1
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE AND ACB CASES
cumADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.
Present: P.V.RAMBABU
Special Judge for SPE & ACB CasescumAddl.
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada
Thursday, this the 30 th day of January,2020
C.C.No.2 of 2010
BETWEEN:
The State: Anti Corruption Bureau Rep.by its District Inspector, Krishna District, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada. … Complainant
AND
SriMadirajuNageswaraRao, S/o.Hanumantha Rao, aged 52 years, AssistantSubInspectorof Police,Tulluru Police Station, Guntur District. … Accused Officer.
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 20.01.2020 in the presence of learned Special Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri M.S.Prasad, Advocate for the Accused Officer and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1) The Range InspectorIII, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada
Range, Vijayawada filed the charge sheet in Crime No.2/RCTACBVJA 2009 against the sole Accused Officer for the offence under Sec.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, with the following averments in brief are; 2
The Accused Officer worked as Assistant SubInspector of
Police, Tulluru Police Station, Guntur District from 28.07.2008 to 31.01.2009 and by virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of public servant as defined U/Sec.2(c) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘Act’)
On 29.2.2008 at about 10.00 A.M., the defactoComplainant by name Sri Nallamekala Koteswara Rao, S/o.Radha Krishna Murthy of
Bolusupadu Village of Pedakurapadu Mandal of Guntur District, came to the office of Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada and lodged a typed complaint in telugu, stating that his son by name
Venkateswara Rao, aged about 21 years, studying B.TechIII Year in
R.V.V.N.Degree college, Dharanikota of Guntur District met with an accident on 20.11.2018 and died by the side of road at Pedaparimi village and in that connection, the accused officer registered a case and conducted inquest and after completion of the post mortem, handed over the dead body of his son to him and since there is a life insurance in the name of his son, the defactocomplainant approached the accused officer who is the Assistant SubInspector of Tulluru Police station about two or three times and requested him to give copies of F.I.R., Inquest , Post
Mortem Report for the purpose of claiming insurance and on that the accused officer demanded Rs.2,000/ as bribe to give the said documents and since he was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he returned and again after two days, the defactoComplainant approached the S.I. of
Police, Tulluru police station and requested the copies and on that the 3
S.I. of Police directed the defactocomplainant to approach the Accused
Officer to get the documents, as the Accused Officer is the investigation officer of the said case and hence having no other alternative, the defacto
Complainant again approached the Accused Officer and the Accused
Officer reiterated his earlier demand and categorically stated that the copies will be given only if the defactoComplainant pay him the demanded bribe amount and if not, he will not give the copies to him.
The defactoComplainant expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/ and on his further requests, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,000/ and as there was no other alternative, the defactoComplainant reluctantly agreed to pay the said bribe amount and on that the Accused Officer informed him that he would inform the place on phone where he has to pay the bribe and gave his contact number as 9490604822 and directed the defactoComplainant to contact to the said number after arranging the bribe. Since the defacto
Complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the Accused
Officer, approached the ACB officials to take necessary action against the
Accused Officer and since the defactoComplainant is illiterate, unable to reveal the dates on which he approached the Accused Officer and S.I. of
Police, Tulluru Police station. The typed report of the defacto
Complainant was submitted on 29.1.2009 and after verifying the facts of the complaint as well as the antecedents of the Accused Officer, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range who was acting as Full Additional Charge of Vijayawada Range, registered 4 the crime on 31.01.2009 at 07.00 A.M., and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti
Corruption Bureau, secured the services of mediators, who are employees of commercial tax department and after observing necessary formalities organized the trap against the accused officer on 31.01.2009.
On 31.01.2009 i.e. on the date of trap at about 05.15 P.M., when the defactoComplainant met the accused officer infront of Ambica
Arya Vysya Mess, Amaravathi , the accused officer enquired him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,000/. On that the defactoComplainant took out the tainted amount from his left side upper shirt pocket and gave the same to the accused officer who accepted the same at 05.30 P.M., with his left hand and kept the same in his left side khaki pant pocket and handed over the attested copies of F.I.R., inquest report, Post Mortem Report in crime No.128/2008 of Tulluru Police station registered for the offence U/Sec.304(A) of IPC to the defacto
Complainant and on that the defactoComplainant came aside of the mess and gave prearranged signal. Phenolphthalein test conducted over the left hand fingers of the Accused Officer yielded positive result and the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/ was recovered from the left side pant pocket of the Accused Officer in the presence of mediators. The inner linings of the Khaki colour pant pocket of the Accused Officer when dipped into the Sodium Carbonate solution, yielded positive result.
Mediators report was got drafted by incorporating all the above aspects in
Ambica Arya Vysya Mess, Amaravathi from 5.30 P.M. Then, the Deputy 5
Superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, ACB, arrested the
Accused Officer on 31.01.2009 and produced him before the court on 01.02.2009 and was remanded to judicial custody and later was released on bail. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada recorded the statement of the defactoComplainant U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. Later, the District
Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Krishna District, Vijayawada took up further investigation in this case.
The facts and material gathered during the course of investigation reveal that the Accused Officer who worked as Assistant
SubInspector of Police, Tulluru Police station, Guntur District by abusing his official position demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1,000/ from the defactoComplainant, for doing official favour namely for giving attested copies of F.I.R. Inquest report, M.V.I. report and Post Mortem certificate connected to crime No.128/2008 of Tulluru police station,
Guntur District to the defactoComplainant and thus the Accused Officer committed the offence punishable U/Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Government of Andhra Pradesh being the competent authority to remove the Accused Officer from service has issued sanction orders vide G.O.Ms No.458 dated 11.11.2009 to prosecute the Accused Officer, and hence the charge sheet.
