, Bhopalpalli for mutation and for issuance of Pattedar pass books in his name and submitted an application(ExP1) before Mandal Revenue

Officer who enquired Bapu (Pw3) about the transaction and Bapu stated that he sold the land to Pw1 for valuable sale consideration and the

Tahasildar/PW6 called Revenue Inspector/PW4 asked him to look after the matter and that PW1 and Pw3 approached the Revenue Inspector who also enquired with Pw3 about our transaction and Pw3 reported no objection for effecting mutation and Revenue Inspector obtained signature of Pw3 Bapu on ExP1 and had made his endorsement on the said application/Ex.P1 and 12 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 handed over to Pw1 with instructions to meet accused and on same day

Pw1 and Pw3 approached accused but accused was not available in the office and they waited for some time at about 3 pm accused came to his office and they alleged that accused asked Rs. 10,000/- as expenditure and accused had asked Pw1 to pay Rs. 2,000/- along with application/Ex.P1. It is further submitted that due to above said reason

Pw1 bored grudge on accused and lodged a false report under ExP3 before

Pw8.

14)Accused submitted further that Pw1 admitted in his cross examination that Pw3 executed Ex.P2 in favour of PW1 and it not a registered document and as per agreement Pw1 has to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- total consideration on 11-07-2008, but Pw1 did not pay any amount on the date of agreement and had not taken possession of the land and that Pw1 stated that as per agreement he will get possession only after payment of sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and that registration will be made only on payment of entire sale consideration.

15)Accused further submitted that PW1 admitted that he has not file any document to show that he had paid Rs. 1,20,000/-. Pw1 also stated that he is aware that as per Ex.P2(Sale agreement) title will not transferred to him and as per agreement Pw1 is not the absolute owner of the land and that with out registration of sale deed pattedar pass books and title 13 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 deeds will not be issued and that PW1 had not shown any document to revenue officials except ExP2 and that as per the revenue records Pw3 is not the owner and that father of the Pw3, who is Maragoni Narayana is the owner and eligible to executes sale deed in any one favour but not Pw3.

16)Accused also submitted that Pw1 admitted in his cross examination that by showing ExP2, Pw1 asked accused to effect mutation.

Pw1 admitted that accused refused to effect mutation on the ground that

Pw1 is not having registered documents or title deeds. Even Pw3 also accompanied with Pw1 and accused refused to effect mutation on the said ground and that Pw1 further admitted that as per the advise of Bapu (Pw3) to get mutation Pw1 gave complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau to get orders early. That Pw1 also admitted that accused never asked him to come to his house prior to lodging report. That Pw1 also stated that Pw1 do not have any agreement with Narayana but he mentioned in Ex.P1, as if PW1 had an agreement with Narayana. That Pw1 also admits that he made application(ExP1) to revenue authorities to mutate the land in his name by deleting the name of Narayana, but Narayana did not sign on

Ex.P1 and Narayana had no knowledge about Ex.P2.

17)Accused also submitted that during the trap, Pw1 admitted that even when Pw1 went to the house of accused and requested him to effect mutation but accused stated that without registration of land, 14 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 mutation cannot effected and refused the papers offered by him with his hand. Pw1 admitted that accused did not demand from Pw1 to pay bribe.

This shows that Pw1 bored grudge upon accused for refusal of mutation as he does not have any registered sale deed.

18)Accused submitted further that Pw2 who is the mediator stated that as per ExP1 the land to an extent Ac.1-38 guntas, situated in

Nagaram village of Bhupalpalli Mandal is in the name of Maragoni

Narayana father of Maragoni Babu(Pw3). That Pw2 admitted that the person in whose name property was registered only can alienate the same.

19)Accused submitted further that Pw3(Maragoni Babu) stated that Pw3 along with Pw1 approached and Pw1 gave application to

Tahasildar for mutation of the said land in his name and as per the advise of Tahasildar/PW6 they have met Revenue Inspector (Pw4) and that

Revenue Inspector (Pw4) advised them to get the registration otherwise mutation will not be effected. That Pw3 admitted in his cross examination by defense counsel that his signature is not there on the Agreement (ExP2), he stated as per the agreement his father had not signed on ExP2, he also stated that since the land is in the name of his father(Narayana) he has no right to sell away the same.

15 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

20)That Pw3 admitted that Pw1 brought pressure on him to execute registered sale deed with out payment and got attacked on him through Naxalites. Due to the attack Pw3 also got compensation of

Rs.60,000/- each for his father, his wife and to him. Pw1 also got registered SC and ST act case against him for not registering the land. The said case ended in acquittal under ExD1 certified copy of Judgment in SC

No. 72 of 2007 on the file of Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge for trial offences under SC and ST Act at Karimnagar on 15-02-2008. That Pw3 also admitted that Pw1 is in the habit of giving complaints and implicating people in the criminal case and this shows the criminal attitude of Pw1 and how he falsely implicated the accused in the above case.

21)Accused also submitted that Pw4(T.Surya Narayana) admitted that sale deed is required to effect mutation and as per the pattedar passbook submitted by Pw1, the said land is in the name of father of Pw3 and father of Pw3 only can sell away the said land and admitted that father of PW3 had never seen ExP2.

22)Accused submitted further that Pw5(Rathod Gurusingh) is the section officer from Revenue Department from Secretariat of Telangana

State. That he does not have any personal knowledge about the sanction proceedings. He admitted that stamp or seal of Principal Secretary of 16 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Government is not there underneath the signature of Sri Ashuthosmishra on ExP11.

23)Accused also submitted that Pw6(N.Madhusudhan), the then

Tahasildar stated that he did not stated to the Anti Corruption Bureau officials that Pw1 accompanied Pw3 with regard to submission of the application/Ex.P1 with reference to his name as Maragoni Babu. He also stated that on application of Pw1(ExP1), there was no signature of PW6 to show that he directed him to approach Addl. Revenue Inspector. He stated that all the documents/sale deeds by the date of 31-12-2000 must be registered documents. It is submitted that Pw7(T.Janardhan) who is the

Trap laying officer admitted in his cross examination that he had not received the report from the Pw1 on 6-11-2008 by 11.00 am. He stated that he had seen ExP3 first time on 7-11-2008 by 5.00 am, and had issued

F.I.R.(Ex.P12) in this case on 7-11-2008 at 5.00 am.

24)That PW.7 admitted that he had not done discreet enquiry personally in respect of the report of the complainant and the antecedents of the accused, Pw7 admitted that on 6-11-2008 during evening hours he had instructed Lw10 Sambaiah (Pw8) to secure the presence of mediators in this case. This shows that with out seeing ExP3 he himself decided to lay trap against the accused. That Pw3 admitted that there is no signature of the Vendor/Pw3 on the sale agreement(ExP2).

17 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

25)Accused further submitted that PW7 has also admitted that he had not come across any execution of sale deed in between Pw1 and Pw3.

That PW7 also admitted that he had not investigated with regard to the execution of sale deed in between Pw1 and Pw3. PW7 also admitted that as per the procedure, without sale deed, the immovable property cannot be mutated in the revenue records in the name of the parties concerned.

That Pw7 also admitted that Village Revenue Officer concerned has no power for issuance of Pattedar Pass book and to make entries in Pahanies of current year. That Pw7 not investigated with regard to the owner of land covered under Ex.P2 and had also not examined Pw3 as well as his father.

26)That PW7 also admitted that he have not personally verified about the genuineness of the report under Ex.P3 and he had no personal knowledge that there was several criminal cases lodge by Pw1 against their villages.

27)Accused submitted further that Pw8 in his evidence deposed that he had received Ex.P3 report from Pw1 and admitted that there no endorsement on Ex.P3 about his verification of report of the Pw1 with regard to the antecedents of the Pw1 and antecedents of accused made by him. That PW8 admitted that if there is an agreement of sale with regard to sale of immovable property, the document must contain the signature of Vendor and Vendee to the said document, he stated that there 18 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 is no signature of the Vendor on Ex.P2. Pw8 stated that there is no endorsement of Tahasildar, Bhupalpalli/PW6 directing the Village Revenue

Officer/accused to enquire and to submit report on the application of Pw1.

28)That According to investigation of PW8, owner of the land in

Sy. No. 96,97,102/A in Pambapur Village, Bhupalpalli mandal of Warangal

District is Maragoni Narayana and he is the eligible to sell the above said land in favour of any person. But PW8 did not examine the said Maragoni

Narayana and if Pw8 had examined the Maragoni Narayana, the actual facts will come to light and for the said reason he did not choose to examine Maragoni Naryana.

29)Accused submitted that the evidence of all the witnesses( Pw1 to Pw8) and the material documents marked as exhibits (Ex.P1 to Pw12), would clinchingly falsify the prosecution case that the accused demanded and accepted any bribe for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the defacto- complainant/(Pw1) for doing an official favour ie, for change of name in occupation column in pahani and to issue of Pattadar pass book in respect of said agriculture land. Hence it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges framed against accused in this case in the interest of justice.