2)My learned predecessor in office took cognizance of the offence and registered the present case and after securing the presence of
Accused Officer who was on bail, furnished the copies of documents relied on by the prosecution to the Accused Officer and subsequently my 6 learned predecessor in office, on hearing the learned special public prosecutor representing the state and also the learned defence counsel representing the accused officer and on perusing the record framed charges on 16.8.2010 against the accused officer for the offence punishable under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988 and the said charges were read over and explained to the accused officer by translating in Telugu and on examination the
Accused Officer pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3)As per the record, the Accused Officer was arrested on 31.1.2009 and produced before this court on 1.2.2009 and was remanded to judicial custody on 1.2.2009 and later as per orders in
Crl.M.P.76/2009 dated 4.2.2009 was enlarged on ;bail and was released
from custody on 04.02.2009 itself and since then he is on bail and thus the Accused Officer was in judicial remand for a period of 3 days during the course of investigation.
4)Since the crime in this case was registered on 31.01.2009 and trap was also alleged to be on 31.01.2009, the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 which were in existence as on that date alone will apply, but not the amended provisions of the Act, as the amendments were brought to the Act in the year 2018 with effect from 26.07.2018.
5)Now, the points for consideration are:
(1) Whether there was any official favour pending with the
Accused Officerduring the relevant period pertaining to the defactoComplainant, as alleged by the prosecution?
7 (2) Whether the Accused Officer demanded illegal gratification/bribe, other than the legal remuneration from the defactoComplainant for doing official favour, as alleged by the prosecution?
(3) Whether the Accused Officer accepted the illegal gratification/ bribe, other than the legal remuneration from the defactoComplainant, for doing official favour, as alleged by the prosecution?
(4) Whether the prosecution able to prove and establish the guilt of accused officer for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?
(5) Whether the Accused officer being a public servant, committed acts of criminal misconduct, as alleged by the prosecution?
(6) Whether the prosecution able to prove and establish the guilt of accused officer for the offence punishable U/Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, beyond all reasonable doubt ?
6)In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.14 out of 15 witnesses cited, by giving up
L.W.11 one of the mediator and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and Ex.X1 and also marked the material objects as MO.1 to MO.8. From the witnesses of the prosecution, the defence marked Ex.D.1 to D.3.
8
7)P.W.1 is Mr. Nallamekala Koteswara Rao the defacto
Complainant in this case. P.W.2 is Mr. Sk.Nagul Meera, according to the prosecution, was a cook in Ambica Arya Vysya Mess, Vijayawada
Road, Amaravathi namely the alleged place of trap. P.W.3 is Mr.
Nadendla Sada Siva Rao , owner of Ambica Arya Vysya Mess,
Amaravathi. P.W.4 is Mr. Boyella Bala Subba Reddy and according to the prosecution worked as Headconstable in Tulluru Police station from 25.6.2008 to 3.3.2009. P.W.5 is Mr. Yadluri Bala Sowri and according to the prosecution was the Inspector of Police, Amaravathi
Circle for the period from 12.4.2007 to June,2009. P.W.6 is Mr.Gopala
Krishna Benarjee, SubDivisional Engineer (Public Relations), Office of
General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Vijaywada. P.W.7 is Mr.
Shaik Abdul Rehman and according to the prosecution was the S.I. of
Police, Tulluru police station from 18.09.2008 to 4.2.2009. P.W.8 is Mr.
Kadimella Brahmam Raju and according to the prosecution was the police constable of Tulluru police station during the period from 14.7.2004 to 09.12.2009. P.W.9 is Mr. D.Hari Krishna Chaitanya,
Alternative Nodal Officer of Tata Tele Services Limited, Vijayawada.
P.W.10 is Mr. Nandikattu Venkata Subba Rao who previously worked as
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada, DivisionII, Auto Nagar,
Vijayawada and is one of the mediator for the pre trap and post trap proceedings. P.W.11 is Mr.Gogineni Naga Babu, the Section Officer,
Home(S.C.A) Department, Secretariat, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Velagapudi. P.W.12 is Mr. G.S.N.Murthy who was the Deputy 9
Superintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru from 2007 to 2009 and was Full Additional charge to the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada for the period from 14.7.2008 to 8.3.2009 and is the officer who registered the
F.I.R., organized the trap and did part of investigation in this case.
P.W.13 is Mr.C.M.Gangaiah who was District Inspector, Anti
Corruption Bureau from 19.6.2005 to 07.07.2009 who did part of further investigation in this case. P.W.14 is Mr. T.Satyanarayana who was Inspector , Anti Corruption Bureau, RangeIII, Vijayawada from 09.1.2008 to 30.06.2011 and is another investigation officer and filed charge sheet in this case against the Accused Officer.
Ex.P.1 is telugu type written report of P.W.1 namely Mr.
Nalla Mekala Koteswara Rao, dated 29.1.2009, Ex.P.2 is Section 161
Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
P.W.2 . Ex.P.4 is section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4 is
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5 is the Photostat copy of extract of general diary of Tulluru police station of 30.01.2009 and 01.02.2009 consisting of three sheets. Ex.P.6 is the Photostat certified copy of duty roster of Tulluru police station for the month of
January,2009 containing two sheets. Ex.P.7 is letter dated 4.3.2009 along with call details of Mobile.No.9390406022 in two sheets signed and issued by SubDivisional Engineer (PR), Office of General Manager,
Telecom District, BSNL, Vijayawada addressed to District Inspector,
Krishna, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada.
10
Ex.P.8 is the letter dated 27.2.2009 addressed by Senior Manager,
Nodal officer, A.P.Circle of Tata Tele services Limited, to District
Inspector, Krishna, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada. Ex.P.9 is the statement showing the call details from 20.1.2009 to 11.2.2009 in four sheets for the Mobile No.9290463653. Ex.P.10 is the carbon copy of
F.I.R. in Cr.No.02 dated 31.01.2009 of Anti Corruption Bureau,
Vijayawada Range. Ex.P.11 is the Mediators ReportI dated 31.01.2009 drafted at the office of the DSP, ACB, Vijayawada(Pretrap mediators report). Ex.P.l2 is the made up file containing attested copies of F.I.R.,
Inquest report, Accident Report of Motor Vehicles Inspector and Post
Mortem certificate duly attested by Station House Officer, Tulluru Police
Station, containing 5 sheets. Ex.P.13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.14 is the Mediators ReportII drafted at Ambica Arya
Vysya Mess, Amaravathi, dated 31.01.2009(Post trap mediators report).
Ex.P.15 is G.O.Ms.No.458 Home(SC.A) department dated 11.11.2009 of
Government of Andhra Pradesh with original signature of Mr.
P.Gowtham Kumar as Principal Secretary to Government, Home
Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Ex.P.16 is the original printed F.I.R. in Crime No.2 dated 31.1.2009 of Anti Corruption
Bureau, Vijayawada Range submitted to Court. Ex.P.17 is the search proceedings U/Sec.165 Cr.P.C. of P.W.12 the investigation officer served on the Accused Officer with endorsement of Accused Officer. Ex.P.18 search list in pursuance of Ex.P.17 dated 31.1.2009.
11
Ex.D.1 is the relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
P.W.7. Ex.D.2 is the relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
P.W.7. Ex.D.3 is the relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
P.W.7.
Ex.X.1 is the authorization proceedings in memo No.199 SC.A/A.3
dated 09.05.2018 issued by Special Secretary to Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Home(S.C.A) department in favour of P.W.11.
MO.1 is sealed cover containing the sample of Phenolphthalein powder used during pretrap proceedings. MO.2 is sealed cover containing the sample of Phenolphthalein powder used during pretrap proceedings. MO.3 is the sealed bottle containing resultant colourless solution in respect of the right hand of the Accused Officer. MO.4 is sealed bottle containing the resultant Sodium Carbonate solution in respect of left hand of Accused Officer. MO.5 is sealed bottle containing the resultant Sodium Carbonate solutio in respect of inner linings of left side pant pocket of Accused Officer. MO.6 is Khaki colour pant of the Accused Officer. MO.7 is the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/ consisting of One five hundred rupee currency note and five One hundred rupee currency notes. MO.8 is sealed cover containing the left over sample of Sodium Carbonate powder used during post trap proceedings.
8)After completion of the evidence of prosecution, the accused officer was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by putting him the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution and in substance the 12
Accused Officer denied the same and also submitted his written statement.
9)When Accused Officer was called upon to enter into defence, he reported no evidence on his behalf and consequently evidence on behalf of Accused Officer was closed.
10)Heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor and also the learned defence counsel. Perused the record. With the available material on record, now I am proceeding to answer the points for consideration as follows;
11)It is the case of the prosecution that the son of P.W.1 died in an accident and in connection with the death of his son, a crime was registered in Tulluru police station namely Crime No.128 of 2008 dated 21.11.2008 for the offence U/Sec.304A of IPC and the accused officer herein being the investigation officer in that case, who after registering the F.I.R.., conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased son of
P.W.1 and got conducted post mortem over the dead body and also obtained accident report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector; and P.W.1 in order to make insurance claim, approached the Accused Officer on two or three times with a request to furnish him the copies of F.I.R., inquest report, accident report of M.V.I., Post mortem report etc., and on that the
Accused Officer used to drag the matter on one pretest or the other and even when P.W.1 approached the S.I. of police, Tulluru police station, he advised P.W.1 to approach the Accused Officer as he was looking the case of his son and having no other go, P.W.1 approached the Accused 13
Officer again with a request to furnish copies of documents and for which the Accused Officer demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/ for furnishing the copies and P.W.1 pleaded his inability and requested the Accused
Officer and on which the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount to
Rs.1,000/ and categorically stated to P.W.1 that unless he pay the said bribe amount, he will not furnish the copies of case documents and instructed P.W.1 to call to his mobile phone after making arrangement of the bribe amount and having no other go, P.W.1 returned agreeing to pay the bribe as demanded by the Accused Officer and since not interested to pay the bribe as demanded by the Accused Officer approached the ACB officials and submitted Ex.P.1 report which was registered as a case in
Crime No.2/2009 on 31.01.2009 and took up investigation and organized a succesful trap on the same day i.e. on 31.01.2009 as the Accused
Officer allegedly further demanded and accepted the bribe amount of
Rs.1,000/ from P.W.1 and handed over the attested copies of case documents pertaining to his son etc.,
The defence of the accused officer is that he never demanded any bribe from P.W.1 for furnishing copies of case documents pertaining to his son and in fact, after registering the crime U/Sec.304A of IPC on the death of PW 1’s son , P.W.1 approached him and demanded him to register a case for the offence of murder as his son was murdered and death of his son is not an accident and on which he stated to PW.1 that nothing is in his hands and advised him to approach the higher officials and on that P.W.1 developed grouse against him and when he handed 14 over the attested copies of case documents pertaining to his son, P.W.1 offered him some money which he refused to receive, but P.W.1 forcibly stuffed cash in his left side pant pocket and except that he did nothing and he never demanded P.W.1 to pay any bribe and he never received or accepted any bribe and he is an innocent and was falsely implicated in this case.With the above versions of prosecution and defence in nutshell, now I proceed to discuss and decide the points for consideration.
12)POINTS No.1 :
Whether there was any official favour pending with the
Accused Officer during the relevant period to demand the bribe from the defactoComplainant, as alleged by the prosecution?