19 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

30.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the accused has demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for processing the application and preparing pattadar passbook in respect of the agricultural land purchased by the complainant?

2. Whether there was any official work of P.W.1 pending

with the accused as on the date of the Trap ?

3. Whether the accused by corrupt and illegal means accepted Rs.2000/- from P.W.1 by abusing his position as Public Servant ?

4. Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

5. To what relief ?

POINT NO.1 to 4:

31)It is the case of the prosecution that the P.W.1/Complainant had purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-38 guntas in Sy.No.

96, 97 and 102/A situated at Pambapur village of Bhupalapalli mandal,

Warangal District from P.W.3/Maragoni Bapu vide sale agreement dated 21.06.2008 for sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- under Ex.P2 and that on 15.09.2008 the complainant/P.W.1 along with P.W.3/Maragoni Bapu had approached the office of Tahasildar, Bhupalapalli mandal and had 20 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 submitted an application dated 15.09.2008 for change of his name in the occupation column in the pahani and also to issue pattedar passbook inrespect of the said agricultural land and that the Tahasildar/PW6 had called the Assistant Revenue Inspector/P.W.4 and handed over the application of PW1 under Ex.P1 to him and then P.W.4/Assistant Revenue

Inspector had enquired with P.W.1/complainant and P.W.3/Maragoni Bapu and had taken written endorsement of P.W.3 for no objection to transfer the said agricultural land in the name of the complainant/P.W.1 in the revenue records and then P.W.4/Assistant Revenue Inspector had also made an endorsement on the said application as “Recorded by me” and put up his signature and then P.W.4 had instructed PW.1 and P.W.3 to handover the said application to the concerned Village Revenue Officer (accused) for the process and accordingly the complainant/P.W.1 and

P.W.3/Maragoni Bapu met the accused on the same day at 3.00 pm and had shown Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to accused and that the accused made enquiry with P.W.3 about the sale of the said agricultural land to the complainant/P.W.1 for the purpose of change of name of the complainant in the pahani and that accused had demanded the complainant/P.W.1 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards bribe to process his application and to prepare pattedar passbook and on persistent requests of PW1, the accused had reduced the bribe amount to rupees 9000/- and told the PW.1 21 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 to pay the bribe of rupees 2000/- initially along with application/Ex.P1 and to pay the remaining bribe amount later.

32)It is defence of the accused that accused had never demanded and accepted any bribe from the complainant /PW.1 for doing any official favour and that no official favour was pending with the accused as on the date of trap and that accused had refused to mutate the agricultural lands covered under Ex.P2 in favour of PW1 because PW1 was not having any registered document in respect of ownership of the said property under

Ex.P.2 and accused had further informed the PW1 that unless the document under Ex.P2 is submitted for the registration, it cannot be mutated and no pattedar passbook or title deed can be issued infavour of

PW1 and since accused refused the papers of PW1 stating that mutation cannot be effected basing on unregistered documents, the present case is filed on false averments.

33)It is not in dispute that the accused worked as village revenue officer at Kamalapur village and was holding incharge of Pambapur village,

Bupalapalli mandal, Warangal District from 07-02-2007 to 07-11-2008 and by virtue of post held by him, he was a Public Servant in the meaning of

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

22 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Sanction:

34)PW.5/Rathod Gurusingh, is the section officer Revenue

Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad deposed that on 11.11.2008 the office of Revenue Department, T.S. Secretariat had received a radio message from the office of Anti Corruption Bureau about the trap of accused and at the same time their officer had received suspension orders of the accused from the District Collector, Karimnagar and on 03.12.2008 their office had also received preliminary report from Director General, Anti

Corruption Bureau along with copies of First Information Report, Complaint,

Mediators report I and II and on 27.04.2009 their officer had received final report from Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau Hyderabad along with the relevant material and meanwhile they have also received advice from the Vigilance Commissioner recommending prosecution of the accused and then section had prepared the file and placed before the then Prl.

Secretary Sri Asutosh Mishra who had taken decision and sent the file to the concerned Hon’ble Minister for Revenue and after approval of the file from the ministry, the concerned had prepared the draft sanction order and sent the same to the then Prl. Secretary who after verifying the entire material available on the record had issued sanction proceedings vide

GO.Ms No. 1058 dated 12.10.2009. A suggestion was given to

PW4/Section Officer that the sanction proceedings under Ex.P11 is issued without any application of proper mind and the same is issued 23 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 mechanically and not valid in the eye of law. There is no suggestion given to PW5 that the sanction proceeding under Ex.P11 has caused the prejudice to the rights of the accused or any in justice is caused to the accused.

35)The authority to remove the accused is Principal Secretary by name Ausutosh Mishra and his order granting sanction to prosecute is

Ex.P11. This exhibit and the deposition of PW.5 nowhere indicates that the authority has not applied his mind or not acted independently . It is not the case of the accused that any injustice is caused to the accused by virtue of

EXP.11.

Demand and Acceptance:

36)It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that PW1 had admitted before this Court that the accused had not demanded any bribe from PW1 and even on the date of the trap also, the accused had refused to effect mutation in favour of PW1 as PW1 was not having any registered document on his name for the property covered under Ex.P2 and had not demanded any bribe from PW1 and the admission on the part of the PW1 during the course of cross examination reveals that accused had never demanded and accepted any bribe amount from the PW1 on 07.11.2008 for an amount of Rs.2,000/- for doing official favour I.e for processing the application of PW.1, for changing of the name in the 24 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 occupation column in the pahani and to issue pattadar passbook for the agricultural land in Sy.No. 96,97,102/A of Pambarpur village for total extent

Ac.1-38 gts covered under Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1 also discloses that during the trap when PW1 had gone to the house of accused and requested him to effect the mutation the accused had demanded only to pay Rs.9,000/- towards the registration charges covered under Ex.P2 and that the evidence of PW1 clearly discloses that Mo.1 tainted amount was planted by PW1 by keeping the tainted amount in the application which was not visible to outside and which shows that accused has no knowledge about the tainted amount and that to implicate the accused, the PW1 had dropped the papers covered with tainted amount under Mo.1 in table drawer available in the house of PW1.

37)In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the authority in Suraj Mal VS. State of Delhi administration air 1979

SUPREME COURT 1408 wherein it is held that mere recovery of money from the accused is not sufficient and that where witnesses make two in consistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two different stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes un reliable and un worthy of credence and in absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on the evidence on such witnesses.

25 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

38)He further relied upon the authority in Banarsi Dass Vs

State of Haryana 2010 (1) ALD (Crl. 924 (SC) wherein it is held that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was demand of money and the same was voluntarily accepted by the accused and such demand and acceptance of money for doing a favour in discharge of its official duties is sine qua non to the conviction of the accused. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard. So, far as its satisfy the essentials of complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence.

39)Learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the authority in S. Shankar Vs. State of Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar 2022 (1) ALD Crl 109 (TS) wherein it is held that prosecution ought to necessarily establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

40) Learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the authority in C. Girish Babu VS. State Anti Corruption Bureau,

Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad 2022 (1) ALD Crl. 96 TS wherein it is held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen 26 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 of the offence under section 7 and 13(1)(d) (I and II) of the Act and in absence there of, unmistakably the charge thereof, therefore, would fail.

Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the act as a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of amount from the person accused of the offence under section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under.

41)The evidence of PW.1/Lingamalla Venkat Rajam/complainant,

before this court that he is the resident of Mahamutharam Village and he

know Maragoni Bapu/P.W3/vendor of PW.1/Complainant and that he also know the accused who worked as Village Revenue Officer at Pambapur village, Bejjanki Mandal of Warangal district at the relevant period . PW1 deposed further that he had purchased agricultural land to an extent of

Ac.1-38 gts in Sy.No. 96,97,102/A of Pambapur village from PW.3/Maragoni

Bapu for Rs.1,20,000/- under an un-registered agreement dated 21.06.2008 under Ex.P2 and that on 15.09.2008 PW.1 along with

Maragoni Bapu/PW.3 had approached to the office of Tahasildar,

Bhupalpally village/PW.6 for mutation and for issuance of pattedar passbook on his name and had submitted an application under Ex.P1

dated 15.09.2008 and the Tahasdildar/PW.6 had enquired with

27 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

PW.3/Maragoni Bapu about the sale transaction between PW.1 and PW.3, and that PW.3 had stated before the Tahsildar/PW.6 that he sold the land to PW.1 for valuable consideration and then the Tahasildar/PW.6 called