According to the prosecution, the Accused Officer demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.1,000/ from P.W.1 towards illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing official favour namely for furnishing copies of case papers in Cr.No.128/2008 of Tulluru
Police Station namely F.I.R., inquest report, Post Mortem report, accident report of Motor Vehicle Inspector etc., to PW 1.
13)It is an admitted fact and also as can be seen from Ex.P.12 made up file and documents therein, Cr.No.128/2008 of Tulluru Police station was registered on 21.11.2008 for the offence U/Sec.304A of IPC in connection with death of son of P.W.1. It is also not in dispute that 15 subsequent to the registration of the above crime No.128/2008, P.W.1 being the father of the deceased approached the accused officer with a request to furnish copies of the said case papers enable him to claim insurance on the death of his son and P.W.7 the then S.I. of Police,
Tulluru Police station also in his evidence stated that P.W.1 even approached him and he directed him to approach Accused Officer as the
Accused Officer is looking after the investigation of Cr.No.128/2008.
14)So far the official favour pending during the relevant period as stated supra is concerned, it is not denied by the Accused Officer. It is also clear from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.7, the then S.I. of Police,
Tulluru Police Station and also from Ex.P.12 made up file, which was handed over by Accused Officer to P.W.1 on 31.01.2009 at the scene of offence. Admittedly, the copies of documents in Ex.P.12 made up file are
Photo stat copies of F.I.R. in Cr.No.128/2008 of Tulluru police station,
Accident Report of Motor Vehicle Inspector dated 26.11.2008, Post
Mortem report in Crime No.128/2008 of Tulluru police station and were duly attested by the accused officer in the capacity as Station House
Officer, Tulluru police station. As already stated, the Accused officer is not disputing about handing over the above said documents to P.W.1 at the scene of offence namely at and infront of Ambica Arya Vysya Mess,
Amaravathi. In the circumstances, the court can safely come to conclusion that the official favour pertaining to P.W.1 was pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of trap. Accordingly, this point is held in favour of prosecution.
16
15) POINTS 2and 3 :
(2) Whether the Accused Officer demanded illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration from the defacto
Complainant for doing official favour, as alleged by the prosecution?
(3) Whether the Accused Officer accepted illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration from the defacto
Complainant for doing official favour, as alleged by the prosecution?
The burden is on the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of gratification by the Accused Officer in order to bring home the charge U/Sec.7 of the Act.
16)The learned defence counsel relied on a decision of our
Hon’ble High Court in between “Sudershan Pareek V/s. State of Andhra
Pradesh, reported in 2008(2) A.L.D.(Crl.) 840 A.P.” wherein it was held that heavy duty cast upon the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance and in case either of the two not established, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence.
Though it was mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint of P.W.1 that the Accused Officer demanded money, but the same is not proved, as
P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution so far this aspect is concerned and at the same time also did not admit the contents of Ex.P.1 complaint. P.W.1 gave different versions at different stages. During his chief examination, he deposed that on his narration/dictation, one 17 constable drafted the complaint in Anti Corruption Bureau Office,
Vijayawada and later he got it typed and then submitted. When it comes to crossexamination done by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer,
P.W.1 stated that he do not know the contents of Ex.P.1, as he do not know reading and writing telugu except knowing to subscribe his signature in telugu. P.W.12, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada who registered the above said Ex.P.1 as F.I.R. in this case, also admit that P.W.1 do not know reading and writing telugu. The alleged constable who scribed the draft was not examined.
17)The learned Special Public Prosecutor in her arguments submit that though PW 1 is pleading ignorance as to contents of Ex.P 1 on the ground that he is an illiterate; P.W.10 and another mediator on the instructions of P.W.12 during pre trap proceedings read over the contents of Ex.P.1 to P.W.1 and P.W.1 admit the said contents of the said report and in token thereof, they attested the copy of F.I.R. under Ex.P.10 and the same was also spoken by PW 10, and as such PW 1 can not plead ignorance of contents of Ex.P 1. But the evidence of P.W.1 is otherwise and in particular to the effect that it is not the evidence of
P.W.1 that the contents of Ex.P.1 were read over to him either by P.W.10 or another mediator. It is also not suggested to P.W.1 even during cross examination by learned public prosecutor after P.W.1 was declared as hostile that the contents of Ex.P.1 were read over to him by P.W10 and another and he admitted the contents of the same, except marking Ex.P.2 18
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement whose contents were denied by P.W.1 when suggested to him. Even Ex.P.10 copy of F.I.R. did not contain any endorsement of P.W.10 and another mediator to the effect that they read over the contents of the F.I.R. to P.W.1 and he admitted the same. P.W.1 in his evidence in chiefexamination itself stated that he requested the
Accused Officer for case papers and he was dragging on the matter and when he enquired the known person, they suggested to him that the
Accused Officer may be expecting some money and advised him to approach the Anti Corruption Bureau officials and accordingly, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau Office at Vijayawada and informed the same with a request to arrange the case papers. During crossexamination done by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer,
P.W.1 admitted that he did not state to the constable who drafted the report that the Accused Officer demanded money of Rs.2,000/ and that on his request he reduced the same to Rs.1,000/. To another specific question, P.W.1 himself categorically stated by way of admission that the
Accused Officer never demanded any bribe to furnish copies of case papers and categorically stated that the Accused Officer has not demanded nor received any bribe from him.
18) Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is absolutely no evidence that was adduced by the prosecution to prove the demand either prior to the trap or at the time of trap. Only witness examined by the prosecution is
P.W.1 who did not support the case of the prosecution on this crucial aspect.
19
19)At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 who according to the prosecution are the eye witnesses for the demand and acceptance of bribe by the Accused Officer from PW 1 at the scene of offence namely at and in front of Ambica Arya Vysya Mess,
Amaravathi.
20)P.W.2 was the cook of Ambica Arya Vysya Mess, Amaravathi and he in his evidence in chiefexamination stated that about 9 years back at about 05.30 P.M., he approached his owner (PW 3) at the counter to take menu for preparation of night dinner and at that time when he looked towards outside he found the Accused Officer in uniform and the
Accused Officer handed over some papers to another person and the said person offered to give money to the Accused Officer, but the Accused
Officer refused to receive the same and inspite of it, the said person forcibly thrust the amount in the left side pant pocket of the Accused
Officer.
21)P.W.3 is the owner of the said Ambica Arya Vysya Mess,
Amaravathi and he too deposed similarly as deposed by P.W.2 his cook, so far demand and acceptance of money by the Accused Officer is concerned. P.W.3 in his crossexamination stated that the Accused
Officer handed over some papers to a person and that person offered some money, but the Accused Officer refused to receive the same and pushed it with his left hand and on that the said person thrust the said amount in the left side pant pocket of Accused Officer. Both P.W.2 and 3 were examined by the prosecution by citing them as eye witnesses for 20 the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Accused Officer from P.W.1. Both these witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and in one voice stated that the Accused Officer handed over papers to a person, but did not demand any money from that person and it was the said person who forcibly thrust the amount inspite of resistance made by the Accused Officer.
22)The evidence of P.W.1, so far demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Accused Officer is concerned, is totally corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are direct witnesses, to the effect that the Accused Officer did not make any demand and did not accept any money from P.W.1 at the time of alleged trap.
23)The evidence of P.W.1 to 3, P.W.10 one of the mediator to the
Pre and Post trap, P.W.12 the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti
Corruption Bureau, who registered the F.I.R. and organized the trap, do clearly reveal that the scene of offence alleged was outside the mess of
P.W.3 and in particular infront of the said Mess in Amaravathi. According to P.W.10 one of the mediators to the pretrap and post trap proceedings and P.W.12 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau who organized the trap, in their evidence categorically stated that, further demand and acceptance of bribe by Accused Officer from P.W.1 was occurred in the open place to the visibility of everybody. Surprisingly, any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not speak that they witnessed when the Accused Officer demanding P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount and P.W.1 paying the amount and the Accused Officer 21 receiving/accepting the said amount including P.W.10 one of the mediator or P.W.12 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau who organized the trap or P.W.13 the Inspector of Police, Anti
Corruption Bureau, who assisted P.W.12 in pretrap and post trap proceedings and members of trap party.
24)If the Accused Officer really demanded money as alleged by the prosecution and if P.W.1 really paid the tainted amount to the
Accused Officer and if the Accused Officer really accepted the said tainted amount infront of the mess , the same should have witnessed by all the members of the trap party, as the same was visible from the place where the members of the trap party took vantage positions waiting for the signal of P.W.1 and observing the moments of P.W.1 and Accused Officer.
But none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, as stated supra, stated that they saw while the Accused Officer demanding and accepting money from P.W.1. Further,P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are direct witnesses, as already discussed, did not support the case of the prosecution on this aspect.
25)The learned special public prosecutor in her arguments drawn the attention of this court that P.W.1 gave statement before the
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. which is part of
record wherein P.W.1 categorically stated that the Accused Officer demanded money for furnishing copies of case documents and on that he gave report to the Anti Corruption Bureau and trap was organized even during trap, the Accused Officer further demanded and accepted bribe 22 from him etc., and hence submit that basing on the said Section 164
Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 the Court can safely come to conclusion that the Accused Officer demanded and accepted money from P.W.1 and the said money was other than legal remuneration, that too for doing official favour to P.W.1, though P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution while giving evidence before this court on this aspect of demand and acceptance. The above submission of public prosecutor is not tenable as
P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that he stated before the Magistrate as instructed by Anti Corruption Bureau on the fond hope that he will get copies of documents and further stated that the version in Sec.164
Cr.P.C., statement was as instructed by Anti Corruption Bureau, but not his version and thus took ‘U’ turn
26)There is no positive evidence adduced by the prosecution to suspect the above version of P.W.1 during trial in this regard. Evidence on record in particular P.W.2 and P.W.3 who categorically deposed in their evidence that they found the Accused Officer handing over some papers to P.W.1 and the Accused Officer did not demand any money and it was P.W.1 who thrust the money in the pant pocket of the Accused Officer inspite of resistance by Accused Officer, force the court to believe the version of
P.W.1 as spoken by him while giving evidence.
27)Further, as per the evidence of our Hon’ble High Court between “ Javvadi Sesha Rao V/s.State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1994(2) A.L.T.(Crl.) 624(A.P.)” statement recorded U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C.
cannot be used as substantive evidence. Conviction cannot be based on 23 such statement of witness when he resiled from it in his evidence in
Court. For their proposition, our High Court relied on the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in between “Dhanabal V/s.State of Tamilnadu,
reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 628”. Hence, the submission of learned special public prosecutor in this regard is not tenable.
28)Evidence of P.W.2 and 3 is very natural and their presence at and near the scene of offence cannot be said to be un natural, as the scene of offence was infront of the mess belong to P.W.3, in which P.W.2 was the cook.
29)The learned defence counsel submitted that mere having in possession of tainted amount itself is not sufficient to prove demand and acceptance and for the said preposition, relied on the decisions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in between “B. Jayaraj V/s. State of Andhra
Pradesh” reported in 2013 (2) A.L.D. (Crl.) 73 (S.C.) and another decision in between ‘Banarsi Dass V/s.State of Haryana, reported in 2010 Crl.L.J.
2419 (S.C.).”