Revenue Inspector/PW.4, and asked him to look after the matter and then

PW.1 and PW.3 had approached PW.4/Revenue Inspector who had also enquired with the PW.3/Maragoni Bapu about the sale transaction for which the PW.3 had reported no objection for effecting mutation in the name of the PW.1 and then PW.4/Revenue Inspector had obtained the signature of PW.3 on the application of PW.1 under Ex.P1 and had endorsed on the application of PW.1 “as recorded by me” and thereafter handed over the same to PW.1 with instructions to meet the accused/Village revenue officer and on the same day PW.1 and PW.3 had approached the accused and the accused was not available in his office and they both have waited for him and that the accused had arrived to his office at 3.00 pm and then the PW.1 had shown Ex.P1 and P2 to the accused who also ascertained about the transaction by enquiring the PW.1 and 3 and then accused had asked the PW.3 to leave the office since the presence of PW.3 was not necessary and asked the PW1 to wait in his office and accordingly PW1 had waited in the office of accused till 4.00 pm and then accused had asked PW.1 to give party, as such the PW.1 and accused went together in one Dhaba/hotel near the office of Tahasildar and at the time of having lunch, the accused told to PW.1 that he has to 28 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 bear some expenditure and has to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- and then

PW.1 had expressed his financial inability to pay the said amount stating that he belongs to poor family and on persistent requests of PW.1, the bribe amount was reduced to rupees 9000/- and accused told to PW.1 to pay the bribe of rupees 2000/- initially along with application/Ex.P1 and to pay the remaining bribe amount later and then PW.1 had made enquires with another village revenue officers and ascertained that the expenditure of Rs.9,000/- may not be incurred for the purpose of mutation and then PW.1 had came to a conclusion that the accused has been harassing him for extracting bribe from him, as such he approached the office of Anti Corruption Bureau Police, Karimnagar on 06.11.2008 and reported the matter under Ex.P3 /report.

42)That after receipt of the report under Ex.P3 from the PW.1, the

Deputy superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had asked the Pw.1 to meet him in the early hours at 4.00 am on 07.11.2008 along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and accordingly PW.1 went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and waited for 10 minutes and later Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW7 called him to his chambers and the Deputy Superintendent of Police/PW7 introduced

PW.1 to mediators and viceversa and had given copy of report of PW1 under Ex.P4 to the mediators and the mediators have ascertained the truth or otherwise of the contents of the report from PW.1 and then the 29 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Deputy Superintendent Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7, had asked the PW.1 about the procurement of the proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and on affirmative reply by PW1, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar told the PW1 to handover the said amount to one of the mediator who had noted down the currency note numbers brought by PW.1 and later the Deputy superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 handed over the said amount of Rs.2,000/- to one of the constable who smeared the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and kept the same in left side empty shirt pocket of PW.1 and then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had instructed PW.1 to meet the accused and pay the tainted amount only on his further demand and not otherwise and not to shake hands with the accused either before or after and had further instructed him to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief in case accused demands and accepts the tainted amount. Later, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 had demonstrated the process of phenolpthalien test

before the PW1 and the mediators and also explained the significance of

phenolpthalien test and thereafter all the trap party members had proceeded at 6.00 am from the office of Deputy superintendent of police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 in TATA Sumo and reached to

Bhupalapalli village at 8.30 am to the house of accused and had stopped 30 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 the vehicle at a distance of 100 meters from the house of accused and then the Deputy superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar/PW7 had reiterated his previous instructions to PW.1 and had permitted PW.1 to go to the house of accused and accordingly PW1 proceeded to the house of accused on foot and meanwhile the trap party had taken vantage positions and that PW1 when went inside the house of accused, the accused was found available in the house and that accused on seeing PW1 had asked PW.1 as to whether PW1 had brought the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- or not and on affirmative reply given by

PW1, the accused had asked PW1 to give the application under Ex.P1 to him and later the accused had also asked about the bribe amount of

Rs.2,000/- and on the demand of accused, the PW1 had handed over the tainted amount to the accused, who received with his right hand and counted with his both hands and went inside the house along with application and amount and then PW1 had given prearranged signal to the trap party member and thereafter the trap party members rushed to the house of accused and apprehended the accused and Mo.1/tainted amount was recovered at the instance of the accused from the kitchen cum bed room of house of accused and both the hands of accused were subjected for phenolpthalien test and same were yielded positive under Mo.5 and 6 and the documents seized under EXP.1/Application of PW.1, EXP.2/Attested copy of unregistered agreement of sale dated 21-06-2008, Ex.P.5/title 31 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 deed pass book and Ex.P9 having enclosed to the application of PW.1 from the possession of accused and subjected the contacted portion of above said seized documents for phenolpthalien test and same were also yielded positive under Mo.7 to Mo.9 and accused was taken into custody and thereafter post trap proceedings drafted under Ex.P8 and copy of

Ex.P8 was also furnished to accused under proper acknowledgment.

43)The evidence of PW1 before this Court that accused had initially demanded Rs.10,000/- on 15.09.2008 for the purpose of effecting the mutation and for issuance of passbook when PW1 and 3 had approached to the accused after the direction given by the PW6/MRO and upon request of PW1, the said amount was reduced to Rs.9,000/- and the accused had directed the PW1 to submit the application along with bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to the accused.

44)Of course, PW1 was declared hostile by learned special Public

Prosecutor on one aspect. As per 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PW1, that when PW.1 met the accused, the accused had demanded bribe of rupees 10000/- to PW.1 and on persistent requests of PW.1, the accused had reduced the bribe to rupees 9000/- and informed to pay an amount of rupees 2000/- along with the application but his evidence on this aspect was otherwise as accused did not demand PW.1 to pay the bribe, and PW.1 had volunteered before this court during course of cross 32 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 examination on behalf of the accused that accused had asked PW.1 to get registered document and to pay rupees 9000/- towards registration. So, on this slight discrepancy PW1 was treated hostile and cross-examined by

Spl.Public Prosecutor with reference to his earlier statements. Be that as it may, a careful perusal of evidence of PW1 shows that no inconsistent material was extracted in the cross-examination to discard his evidence.

45)There is no dispute or denial specifically by the accused that no such transaction of demand and acceptance of tainted amount of rupees 2000/- had been taken place in a tin sheeted shed on the date of trap i.e., on 07.11.2008 and that accused never demanded and accepted any tainted amount of rupees 2000/- under MO.1 and that accused had never assured PW.1 that he will complete the work of PW1 as early as possible.

46)There is also no dispute or denial by the accused by way of giving suggestion to PW.1 that accused had never asked PW.1 to pay rupees 9000/- either towards the expenditure of registration of the document under Ex.P2/ attested copy of sale agreement or towards bribe for processing the application for mutation of land and for preparing of pattedar pass book and title deed in respect of agricultural land of purchased by the complainant.

33 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

47)There is also no denial on part of the accused that no such application of PW.1 under Ex.P.1 is pending with the accused as on the date of demand or on the date of trap as forwarded by the PW.6/Tahsildar for processing the application of PW.1 under Ex.P.1 for enquiry report . It is not the case of accused that any enquiry report in respect of the application of PW.1 under EXP.1 is already submitted by the accused

before the PW.6/Tahsildar to that effect before the date of trap.

48)There is no suggestion given to PW3 that there was no demand on the part of the accused of Rs.10,000/- to PW1 in the presence of PW3 for effecting mutation in the name of the PW1 and issuance of pattedar passbook and title deeds and that there was also no demand for payment of Rs.2,000/- to accused by the PW1 to submit along with application of PW1 under Ex.P1 at the residence of accused.

49)The evidence of PW3 though he was treated hostile by the Spl.

Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau, however PW3 had supported the prosecution case in material particulars that he had executed Ex.P2 sale agreement infavour of PW1/complainant and had also accompanied with

PW1 to the office of Tahasildar, Bhupalapalli for effecting mutation in the name of PW1 and that the Tahasildar enquired with PW1 and 3 in respect to the sale transaction in between PW1 and 3 and there was no objection on the part of the PW3 in effecting the mutation infavour of PW3. PW3 34 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 inspite of the document shown to him under Ex.P1 expressed ignorance about the endorsement of PW4 above the signature of PW3 in Ex.P1 and however PW3 had not denied that there is no signature of PW3 and the signature of the Revenue Inspector/PW4 in Ex.P1. The evidence of PW3 also disclosed that the application of PW1 under Ex.P1 was filed before the office of Tahasildar, Bhupalapalli village/PW6 who had inturn endorsed to approach the accused after forwarding the application to PW4 with a direction to appear accused for the purpose of processing the application of PW1 in the office of accused.

50)The evidence of PW1/complainant on the aspect of demand and acceptance, it must be said, consistent and cogent. Further, his evidence on material particulars was amply corroborated by PW2/mediator and PW7/Trap Laying Officer . Therefore, in spite of the fact that no shadow witness was sent along with him, still the sole testimony of PW1 proved trustworthy to establish the two vital ingredients of demand and acceptance.

Official Favour:

51)Learned counsel for the accused has argued that Accused was not competent to issue pattadar pass book and title deed and as there was no official favour pending with him to demand any bribe, the allegation of demand itself is false. It is true that Accused is not the issuing 35 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 authority of pattadar pass book and title deed but the facts and evidence would show that he was very much part of processing the pass book and title deed.

52)Per contra Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti

Corruption Bureau argued that it is not necessary that the work should be pending with the accused itself and it is sufficient that if the accused is working in that office and induce the complainant that he will do the favour and it is enough that the complainant believes and hand over the amount to the accused. In support of his contention he relied upon the authority in 1988 CriLJ 1150 Dr.V. Sebastian Vs. The State dated 20.07.1987 wherein it is held that Act done by the accused in his official capacity is distinguished from his purely private capacity and therefore it amounts to official act and it is not necessary that the accused should be obliged to do that act and relied upon the authority in between Indure

Dayal Das Advani Vs. State of Bombay on 6 th April,1951, wherein it is held that Sec.7 does not require that the public servant must himself have power or himself be in a position to show favour or disfavor, for doing or showing which the bribe had paid to him. Therefore, it is not necessary to constitute an offence U/sec.7 that the Act for doing which the bribe is given should actually be performed .

36 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

53)It is evidenced as per the evidence of PW.1 that he had met accused continuously for a period of two months for his work, but accused had not attended his work and that PW.1 had thereafter met the Mandal

Revenue Officer/PW.6 in the mid who had instructed PW.1 to approach the accused and then PW.1 had met the accused and told to accused that he required pattedar passbook in order to obtain the loan from the bank and on repeated requests, the accused had reduced the bribe to Rs.9,000/- and asked PW.1 to pay Rs.9,000/- and that PW.1 had also stated to the accused that if pattedar passbook and title deeds are required to PW.1 for obtaining loan from the bank, the expenditure would not come upto

Rs.10,000/- and had stated to the accused that he cannot pay the entire amount at a time and will pay in installments and had requested the accused that he will pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- as the the application under Ex.P1 is still in the custody of P.W.1 and told the accused that he will secure the money within two or three days and will meet the accused and that when PW.1 had asked the accused to receive the application under Ex.P1 for which the accused had stated to PW.1 to keep the said application under Ex.P1 with PW.1, as the accused had got number of papers and then accused had told PW.1 to submit the application under

Ex.P.1 along with the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/-.

54)There is no denial on the part of the accused by way of giving suggestion to PW.1 that he never demanded either an amount of 37 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Rs.10,000/- towards bribe on 15.09.2008 for effecting mutation and for issuance of pattedar passbook basing on the attested copy of agreement under Ex.P2 in the name of PW1 and that the same was never reduced by the accused to Rs.9000/- on persistent request made by PW1 due to financial inability of PW1 to pay bribe of Rs.9000/- and that accused had never agreed to receive bribe amount in installment of Rs.2,000/- and never told PW1 to submit the application under Ex.P1 along with bribe amount of Rs.2000/- at the residence of the accused.

55)Perusal of Ex.P.1 discloses that the said application was filed

before the office of Tahsildar Bhupalpally/PW.6 in which Assistant

Revenue Inspector/PW4 had also endorsed as “Recorded by me” with the signature of PW.4/Assistant Revenue Inspector and same is also admitted by Tahsildar Bhupalpally/PW.6.

56)Admittedly the document under EXP.2 is an un registered document and no steps for the processing the application of PW.1 under

EXP.1 was taken by the accused inspite of representation of PW.1 through his application under Ex.P.1 and inspite of direction given by the

PW.6/Tahsildar to the accused through the Assistant revenue inspector/PW.4 for processing the application of the PW.1 and to submit the enquiry report except the mere oral denial and refusal on the part of the accused to process the application of PW.1 in respect of the 38 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 agricultural land under Ex.P.2 in the name of PW.1 under the pretext that

PW.1 was not having the registered documents or title deeds.

57) It is not the case of accused that he had officially returned the application of PW.1 under Ex.P.1 on the same day I.e on 15-09-2008 on the ground that the document under Ex.P.2 is unregistered document and that PW.1 was not having title deed on his name and hence mutation cannot be effected. It is also not the case of the accused that he had submitted any enquiry report before PW.6/Tahsildar regarding the alleged refusal of application of PW.1 stating that PW.1 was not having registered document and has no title deed on the name of PW.1 in respect of the agricultural lands under EXP.2.

58)It is argued further by the learned counsel for the accused that as per the revenue records, the owner of property is father of PW3 by name Maragoni Naryana and the said fact is admitted by PW1, PW3 and

PW8 during the course of their cross examination and the said Maragoni

Narayana was not examined before this Court to know whether any agreement of sale or sale deed executed in favour of PW1 for the said property. The said contention of learned counsel for the accused is not tenable for the reason that there is no dispute that Ex.P.2 was executed by playing fraud either upon the PW.3/Maragoni babu and the father of

PW.3 by name Maragoni Narayana by PW.1.

39 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

59) The evidence of PW.3 before this court that he had sold the said land to PW1 for sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- under unregistered agreement of sale covered under Ex.P2 and later he and

PW1 approached the office of Tahasildar, Bhulapally village and mandal/PW6 and PW1 had given application to the Tahasildar/PW6 for mutation of the said land in the name of PW1, in which the Tahasildar had instructed the PW1 and 3 to meet Revenue Inspector/PW4 and accordingly they have approached to the Revenue Inspector/PW4 and had given the application which was given to Tahasildar and then the Revenue

Inspector/PW4 had advised the PW1 and PW.3 to get the registration stating that the mutation will not be effected.

60)PW3 was treated hostile by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau however, the evidence of PW.3 that the endorsement made by the revenue Inspector /PW.4 over the signature of

PW3 in Ex.P1, when it was confronted and shown to the PW3 was not specifically denied by PW.3. PW3 denied that Revenue Inspector/PW4 had never stated to him about the fact of effecting the mutation only after registration of document.

61)During the course of cross examination by accused, PW3 admitted that his signature and signature of his father is not there on agreement covered under Ex.P2. PW3 further admitted that there is no 40 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- paid by PW1 to him. On this slight discrepancy, the evidence of PW.3 was treated hostile and cross examined by Spl.Public Prosecutor with reference to his earlier statement under

EXP.10. Be that as it may, a careful perusal of evidence of PW.3 shows that no inconsistent material was extracted in the cross examination to discard the evidence of PW.3 .

62)PW4/T. Suryanarayana who is the Revenue Inspector at the relevant period deposed that he know the accused who worked as Village

Revenue Officer of Kamlapur village and was holding Full Additional

Charge of Village Revenue Office of Pambapur village at the relevant period and that in the year 2008 while PW4 was in office, PW1 and 3 had approached him and stated that they have approached the Tahasildar/PW6 for mutation and Tahasildar instructed them to approach PW4 and then

PW1 and 3 had shown the application under Ex.P1 to PW4 and that PW4 had verified the said application under Ex.P1 and enquired with PW3 regarding the sale transaction and with regard to any objection of mutation infavour of PW1 for which PW3 had reported no objection and then there was note prepared to that effect and the signature of PW3 was obtained and it was recorded by PW4/Revenue Inspector by putting his signature under Ex.P1 as “recorded by me” and then PW4 had directed to

PW1 and 3 to approach the accused.

41 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

63)There is no suggestion given to PW4 by the learned counsel for the accused that PW1 and 3 had never approached to the office of

Tahasildar, Bhupalapally/PW6 in respect of application of PW1 under Ex.P1 for the purpose of effecting the mutation in the name of PW1 and for issuance of pattedar passbook and that PW4 had never endorsed any office note by signing on the Ex.P1 “as recorded by me” and never given any direction to PW1 and PW3 to approach the accused. PW4 stated that inorder to require mutation the sale deed is mandatory and generally it is required to effect mutation however PW4 had volunteered that if parties to the agreement agreed for mutation, the mutation can be effected even on

Sada Bainama agreement.

64)The evidence of PW4 also disclosed that there was a direction to Village Revenue Officer i.e., accused by the Tahasildar,

Bhupalapalli/PW6 through the Revenue Inspector/PW4 for processing on the application of PW1 and the said fact is not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion to PW4.

65)PW6/N. Madhusudhan who is Tahsildar of Bhupalpally mandal of Warangal district at the relevant period deposed that the accused had worked under him as Village Revenue Officer at Kamalapur village during the relevant period and the accused was also holding incharge of

Pambapur village. PW6 deposed about the procedure about the mutation 42 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 on the name of the purchaser with respect to the house property or landed property by virtue of un-registered sale deed is that basing on the application submitted by the individual, the necessary stamp duty will be collected for sending the document to the office of the Sub-Registrar and after collecting such stamp duty, the document will be regularized for the purpose of mutation and then for the said purpose of regularization of the sale deed the crucial date is 31.12.2000 and the documents executed

before the date are only taken into consideration for regularization and in

case if the documents is for sale transaction basing on registered document, the copy of the sale deed to be enclosed and after a general notice to the general public, Village Revenue Officer has to hold an enquiry in the village with respect to description of the property mentioned in the document and after submission of the report by the Village Revenue

Officer, the mutation will be made and after making necessary entries in the revenue records, pattedar passbook will be issued and thereafter file will be forwarded to the concerned Village Revenue Officer for attestation of title deeds/ROR book and the entries will be made by the Village

Revenue Officer concerned.