30)Whereas the learned special public prosecutor in her arguments submit that in view of the presumption U/Sec.20 of the Act, the court shall presume unless the contrary is proved that the Accused Officer accepted money as a motive or reward for performing or to cause performance of the public duty and since the tainted amount was found in possession of the Accused Officer, the court has to draw presumption that the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the amount and in support of her above submission, relied on the decisions of Hon’ble 24
Supreme Court (Judgment of Hon’ble five judges of Supreme Court) in between, “ C.I.Emden V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1960(S.C.)548” and another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Bench consisting three Hon’ble judges in between “M.Narasinga Rao V/s. State of
Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2001(1) A.L.D. (Crl.) 407 (S.C.)”.
31)In order to attack the above submission of special public prosecutor, the learned defence counsel relied on the decision of our
Hon’ble High Court in between “ Nutalapati Singhaiah V/s.State of
Andhra Pradesh” reported in 2001(1) A.L.D. 830 (A.P.)” wherein while dealing with Section 20 of the Act in a case, when the prosecution failed to prove the demand and when P.W.1 the defactoComplainant turned hostile towards the prosecution and so also the alleged other eye witnesses and when P.W.1 the defactoComplainant stated that the
Accused Officer did not take the amount given by him and pushed it with his both hands and then he kept the amount in the drawer of table of
Accused Officer and relayed signals; and in those circumstances, it was held that the prosecution having failed to prove demand allegedly made by the accused from PW 1, merely considering fact that chemical test proved positive, trial court could not have invoked presumption adumberated under Sec.20 of Act for arriving at guilt of accused.
32)In order to draw the presumption as envisaged under Sec.20 of the Act, the prosecution shall prove that the Accused Officer accepted or received the amount, which was not proved in this case. Even in
Narasinga Rao’s case, relied by prosecution, the gratification was found 25 accepted by the Accused and hence, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that legal presumption can be drawn that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing public duty. In the said Narasinga Rao’s case, the Accused Officer was caught red handed with the tainted money and the Accused Officer did not demur to the investigation Officer or to mediators that those currency notes were not received by him. In fact the story that such currency notes were stuffed into his pocket was concocted by the Accused Officer only after lapse of a period of 4 years and that too when Accused Officer faced the trial in the court. Hence the
Hon’ble SC drawn the presumption that Accused Officer received or
accepted the tainted amount.
33)Whereas in the present case on hand, since beginning i.e. soon after the incident of trap, it was the version of the Accused Officer that the tainted amount was stuffed into his pant pocket forcibly by P.W.1 and the said version of Accused Officer herein also find place in Ex.P.14 post trap mediators report and the said version of the Accused Officer was also supported by P.W.1 to P.W.3. So herein in the present case on hand, the prosecution neither proved nor established that the Accused
Officer received or accepted the bribe amount from P.W.1 and hence, the presumption under Sec.20 of the Act is not available to the prosecution.
34)Coming to Emden’s case is concerned, the said judgment was under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, what prosecution has to prove before
asking the court to raise a presumption under Sec.4 of the Act namely to 26 the effect that the Accused person has received gratification other than the legal remuneration.
35)In the above case, the Accused officer admitted that he received Rs.375/ from the defactoComplainant and that on his request the defactoComplainant had advanced the said amount to him by way of loan for meeting the expenses of clothing of his children who were studying in school. Since the Accused therein admitted that he received the amount from the defactoComplainant, it was held that he received the amount as gratification other than the legal remuneration by invoking the presumption.
36)Here, in the present case on hand, the Accused Officer is not admitting that he received or accepted the amount from P.W.1 and since beginning, it is the defence of the Accused Officer that PW.1 thrust the tainted amount in his pant pocket inspite of his protest and resistance and inspite of his thwarting P.W.1 with his left hand. As already stated supra, the above version of Accused officer is supported by P.W.1 to
P.W.3 and also find place in Ex.P.14 post trap mediators report. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the Accused Officer received or accepted the tainted amount, the presumption under Sec.20 of the Act cannot be drawn against the Accused Officer.
37)The facts of the present case on hand, to some extent similar with the facts of the case of Nutalapati Singaiah relied by the learned defence counsel. No doubt the chemical test conducted on the left hand fingers of Accused Officer resulted positive and so also the inner linings 27 of left side pant pocket of Accused Officer and that itself is not sufficient to come to conclusion that Accused Officer demanded and accepted the tainted amount from P.W.1. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of our Hon’ble High Court relied by the learned defence counsel in between “G.Vishnuvardhan V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2003(1) A.L.D. (Crl.) 607 (A.P.)”, wherein it was held that even where a successful trap is laid, the court has to see whether there are circumstances which can explain the possibility of Accused Officer coming into contact with the phenolphthalein powder otherwise than through acceptance of legal remuneration.
38)As already discussed, P.W.1 stuffed the tainted amount in the pant pocket of Accused Officer inspite of resistance made by the Accused
Officer and the Accused Officer thwarted the attempts of P.W.1 with his left hand and inspite of it P.W.1 forcibly stuffed the tainted money in the left side pant pocket of Accused Officer and is the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.3. The same is the explanation of Accused Officer soon after the result of chemical test and the said version of Accused Officer was also incorporated in Ex.P.14 post trap mediators report. In those circumstances, in the process of resistance and thwarting the attempts of
P.W.1 when P.W.1 is stuffing the tainted currency notes in the pant pocket of Accused Officer, it is quite natural that the left hand fingers of
Accused Officer and the inner linings of the left side pant pocket of
Accused Officer coming into contact of phenolphthalein powder, resulting positive in the chemical test.
28
39)So in the above circumstances, mere positive result in the chemical test alone cannot be taken into consideration to come to conclusion that the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the illegal remuneration from P.W.1. The spontaneous explanation of the Accused
Officer at the trap in the circumstances is quite natural and appears to be true, that too in the absence of any positive evidence from the prosecution.