66)PW.6 deposed that in the present case the application of

PW.1/L. Venkat Rajam/Complainant was received under Ex.P1 and PW1 and 3 had approached to the office of Tahasildar, Bhupalapalli village and mandal /PW6 and they have submitted the same for the purpose of the 43 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 mutation basing on Sada Bainama (unregistered simple sale deed) purportedly purchased by PW1 from PW3 and on receipt of such application, PW6/Tahsildar had forwarded the same to the Revenue

Inspector/PW4 and the Revenue Inspector/PW.4 and had directed them to approach the Village Revenue Office of Pambapur village i.e., accused and subsequently the PW6 had not received any report either from PW4 or from Village Revenue Officer/accused till the date of trap of the accused and PW6 had not received any kind of information regarding mutation pertaining to the PW1.

67)A suggestion was given to the PW6 by the learned counsel for the accused that PW1 and 3 had never approached the PW6 with an application for mutation basing on the sada bainama and same was denied by PW6. No suggestion was given to PW6 that he had never directed the accused through Revenue Inspector/PW4 to submit enruiry report inrespect of the application of PW1 and that PW6 had never enquired with PW1 and 3 inrespect of the sale transaction in between PW1 and 3 based on Ex.P2.

68)The evidence of PW6/Tahasildar clearly proves that the accused through Revenue Inspector/PW4 was directed to submit enquiry report inrespect of the application of PW1 under Ex.P1 and till the date of trap there was no report from the accused submitted before the PW6 44 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 inrespect of the application under Ex.P1 of the PW1/under Ex.P1 and which shows that the documents under Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P5 and Ex.P9 from the date of demand pending till date of trap with the accused for demand of official favour.

69)PW7/T. Janardhan is Trap Laying Officer deposed that on 06.11.2008 at 11.00 am, PW8 Sri P. Sambaiah, Inspector of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had received the report from PW1 under

Ex.P1 and PW8 had gone through the contents of Ex.P1 and informed to

PW7 over cell phone about the contents of the said application and then

PW7 had orally instructed him to conduct discreet inquiry with regard to the verification of the genuineness of the report and reputation of accused and also had instructed PW8/P. Sambaiah to inform the complainant to come to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau/PW.7 along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and that upon the instructions of PW7, PW8/P. Sambaiah had conducted discreet inquiry and informed PW7 over phone that the contents of the report are genuine and reputation of the accused found to be suspicious and on 07.11.2008 PW7 came to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and had registered a case in Cr.No.

23/2008 under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, dated 07.11.2008 at 05.00 am and had issued First Information Rreport under Ex.P12 after obtaining the oral permission from competent authority and after due 45 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 verification PW7 had proceeded to conduct investigation and during the course of investigation PW7 had secured the presence of PW2 and

LW2/Janardhan and as per the instructions all of them had assembled in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar on 07.11.2008 at 5.15 am and then PW7 had called the PW1 into the office room of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar and had introduced the mediators to the PW1 and vice-versa and had shown the copy of report, dated 06.11.2008 under

Ex.P4 to the mediators who have gone through the same and ascertain the facts of the report from the PW1 and PW1 admitted that the contents of the report are true and correct and the same is given voluntarily and thereafter the copy of the report of PW1 was attested by mediators in

Ex.P4 and then PW7 had questioned PW1 about the proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- (100x20) which PW1 had intended to pay bribe to accused and then the PW1 had produced an application dated 15.09.2008 of Ex.P1 and stated to PW7 that the accused had asked him to produce the application under Ex.P1 along with bribe amount and that accused will accept the said application only after payment of bribe amount of

Rs.2,000/-. The mediators had then gone through the said application and came to know that the application was endorsed by Tahasildar,

Bhupalpally mandal/PW.6 dated 15.09.2008 given by the complainant/PW1 and at the edge of the application, Assistant Revenue Inspector, 46 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Bhupalpalli/PW4 had attested the signature and endorsed in his own hand writing as recorded by me and thereafter the same was attested by

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 and the mediators and the said application also contained Photostat copy of the agreement dated 21.06.2008 Sl.No. 1362 worth of Rs.100/- stamp paper dated 20.06.2008 under Ex.P2 and the Photostat copy of title deed passbook bearing No. 66992, Patta No. 411/Ex.P5 which belongs to Sri

Maragoni Narayana S/o Venkaiah and it contains three pages and mediators have put their initials on the corner of the application under

Ex.P1 and that upon the request of PW7, the mediators have noted the denominations and currency note numbers of the said proposed amount and on instructions, the police constable PC No. 2017 of Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar range smeared the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and kept the same in the front left side wearing shirt pocket of PW1 after ensuring that the PW1 was not carrying anything in the pocket and that PW7 had instructed PW1 thereafter to go to the house of accused and to give the bribe amount to accused only on his further demand and not otherwise and had also instructed not to shake hands with the accused either before or after the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount and that the complainant was also enquired with respect to any financial transaction with the accused upon which the complainant stated that he has no financial transaction with accused and 47 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 then PW7 had instructed PW1 to give signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief in case the accused demands and accepts the tainted amount, thereafter PW7 had demonstrated the chemical test and also explained the significance of the chemical test to the complainant and mediators and later all the trap party including PW7 after completion of pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P6 had proceeded to Bhupalapalli village to the residence of accused in one Government vehicle i.e., TATA Sumo bearing

No. AP-09-BC-3186 and reached to the outskirts of Bhupalapally village at 8.00 am and thereafter all the trap party members got down from the vehicle and PW7 had reiterated the earlier instructions to PW1 and then complainant was permitted to proceed to the residential house of the accused and the trap party meanwhile had followed the PW1/complainant and at about 8.10 am the trap party on observing the PW1 entering into the house of the accused had taken vantage positions and at about 8.15 am PW1 came out from the house of accused and had given prearranged signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief to the trap party members and that on receiving the prearranged signal, PW7, mediators along with other trap party members immediately rushed to the house of accused and PW7 had asked the complainant to wait outside for some time and on entering into the house of accused, the trap party observed the accused was sitting on the chair in the varanda of the said house and PW7 ascertained the name of the accused and about his service particulars and then upon 48 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 hearing the introduction of PW7 and upon hearing purpose of visit of PW7 to said place, the accused found shocked and was voice less and then PW7 had got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers after obtaining the water and asked the accused to dip fingers of his right and left hand in the sodium carbonate solution and on doing so the fingers of both the hands turned into pink colour and then the accused was asked by PW7 about the demand and acceptance of any bribe from the complainant before the arrival of the trap party upon which the accused admitted and the version given by the accused was recorded and then upon the question of PW7 to the accused about the tainted amount, the accused had produced wad of currency notes from the table drawer available in the kitchen cum bed room and handed over the same to one of the mediator and accordingly the said mediator collected the tainted amount from the accused and verified the numbers of currency notes and compared with the currency note numbers already mentioned in

Ex.P6/Mediator report-I and on doing so both of the currency notes were tallied and then PW7 seized the tainted amount under Mo.1 after duly attestation and then PW7 had asked the accused to produce the application of the complainant which was collected along with the bribe amount and the accused had produced from the table drawer and on perusal of the application/EXP.1, it was tallied as application which was produced by the complainant during mediator report-I proceedings/EXP.6 49 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 and then PW7 had got prepared the sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and subjected the said application of Ex.P1 to phenolphthalein test by swabbing contacted surface which came in contact portion with the bribe amount and on doing so it yielded positive and similarly the another electricity bill under Ex.P9 was also subjected for phenolphthalein test and same also yielded positive and then PW7 had seized the application and electricity bill of service number 1030/3374 with the attestation of mediators and then PW7 had called PW1 and examined him and thereafter the rough sketch was prepared under Ex.P7 by PW7 with the attestation of the mediators and later PW7 had effected arrest of accused on 7.11.2008 at 11.40 am after informing grounds of arrest thereafter the sample of sodium carbonate powder was seized after duly attestation of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 and the mediators, under mediator report-II proceedings/Ex.P8 and then PW7 during course of his investigation had examined the PW1, 4 and 6 and had produced the accused for remand on 08.11.2008, thereafter and handed over the CD file to PW8 Sri P.

Sambaiah, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar for further investigation.

70)The evidence of PW7 discloses about the laying of trap against the accused in which the PW1 complainant acted as decoy and that accused had demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- along with application under Ex.P1 enclosed with EXP.2,EXP.5 and and that 50 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Mo.1/tainted amount seized at the instance of the accused from the possession of the accused in presence of PW2 and another mediator/Janardhan. There is no suggestion given to PW7 by learned counsel for the accused that Mo.1 tainted amount is not recovered from the house of accused at the instance of accused available in the table drawer in the kitchen cum bed room of the house of the accused and that an application under Ex.P1 and electricity bill under Ex.P9 are not seized from the possession of the accused on the date of trap. There is no suggestion even given to PW7 that Mo.1 tainted amount is planted by the

PW1 in the table drawer available in the kitchen cum bed room. The suggestion that was given to PW7 that the service of PW2 and

LW2/Janardhan were obtained by PW7 even prior to registration of FIR under Ex.P12 was denied by PW7.