40)The evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.9 and Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 call data did not improve the case of prosecution. In fact, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 call data particulars are hit by Section 65B of Evidence Act, as there is no certification as required under Sec.65 B was attached to Ex.P.7 and
Ex.P.9. Our Hon’ble High Court in a recent decision in between, “V.Jayalatha V/s. State, reported in 2019(2) A.L.D. (Crl.) 650(A.P.)”, held that the call details furnished before the court shall accompany certificate in terms of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, obtained at the time of furnishing documents and without the said certificate, the statement of call data is inadmissible. Our Hon’ble High Court in the said decision relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in between “Anwar P.V. V/s. P.K.Basheer and others”.
41)So, taking into consideration of all the above aspects as discussed, in particular the evidence of P.W.2 and 3, in the circumstances it is clear that the Accused Officer did not demand and accept any money from P.W.1 and it was P.W.1 after receiving the documents under Ex.P.12 made up file from the Accused Officer offered 29 money to Accused Officer and the Accused Officer refused to receive the same and inspite of it, P.W.1 forcibly thrust the money in the pant pocket of Accused Officer and the attempts of Accused Officer to thwart P.W.1 from stuffing the currency notes in his pant pocket became futile and
P.W.1 also categorically stated that the Accused Officer never demanded any money from him as bribe or illegal gratification for furnishing copies of documents pertaining to Crime No.128/2008 of Tulluru police station and that he forcibly put the amount in the pant pocket of Accused Officer after receiving the copies of documents, him makes the court to come to a clear conclusion that prosecution failed to prove that the Accused
Officer demanded and accepted any money much less MO.7 tainted amount from P.W.1 as illegal gratification. Thus, the points 2 and 3 are held against to the prosecution.
42) POINT No.4:
Whether the prosecution able to prove and establish the guilt of accused officer for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?
In view of my findings and observations to points 1 to 3 for consideration, in particular findings to point 2 and 3 for consideration, wherein it was held that the prosecution failed to prove and establish that the Accused Officer demanded and accepted money other than the legal remuneration from P.W.1, for doing official favour namely for furnishing copies of documents in Cr.No.128/2008 of Tulluru police station to P.W.1, and consequently, the charge under Sec.7 of the Act 30 fails, as in order to bring home a charge under Sec.7 of the Act, the prosecution not only has to prove that an official favour pertaining to the defactoComplainant was pending with the Accused Officer during the relevant period and for doing the said official favour, the Accused Officer demanded and accepted gratification other than the legal remuneration from the defactoComplainant, and the same is not proved in this case and hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove and establish the guilt of the Accused Officer for the offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act and accordingly, this point is held against to the prosecution.
43) POINT No.5 and 6:
(5) Whether the Accused officer being a public servant, committed acts of criminal mis conduct, as alleged by the prosecution?
(6) Whether the prosecution able to prove and establish the guilt of accused officer for the offence punishable under Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, beyond all reasonable doubt ?
In view of my findings to point No. 2 to 4 in particular to point No.4 for consideration, when the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused officer for the offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Act, the question of appreciating any criminal misconduct on the part of accused officer does not arise. The charge against the Accused Officer is under
Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of the Act.
31
Section 13(1) (d) of the Act says that a public servant is said to have committed the offence of criminal mis conduct, if he; ( i ) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) While holding an office as a public servant, obtains any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
44) When once it was held as per the findings to point No. 2 to 4 for consideration that the Accused Officer did not commit the offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Act, the question of any criminal misconduct on the part of Accused Officer does not arise. Hence, both these points 5 and 6 are held against to the prosecution.
45)CONCLUSION AND FINDING:
In view of my findings and observations to point No.1 to 6 for consideration, the Accused Officer is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.7 and Section 13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, the Accused Officer is acquitted for the above said offences as per section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to subsist for a period of 6 (six) months from this date as per section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
32
Coming to the order as to the disposal of the case property is concerned :
(i) MO.7 being the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/(rupees One thousand only) is hereby ordered to be returned to P.W.1, the defactoComplainant after the expiry of appeal time, if the ACB did not reimburse the said amount to him and in case the ACB reimbursed the said amount to
P.W.1, the above amount of Rs.1,000/ be returned to the ACB.
(ii) MO.1 to 6 and MO.8 being nonvaluable properties are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
(iii) The unmarked nonvaluable properties if any is hereby ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time;
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30 th day of January,2020.
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Casescum
Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Vijayawada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE/ACCUSED:
1) P.W.1 Mr. Nallamekala Koteswara Rao None
2) P.W.2 Mr. Sk.Nagul Meera.
3) P.W.3 Mr. N.Sada Siva Rao
4) P.W.4 Mr. Boyella Bala Subba Reddy
5) P.W.5 Mr. Y.Bala Souri
6) P.W.6 Mr.Gopala Krishna Benarjee,
7) P.W.7 Mr. Shaik Abdul Rehman
8) P.W.8 Mr. K.B.Raja.
33
9) P.W.9 Mr. D.Hari Krishna Chaitanya 10)P.W.10 Mr. Nandi Kattu Venkata Subba Rao 11)P.W.11 Mr.G.Naga Babu, 12)P.W.12 Mr. G.S.N.Murthy.
13)P.W.13 Mr.C.M.Gangaiah
14) P.W.14 Mr. T.Satyanarayana
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
1) Ex.P.1 is telugu typed report of P.W.1 namely Mr. Nalla Mekala
Koteswara Rao, dated 29.1.2009,
2) Ex.P.2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.
3) Ex.P.3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2
4) Ex.P.4 is section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3
5) Ex.P.5 is the Photostat copy of extract of general diary of Tulluru police station of 30.1.2009 and 1.2.2009 consisting of three sheets.
6) Ex.P.6 is the Photostat certified copy of duty roster of Tulluru police station for the month of January,2009 containing two sheets.