71)PW8/P. Sambaiah is the inspector of police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar at the relevant period deposed that on 06.11.2008 the complainant/PW1 came to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and had given written report under Ex.P3 and PW7 had instructed the PW8 to verify the genuineness of the report and the antecedent as well as the reputation of the accused and accordingly the PW8 had verified the genuinity of the report and the antecedents and the reputation of the accused and the same was intimated orally to PW7 on 06.11.2008 and to that effect PW8 had made an endorsement on 06.11.2008 at 11.00 am on 51 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Ex.P3 report and that as per the instructions of PW7, PW8 had given requisition on 06.11.2008 to the office of District Education Officer, for providing two government employees to act as mediators in this case thereafter PW7 had laid trap against the accused in which PW8 had assisted the PW7 in pre and post trap proceedings and thereafter PW7 handed-over the case diary file for further investigation to PW8 and PW8 had filed requisition for recording of the statement of complainant/PW1 under section 164 Cr.PC and the statement of PW1 under 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on 17.01.2009. Thereafter PW8 had addressed a letter to the

District Collector, Warangal for providing service particulars and job chart of accused on 10.11.2008 and accordingly on 20.12.2008 PW8 received service particulars and job chart of the accused under Ex.P14 and 15 enclosed with the covering letter under Ex.P13 and thereafter PW8 had sought for the sanction order for prosecution against the accused before the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and on 12.10.2009 sanction for prosecution against the accused was ordered under Ex.P11 which was received by PW8 on 20.12.2009 and after completion of investigation, PW8 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

72)The evidence of PW8 is with respect to discreet enquiry conducted on the Ex.P3/report of complainant/PW1 and assisting of trap 52 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 laying officer in pre and post trap proceedings and then receiving of sanction order against the accused under Ex.P11 along with job chart and service particulars under Ex.P14 and 15. A suggestion was given to PW8 that PW8 had not investigated with respect to owner of the land in Sy.No.

96,97,102/A in Pambapur village, Bhupalpally mandal of Warangal district and about the actual owner of the said land for which PW8 stated that during the course of his investigation he has found that M. Narayana is the actual owner of the above said land and eligible to sell the above said land infavour of any person. PW8 on perusal of Ex.P1 application dated 15.09.2008 in the office of Tahasildar, Bhupalpalli for mutation admitted that there is no endorsement of the Tahasildar, Bhupalapalli/PW.6 directing the Village Revenue Officer I.e accused to enquire and to submit the report on the application of PW1.

73)A suggestion was given to PW8 regarding endorsement with respect to the conducting the discreet enquiry and PW8 had categorically stated before this Court that the endorsement dated 6.11.2008 at 11.00 am on Ex.P3 report is mentioned that action will be taken after verifying the contents of the report and reputation of accused. PW8 denied that

before the registration of the First Information Report in this case a trap

was prepared against the accused with pre determined. No material particulars elicited from the cross-examination of PW8 with respect to the demand and acceptance of the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- and about the 53 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 report of PW1 under Ex.P3 found to be false and that the reputation of accused found to be genuine.

74)Perusal of the Ex.P1 application dated 15.09.2008 discloses that PW1 had addressed application before the office of Tahasildar,

Bhupalapalli/PW.6 which contains the endorsement of Revenue

Inspector/PW4 as recorded by him. The attested copy of sale agreement under Ex.P2 discloses that the sale agreement is executed by

PW3/Maragoni Bapu infavour of PW1 however there is no signature on the part of PW3 on Ex.P2 sale agreement. There is no denial on the part of the

PW3/Maragoni Bapu before this Court that he had never executed Ex.P2 sale agreement infavour of the PW1 at any point of time and that no sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid to him basing on the Ex.P2 sale agreement.

75)PW3 before this Court has categorically deposed that he had executed the sale of agreement infavour of PW1 under Ex.P2 and PW1 had submitted an application under Ex.P1 before the office of the Tahasildar,

Bhupalapally/PW.6 and PW3 had accompanied PW1 to the office of

Tahasildar, Bhupalapally where the Tahasildar, Bhupalapally/PW6 had directed the PW1 to approach the Revenue Inspector/PW4 and the Village

Revenue Officer I.e accused for the purpose of mutation and for the report.

54 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

76) The Tahasildar, Bhupalapally/PW6 deposed categorically

before this Court that PW1 and PW.3 approached before him along with

the application under Ex.P1 for the purpose of effecting mutation in the name of the PW1 for which the PW3 had stated no objection upon the enquiry made by the Tahasildar/PW.6 and then the Tahasildar/PW.6 had directed the PW1 and 3 to approach the Revenue Inspector/PW.4 with a direction to approach Village Revenue Officer/accused for process of work of PW1 and that as on the date of trap there is no report received by PW6 from the accused on the application of PW1 under Ex.P1. The official favour documents underEXP.1,EXP.2, Ex.P5 and 9 with respect to the application under Ex.P1 was recovered from the possession of the accused at the instance of accused from the table drawer available in the kitchen cum bedroom as on the date of the trap along with tainted amount under

MO.1 and same was proved with the evidence of PW2.

77)As rightly argued by learned Spl.Public prosecutor, when PW1 approached PW.6 he called PW.4 and asked him to look after the application under EXP.1 for process of mutation of PW.1 and had also directed PW.1 and PW.3 to approach accused. Further, Exs.P1 contain the signatures of PW.3 as identified by PW4 and Ex.P.2 contains the name of

PW.3 under whose name, the stamp is purchased on 20-06-2008 under the document covered under Ex.P.2 which is not disputed and denied by the accused. All this would cumulatively show that accused was not 55 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 altogether a stranger to the process of mutation and for preparation of pattadar pass book and title deed rather he was a part of it. Hence, he cannot argue that no official favour was pending with him to demand bribe from PW1.

Recovery:

78)PW.1 deposed further that the transaction took place in a tin sheeted shed and accused had assured PW.1 that he will complete the work of PW1 as early as possible.

79)PW2/S. Surender is the mediator deposed that when Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had questioned the accused about the demand and acceptance of the tainted amount, the accused went into the kitchen cum bedroom and opened the table drawer and brought wad of currency notes and produced before the mediators and at the request of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 , the PW.2 and mediator have verified the denomination and currency note numbers of the amount with the denomination and currency note numbers mentioned in the mediator report-I and same found tallied and then the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar/PW7 had questioned the accused about the application under EXP.1 of PW.1 upon which accused again opened the table drawer and produced the application of PW.1 under 56 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

EXP.1 and on verification of the application under EXP.1, the mediators found one copy of sale deed , pattedar pass book and title deed, electricity bill enclosed to the application and thereafter, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had got prepared sodium carbonate solution into two separate glass tumblers and had asked the accused to dip his fingers of left and right hand into the said two glass tumblers separately and on doing so, the fingers of both left and right hands of accused turned into pink colour and then the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar transferred the resultant solutions into separate glass bottles having duly sealed, labeled and affixed with identity slips attested by mediators under Mo.5 and Mo.6. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had prepared rough sketch under Ex.P7 and the same was attested by the mediators and at 11.40 am, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had effected the arrest of accused and thereafter seized all the resultant solution after duly sealed, labeled and attested by the mediators under Mo.7 to Mo.9 under Ex.P8 mediator report-II.

80)The evidence of PW2 is with respect to the seizure of the documents under Ex.P1,2,5 and P9 and about the seizure of material objects Mo.1/tainted amount from the possession of the accused at the instance of the accused from table drawer of kitchen cum bedroom of 57 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 house of accused during course of post trap proceedings under Ex.P8.

There is no suggestion to PW2 mediator that Ex.P1,2,5 and P9 ,Mo.1 are not seized from the possession of the accused in presence of mediators and that the accused has not demanded and accepted the Mo.1 tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from the PW1 on the date of trap.

81)A suggestion was given to PW2 that the original owner under

Ex.P2 is Maragoni Narayana father of PW3 for which PW2 /mediator had expressed ignorance and stated that he had not deeply enquired with respect to the right, title and sale consideration in between PW1 and 3.

However, PW2 on perusal of Ex.P5 document had stated that the documents stands in the name of the Maragoni Narayana father of the

PW3 and had expressed ignorance regarding the agreement between

Maragoni Narayana and PW1 evenafter looking the document under Ex.P2.

82)There is no denial on the part of the accused by way of giving suggestion to PW2 about the recovery of tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from the possession of the accused at the instance of accused from table drawer of kitchen cum bed room in the house of the accused by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar in presence of mediators and the seizure of Ex.P1,2,5 and P9 documents during course of post trap proceedings under Ex.P8.

58 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

83)The entire suggestion given to PW2 by the learned counsel for the accused is only focusing on the defect in the application/EXP.1 of the

PW.1 with respect to document under Ex.P2 that PW.1 do not possess any valid title over of the documents under Ex.P.2 stating that no title passed infavour of the PW1 from the vendor Maragoni Bapu/PW3 since the

PW3/Maragoni Bapu is not the original owner and not entitled to sell the said land and that the father of the PW3/Maragoni Bapu is the original owner who is actually entitled to sale the said land and that there is no signature of Maragoni Bapu under EXP.2 hence the accused had refused for the mutation of the agricultural lands of the PW.1 and for issuance of

Pattadar pass book for want of registered document.

84)It is pertinent to note that the stamp under EXP.2 is purchased in the name of PW.3/Maragoni Bapu who had also given no objection to mutate the agricultural lands in favour of the PW.1 and to that PW.3 had also endorsed in writing on EXP.1 which is further corroborated by PW.6 and PW.4 who enquired with the PW.3/Maragoni Bapu about the sale of agricultural lands to PW.1 covered under EXP.2.

85)The point for determination before this Court is whether the official favour was pending with the accused in respect of the application of PW.1 under Ex.P.1 or not as on the date of trap from the date of demand and that the application under Ex.P.1 enclosed with Ex.P.2 was 59 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 pending with the accused or not as on date of trap from the date of the demand and whether the accused had made any demand of bribe under

M.O.1 for doing the said official favour in respect of application of PW1 basing on the document under Ex.P2 or not.

86)The evidence of PW2 in this regard clearly discloses that the documents under Ex.P1,2,5 and 9 were seized from the possession of the accused along with tainted amount under Mo.1 at the instance of the accused in the residence of the house of the accused which was available in the kitchen cum bed room in table drawer and the said fact was also not disputed and denied by the accused by way of giving suggestion to PW2 mediator.

87)There is also no suggestion given to PW2 that there was no demand and acceptance on the part of the accused with regard to the tainted amount from PW1 for doing any official favour and that no application under Ex.P1,2,5 and 9 were pending with the accused and were seized from the possession of the accused as on the date of the trap.

88)In Raghubir Singh vs State of Haryana1974(4) SCC 560, wherein it is held that the very fact of an Assistant Station Master being in possession of the marked currency notes against an allegation that he demanded and received that amount is "res ipsa loquitur." In this context 60 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 the decision of a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble supreme Court (R.S.

Sarkaria and O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.) in Hazari Lal vs Delhi Delhi

Administration 1980(2) SCC 390 can usefully be referred to. A police constable was convicted under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that he demanded and received Rs.

60/- from one Sriram who was examined as PW3 in that case. In the trial court PW3 resiled from his previous statement and was declared hostile by the prosecution. The official witnesses including PW-8 have spoken to the prosecution version. The court found that phenolphthalein smeared currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the police constable. A contention was raised in the said case that in absence of direct evidence to show that the police constable demanded or accepted bribery no presumption under section 4 of the Act of 1947 could be drawn merely on the strength of recovery of the marked currency notes from the said police constable. Wherein it is observed as follows :

89)"It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only inference that the money was obtained by the accused from PW1. Under section 114 of the Evidence Act the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct 61 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. One of the illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the court may presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the Thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. So too, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the court may presume that the accused who took out the currency notes from his table drawer available in his kitchen cum bedroom available in the house of the accused which he had had obtained them from PW1, who a few minutes earlier was shown to have been in possession of the notes. Once this court arrive at the finding that the accused had obtained the money from PW1, the presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is immediately attracted. The presumption is of course rebuttable but in the present case there is no material to rebut the presumption.

90)There has to be evidence adduced by the prosecution that bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as bribe. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act . The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. .

62 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

91)In the present case the factum of the demand and acceptance has been proved by the recovery of the tainted amount and the factum of there being a demand has also been stated. The essential ingredient of demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution based on the factum of the case. It has been corroborated by material witnesses

PW.2,PW,3 and PW.7 apart PW.1.

92)The offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act has been confirmed by the unchallenged recovery of the tainted amount.

Thus, it is obligation to raise the presumption mandated by section 20 of

Prevention of Corruption Act. It is for the accused to rebut the presumption, by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence, that the money recovered was not a reward or motive as mentioned under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Defence Theory:

93)Learned counsel for the accused has argued that accused had refused to mutate the property covered under Ex.P2 in favour of PW1 because PW1 was not having any registered document in respect of ownership of the said property and accused had informed the PW1 that unless the document under Ex.P2 is submitted for the registration, it cannot be mutated and had refused the papers offered by Pw.1 for issuing passbook infavour of PW1 which was admitted by PW1 in his cross 63 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 examination and the evidence of PW4 also discloses that sale deed is required to effect mutation and that as per the pattadar passbook submitted by PW1, the said land is in the name of father of PW3 and that father of PW3 only can sell away the land is also admitted by PW6 during his course of his cross examination that after 31.12.2012 basing on the registered sale deed, only the pattadar passbooks will be issued and that basing on Ex.P2 un-registered agreement, mutation cannot be effected and pattedar passbook will not be issued and the evidence of PW7/T.

Janardhan, Trap Laying officer, also discloses that as per the procedure without sale deed, the immovable property cannot be mutated in the revenue records in the name of parties concerned and that PW7 evidence also discloses that village revenue officer concerned has no power for issuance of pattader passbook and make entries in pahanies of current year and that he has not examined PW3 as well as father of PW.3 and that the evidence of PW2 who is mediator also discloses that as per the Ex.P1, the land to an extent of Ac.1-38 gts situated at Nagaram village of

Bhupalapalli mandal is in the name of Maragoni Narayana father of

Maragoni Bapu/PW.3 and that the admission made on the part of PW1 that

PW1 had no agreement with Maragoni Narayana and that Maragoni

Narayana is the original owner which clearly proves that due to the refusal made by the accused, PW1 had developed grudge against the accused and filed a false case against the accused as such, the question of accused 64 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 demanding and accepting the amount from PW1 for issuing passbook and for mutation infavour of PW1 is highly improbable and since the accused had refused the application of PW.1 for process of mutation and to issue pattadar passbook basing on un registered document under Ex.P2 the present case is filed against the accused.

94)The evidence of PW.6/Tahsildar clearly discloses that after forwarding the application of PW.1 under Ex.P.1 to accused from

PW.4/Assistant revenue Inspector, no enquiry report is submitted before

PW.7/Tahsildar till the date of trap. Therefore the act of refusal of accused to mutate the property covered under Ex.P2 in favour of PW1 because

PW1 was not having any registered document in respect of ownership of the said property covered under Ex.P.2 more particularly in absence of any enquiry report submitted by the accused to the Tahsildar/PW.6 upon the application of PW.1 under Ex.P.1 is on the other hand clearly disclosing that the there was the demand made by the accused for rupees 2000/- under MO.1 for doing official favour I.e for processing the application and preparing the pattedar pass books in respect of the agricultural land of the PW.1/Complainant which was pending with the accused since the date of demand till the date of the trap, basing on the document under Ex.P.2.

65 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

95)Learned counsel for the accused has further argued that the evidence of PW3 during the course of cross-examination that PW1 had brought pressure upon him to execute the registered sale deed without payment and got attacked him with Naxalites and that PW1 had also got registered SC and ST Act case against PW3 for not registering the land and the said case had ended in acquittal is falsified with copy of Judgment covered Ex.D1 is the CC of Judgment in SC No. 72/2007 on the file of Spl.

Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SC and ST Act, Karimnagar

dated 15.02.2008 which is much prior to the date of execution of

EXP.2/Attested copy of unregistered Agreement of sale dated 21-06-2008 and stamp under it was purchased on 20-06-2008 in the name of

PW.3/Maragoni Bapu which is not disputed by the defence and hence

EXD.1 is no way helpful to the case of defence to prove that PW.1 had filed this case due to grudge upon the accused when accused refused the process the application of PW.1.

96)It is pertinent to mention here that after the said judgment in

SC No. 72/2007 PW3 had executed sale agreement under Ex.P2 infavour of

PW1 on 21.06.2008 which clearly discloses that the document under Ex.P2 was executed by PW3 infavour of PW1 not by any kind of threat or pressure. There is no denial on the part of PW3 that he had not executed any document infavour of PW1 under Ex.P2 and had never approached along with PW1 to the office of Mandal Revenue officer, Bhupalapalli/PW6 66 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 for the purpose of effecting mutation in the name of PW1 and the issuance of pattedar passbook and title deeds.

97)Learned counsel for the accused has further argued that all the allegations leveled against the accused is false and that accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe amount from the complainant (Pw1) on 07-11-2008 and all the allegations are falsified by the prosecution witnesses and that to implicate the accused, the PW.1 had dropped the papers with money in the table drawer and came out and relayed the prearranged signal and thus accused is falsely implicated by

Pw1 on the basis of a false and motivated complaint.