7) Ex.P.7 is letter dated 4.3.2009 along with call details of
Mobile.No.9390406022 in two sheets signed and issued by Sub
Divisional Engineer (PR), Office of General Manager, Telecom District,
BSNL, Vijayawada addressed to District Inspector, Krishna, Anti
Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada.
8) Ex.P.8 is the letter dated 27.2.2009 addressed by Senior Manager,
Nodal officer, A.P. Circle of Tata Tele services Limited to District
Inspector, Krishna, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada.
34
9) Ex.P.9 is the statement showing the call details from 20.1.2009 to 11.2.2009 in four sheets for the Mobile No.9290463653.
10) Ex.P.10 is the carbon copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.02 dated 31.01.2009 of
Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range.
11) Ex.P.11 is the Mediators ReportI dated 31.1.2009 drafted at the office of the DSP, ACB, Vijayawada (Pretrap mediators report).
12) Ex.P.l2 is the made up file containing attested copies of F.I.R.,
Inquest report, Accident Report of Motor Vehicles Inspector and Post
Mortem certificate duly attested by Station House Officer, Tulluru Police
Station, containing 5 sheets.
13) Ex.P.13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.
14) Ex.P.14 is the Mediators ReportII drafted at Amaravathi Arya Vysya
Mess, Amaravathi, dated 31.1.2009 (Post mediators report).
15) Ex.P.15 is the G.O.Ms.No.458 Home(SC.A) department dated 11.11.2009 of Government of Andhra Pradesh with the original signature of Mr. P.Gowtham Kumar, as Principal Secretary to
Government, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
16) Ex.P.16 is the original printed F.I.R. in Crime No.2 of 2010 dated 31.1.2009 of Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, submitted to
Court.
17) Ex.P.17 is the search proceedings U/Sec.165 Cr.P.C. of P.W.12 investigation officer, served on the Accused Officer with an endorsement of Accused Officer.
18) Ex.P.18 search list in pursuance of Ex.P.17 dated 31.1.2009.
35
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:
1) Ex.D.1 is the relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
P.W.7.
2) Ex.D.2 is the relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
P.W.7.
3) Ex.D.3 is the relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
P.W.7.
III PARTY DOCUMENT:
Ex.X.1 Authorization proceedings in memo No.199 SC.A/A.3 dated 09.05.2018 issued by Special Secretary to Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Home(S.C.A) department in favour of P.W.11.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
1) MO.1 is the Sealed cover containing the sample of Phenolphthalein powder used during pretrap proceedings.
2) MO.2 is the Sealed cover containing the sample of Phenolphthalein powder used during pretrap proceedings.
3) MO.3 is the sealed bottle containing resultant colorless solution in respect of the right hand of the Accused Officer.
4) MO.4 is sealed bottle containing the resultant Sodium Carbonate solution in respect of left hand of Accused Officer.
5) MO.5 is the sealed bottle containing the resultant S.C.Solution in respect of inner linings of left side pant of Accused Officer.
6) MO.6 is Khaki colour pant of the Accused Officer.
36
7) MO.7 is the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/ consisting of One five hundred rupee currency note and five One hundred rupee currency notes.
8) MO.8 is sealed cover containing the left over samples of Sodium
Carbonate powder used during post trap proceedings.
Special Judge For SPE & ACB Cases
cumAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
37
Tabular form to be appended to the Judgment as per Rule 67 of Crl.R.P.
Calendar Case No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cumAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
1.Sessions Case No.:C.C. No.2 of 2010
2.Name of the :The State,represented by it’s District ComplainantInspector, Krishna District, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range
3.Name of the Accused:SriMadirajuNageswaraRao, S/o.Hanumantha Rao, aged 52 years, Assistant SubInspector of Police,Tulluru Police Station,Guntur District.
4.Date of:
a) Offence: 31.01.2009
b) Complaint: 29.02.2008
c) Apprehension of : 31.01.2009 Accused
d) Commencement of: 27.12.2017 trial:
e) Closure of trial: 29.04.2019
f) Sentence or Order: 30.01.2020
5.Sentence or Order:In the result, , the Accused Officer is found not guilty for offences U/Sec.7 and U/Sec.13(1) (d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and accordingly, Accused Officer is acquitted for the above offences as per Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused Officer are hereby ordered to subsist for a period of six months from this date as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C. Coming to the order as to the disposal of the case property is concerned :
(i) MO.7 being the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/(rupees One thousand only) is hereby ordered to be returned to P.W.1, the defactoComplainant after the expiry of appeal time, if the ACB did not reimburse the said amount to him and in case the ACB reimbursed the said amount to P.W.1, the above amount of Rs.1,000/ be returned to the ACB.
(ii) MO.1 to 6 and MO.8 being nonvaluable properties are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
(iii) The unmarked nonvaluable properties if any is hereby ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time; 38
6.Explanation for delay:This case was taken on file on 06.02.2010 as C.C. No.2/2010 on the file of this Court. On appearance, copies of documents were furnished to accused on 06.04.2010 Charges were framed against the accused on 16.08.2010. Prosecution side evidence commenced on 27.12.2017 and from 27.12.2017 to 29.04.2019, P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.18 were marked and prosecution evidence was closed 11.6.2018 Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C on 24.06.2019. Arguments were heard finally on 20.01.2020. Judgment pronounced on 30.01.2020. The delay is caused due to non production of witnesses by the Prosecution at the stage of trial on several adjournments and this court is kept vacant without regular Presiding Officer for considerable period. Hence, the delay.
Sd/P.V.Rambabu
Special Judge For SPE & ACB Cases
cumAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
Copy submitted to the Registrar (General), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
Copies to:
1) The Special Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range.
2) The District Inspector , Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada.
//TRUE COPY //