98)The evidence of PW.1 discloses that the transaction took place in a tin sheeted shed on the date of trap on 07-11-2008 and on seeing the

PW.1, the accused had asked PW.1 to give the bribe of R.2,000/- and upon the demand, the PW.1 had handed over the amount to the accused who received with his right hand and counted with his both hands and went inside the house along with application and the amount and accused had assured PW.1 that he will complete the work of PW1 as early as possible and then PW1 came out of the house of accused and had given prearranged signal.

99)The evidence of PW.2 also discloses that when the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar had 67 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 questioned the accused about the tainted amount upon which the accused went inside the kitchen cum bed room and opened the table drawer and brought wad of currency notes and produced before them and then at the request of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar the mediators have verified the denomination and currency note numbers of the amount with the numbers already mentioned in

Ex.P6/Mediator report-I and on doing so both were tallied.

100) There is no denial on the part of the accused that the tainted amount under MO.1 was not recovered at the instance of the accused from the table drawer of kitchen cum bedroom of the accused and on the other hand a suggestion was given to the PW.1 that PW.1 had dropped the papers with money in the table drawer. If really the PW.1 had dropped the papers with money in the table drawer what made the accused not to resists the same more particularly when accused had got knowledge that

PW.1 is allegedly dropping the papers with the money.

101)The defence taken by the accused is highly improbable that

PW.1 had dropped the tainted amount covering with papers in the table drawer in the house of accused. It is not the case of the accused that PW.1 had forcibly gained entry into the house of the accused or trespassed into the house of the accused and had planted the tainted amount/MO.1 in the table drawer available in the kitchen cum bedroom of the house of the 68 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 accused during the absence of the accused in the kitchen cum bedroom of the accused.

102)It is also not the case of the accused that when PW.1 was allegedly dropping the papers concealing with tainted amount under MO.1 under it the accused had had made any resistance and inspite of the alleged resistance made by the accused, the PW.1 had forcibly dropped the papers concealed with tainted amount/MO.1 under it in the kitchen cum bedroom of house of the accused where no stranger had got access more particularly the PW.1. It is also not the case of the accused that PW.1 is familiar with the family and house of the accused and has got access in the house of the accused.

103)Thus it is proved that accused had received the tainted amount/MO.1 voluntarily with his right hand and counted with both hands and had kept in the table drawer available in kitchen cum bedroom of the accused where admittedly PW.1 had got no access. The Prosecution has further proved that official favour was pending with the accused by examining P.Ws.3, 4 and 7 and phenolphthalein test conducted on fingers of both hand of the accused under MO.5 and MO.6 and contacted portion of electricity bill/EXP.9 and contacted portion of application/EXP.1 of PW.1 under MO.7 and MO.8 of the accused yielded positive result.

69 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

104)The recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused is established by the prosecution through the testimony of

PW1/Complainant and PW2 who is mediator for receipt and recovery of tainted money from the accused. Besides this there is evidence of the trap laying officer (PW-7), the Mediator-11 under (Ex.P8). Except bald denial, no material evidence is placed to disprove the recovery. Therefore, from the material facts placed by the prosecution, this Court without any doubt hold that the demand and acceptance of money by the accused is proved. The accused has not come out with any explanation to rebut the presumption that the money he received from PW-1 is legal remuneration and not illegal gratification. Therefore, the presumption under section 20 of the Act works against him. This court having relied upon the portion of

PW-2 deposition which say, the accused was found shocked and was speechless on seeing the trap team, the trap laying officer/PW.7 got prepared sodium carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip his hands in to the glass tumblers separately and on doing so the fingers of both the hands of the accused yielded positive, the defence try to explain the presence of phenolphthalein in the hands of the accused and plead

Court should doubt the recovery. Even if this explanation may sound probable at first blush, it could at the most be restricted to the presence of phenolphthalein in the hands of the accused alone. This explanation does not hold good for the presence of the tainted currency in the table drawer 70 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 available in the kitchen cum bedroom or the presence of phenolphthalein in the application of PW.1 under EXP.1 and in the electricity bill under

EXP.9, which was seized and marked as M.O 7 and MO.8., where the accused had only got accessed and not any stranger more particularly the PW.1 and thus accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

105)In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused through valid and reliable evidence.

106)The prosecution through its witnesses had not only proved mere recovery of tainted money but had also proved that the money so recovered was received by the accused on demand for the purpose of effecting the mutation in the name of the PW.1/ the defacto complainant.

107)Thus, on a conspectus of entire evidence on record, it is clear that prosecution by cogent evidence established the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused and deserved itself to claim presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in its favour. On the other hand, accused failed to rebut the presumption by submitting a cogent explanation. Therefore, he is liable for the charges under sections 7, 13 (2 r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

71 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

108)Therefore this court from the foregoing discussion, on point

No.1 to 4 taking into consideration of reliable part of evidence of

Complainant/PW1, PW.3, official witnesses/PW2, PW4, PW.6, PW.8, Section

Officer/PW.5, and Investigation Officer/PW7 coupled with Ex.P1 to P15 and

MOs 1 to 8, hold that, the prosecution in this case, has proved the guilt against the accused for the offences u/s.7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt therefore, the accused is liable for conviction accordingly. Points No. 1to 4 are answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused .

POINT No .5:

109)In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III and after corrections pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of December, 2022.

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

72 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

QUESTION ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

1.Accused was questioned with regard to quantum of sentence (recorded in a separate sheet in verbatim). Accused/Sri. Jupaka Mogili stated that, he is aged about 57 years and in service. He has got wife and three children among them one daughter aged about 28 years and one son aged about 27 years and another son aged about 29 years and they are yet to be married and unemployed. He is living along with his wife and children in an owned house. He further stated that recently he has underwent operation for throat cancer since in the year 2021. Entire family is depending upon him and thereby, he requested the Court to take lenient view and release him at once without any punishment by admonishing him, but the offences proved against the accused are socio- economic offences, which are considered to be serious in nature, thereby minimum punishment and fine are provided by the Statute, hence there is no scope to take lenient view in these type of serious offences, and the provisions u/s. 360 of Cr.P.C and benevolent provisions under Probation of

Offenders Act, are also can not be extended in these type of cases.

2.Considering the circumstances under which the offence was committed, Accused/Sri Sri. Jupaka Mogili /Village Revenue officer is awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of

Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of 73 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, Accused/Sri. Jupaka Mogili shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accused/Sri.

Jupaka Mogili is further awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under

Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the Accused/Sri. Jupaka Mogili shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against

Accused shall run concurrently.

4.Remand period undergone by Accused, shall be set off u/s.428 Code of Criminal Procedure from 08.11.2008 to 17.11.2008.

5.Total fine amount payable by Accused is Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- =

Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only).

6.MO1 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- is ordered to be returned to

Complainant-PW1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects Mos 2 to 8 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

7.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 74 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015 convicted u/s. 248(2) Code of Criminal Procedure and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and shall pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- for the offence u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and Accused/Sri. Jupaka Mogili is further awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of

Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the Accused/Sri Jupaka Mogili shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

8.MO1 i.e., tainted amount of Rs.2000/- is ordered to be returned to

Complainant-PW1 if not reimbursed earlier by department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects Mos 2 to 8 shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

9.The Accused shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the Accused.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III and after corrections pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of December, 2022.

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.

75 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1Lingamalla Venkatrajam -None- P.W.2Sandineni Surender P.W.3Maragoni Bapu P.W.4Thota Suryanarayana P.W.5Rathod Guru Singh P.W.6N. Madhusudhan P.W.7T. Janardhan P.W.8P. Sambaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.115.09.2008Application for mutation Ex.P.221.06.2008Attested copy of sale agreement Ex.P.306.11.2008Complaint Ex.P.408.11.2008Photostat copy of complaint Ex.P.508.11.2008Photostat copy of title deed Ex.P.608.11.2008Mediator Report-I Ex.P.708.11.2008Rough Sketch Ex.P.808.11.2008Mediator Report-II Ex.P.9Electricity bills Ex.P.1007.11.2008Under section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.1112.10.2009Sanction proceedings GO.Ms.No.1058 Ex.P.1207.11.2008First Information Report Ex.P.1320.12.2008Covering letter from the office of District Collector, Warangal in the name of Dr. B. JanardhanReddy,IASin RC.No.A5/6271/2008 76 Of 76CC No. 26 of 2015

Ex.P14Service particulars of accused Ex.P15Job chart of accused

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D.115.02.2008Certified copy of Judgment in SC No. 72 of 2007

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1Tainted amount of Rs.2,000/-.

M.O.2Sealed cover containing sample phenolphthalein powder used in the pre- trap proceedings.

M.O.3One sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate powder used in the Pre-Trap Proceedings.

M.O.4One sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate powder used during Post Trap Proceedings.

M.O.5One sealed bottle containing right hand wash of accused.

M.O.6One sealed bottle containing left hand wash of accused.

M.O.7One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contacted portion of application of P.W.1.

M.O.8One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contacted portion of electricity bill.

Special Judge,

For Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar.