I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.1 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
Fair Copy
IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES: HYDERABAD.
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2021
Present:Sri Vinod Kumar, I Addl.Spl.Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
CALENDAR CASE No. 12 of 2013
Name of the Complainant: The State through Inspector of Police Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad.
Crime No.: Cr.No.34/ACB-HR/2010 Offence: The charges under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO
Name of the Accused Officer: Chintala Venkatesham
Plea of the Accused Officer: Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court: Found guilty.
Result: In the result, AO is found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 & Section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. Heard accused with regard to quantum of sentence. Accordingly, AO is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS. Further, AO is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.2 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of 17 days already undergone by AO from 28-12-2010 to 13-01-2011 shall be set off U/sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. AO is informed that he has got a right to file appeal against the Judgment before the
Hon’ble High Court.
MO-5 tainted currency of Rs.5,000/- shall be confiscated to State, MOs. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 (Resultant solutions of right and left hand wash of AO, Samples of Sodium Carbonate powder and Phenolphthalein powder, Resultant solution of wash of shirt pocket of AO and remaining Sodium Carbonate powder) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Name and particulars of ChintalaVenkatesham, S/o. Sri Accused OfficerC. Ramulu, age : 46 years, Occ : Deputy Superintendent, APSRTC Deverkonda Depot &I/c of Establishment &Out sourcing Sections at RM office, APSRTC Nalgonda District. R/o.H.No.6-3-387/1, Gandhinagar, Nalgonda Town and District.
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10-11-2021 in the presence of Smt.N. Kavita, learned Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, Hyderabad and Sri M/s. M.S.Prasad and other Advocates, learned counsel for AO upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad Range is the complainant and Accused Officer worked as Dy. Superintendent, APSRTC, Devarakonda
Depot and in-charge Senior Assistant, Establishment and Outsourcing
Sections at Regional Manager office, APSRTC, Nalgonda. Complainant had filed this case alleging that accused had committed an offence punishable
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.3 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 under Section 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.Accused was working as Dy. Superintendent, APSRTC,
Devarakonda Depot, Nalgonda and by virtue of post held by him, he falls under the category of Public Servant as defined under Section 2(c) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.Defacto complainant (PW-1) namely S. Venkataramana and his brother Gnaneswar Giri (PW-2) were Outsourcing contractors, PW-2 brother of defacto complainant had taken contract of arranging outsourcing labourers and provided 11 labourers at Yadagirigutta bus depot, due to work load, he had applied to Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta, for permission to arrange 5 more labourers. PW-1 also undertook the contract work of sweeping, cleaning, washing of buses at Yadagirigutta
Depot. Though his period of contract was completed as per the agreement by 31-10-2020, he continued the work, from 01-11-2020 to 08-12-2020 beyond the contract period, he made an application to Depot
Manager, Yadagirigutta to renew his contract till new contractor is finalized. Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta had recommended the above two applications of PWs. 1 and 2, and sent them to Regional Manager,
Nalgonda for sanction.
4.In this connection, PW-1 went to the office of Regional Manager,
Nalgonda, met AO and verified status of his two files pending in the
Regional Manager office, AO who is the Senior Assistant in the office of RM
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.4 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 looking after Establishment and Outsourcing Section, had demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- for processing his two files and to get sanction by
Regional Manager. PW-1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded bribe. Again on 23-12-2010. He met AO at his office and requested him to process his two files, AO reiteratedhis earlier demand and stated that he would not attend the work till bribe amount of Rs.5000/- is paid. Having no other alternative, PW-1 reluctantly agreed to pay the amount in a couple of days.
5.As defacto complainant was not willing to pay demanded bribe to AO, he met DSP-ACB-Hyderabad Range and gave a written report (Ex.P-1). Thereafter, PW-9 had enquired about the genuineness of the complaint, and also of reputation and antecedents of AO. His enquiry revealed that PW-1 has no enmity or ill-motive against AO, and that AO had bad reputation. He had obtained necessary permission from Director
General-ACB and registered the case, in Cr.No.34/ACB-HR/2010 under
Section 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 27-12-2010 and took up the investigation.
6.During the course of investigation, on 27-12-2010, PW-9 secured two independent mediators i.e., PW-3 and LW-3 V. Madhusudan at his office, furnished a copy of Ex.P-1 to them, who have gone through the report, and also verified the contents of the report through PW-1 to be true and correct. Thereafter on the instructions of PW-9, PW-1 gave proposed bribe amount of Rs.5000/- to him, and as per his instructions, mediators noted down the denomination & numbers of currency notes,
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.5 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
PW-9 got them applied with Phenolphthalein powder through a constable, the same constable kept the currency notes in the left side shirt pocket of
PW-1. After that PW-9 demonstrated the chemical test and explained its significance to the mediators, PW-3 drafted the pre-trap proceedings, thereafter all the trap party except the constable who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes proceeded to the Regional
Manager’s office, APSRTC, Nalgonda, on the instructions of PW-9, PW-1 went into the office of AO while all the trap party members were waiting outside, after few minutes, PW-1 came out of the office and informed that
AO did not come to the office on that day and he went to Deputy
Manager’s office, Devarakonda.
7.After that all the trap party including PW-1 proceeded to
Devarakonda. PW-1 himself went to 1st floor of the office, met AO both of them came out of the office, went into Sree Manjunatha Udipi Hotel, opposite to Depot Devarakonda, had coffee while the trap party took vantage positions in and around the Hotel. Meanwhile AO demanded PW-1 for bribe, & PW-1 paid bribe of Rs.5000/- which is accepted by AO with his right hand, counted currency notes with both hands and kept it in left shirt pocket, PW-1 gave a pre-arranged signal, immediately PW-9 and trap party caught AO red handed after he has demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.5000/-, they conducted post-trap proceedings in the presence of the mediators, seized cash, shirt of AO and has also prepared rough sketch of the scene and took up further investigation, the
Investigation officer had obtained necessary sanction from competent authority against AO, and after completing the entire investigation and
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.6 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 other formalities, has filed charge sheet against AO for the offence under
Section 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
8.Charge sheet was taken cognizance of by this court and is registered as C.C.No.12 of 2013, on appearance of Accused Officer, copies of documents along with charge sheet were furnished to him under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
9.Accused Officer was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, after hearing the prosecution and Counsel for Accused Officer, he was explained all accusation levelled against him for which AO denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. Then a charge under Section 7,13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is framed, read over and explained to AO in Telugu.
10.To prove the above charge against Accused Officer, prosecution has cited as many as 15 witnesses and examined 10 among them, has got marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 and Mos. 1 to 8 and Exs.D-1 to D-14 are marked on behalf of Accused Officer.
11.After completion of prosecution evidence, AO is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating material and evidence has been explained to him, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.7 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
12.Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel
for Accused officer. Both of them submitted their oral arguments, and
have also filed Written arguments.
13.Learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that Accused officer was working as Dy. Manager at Devarakonda bus depot and was also in-charge of the post of Senior Assistant at the Office of Regional
Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda, has demanded a bribe of Rs. 5000/- from
PW-1 for processing and getting approval of his two files through Regional
Manager. Accused himself admitted receipt of cash from PW-1 by relying on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 10, Exs.P-1 to P-21 and Mos. 1 to 8, prosecution has proved that there is demand and acceptance of bribe by
Accused Officer, thus the prosecution proved guilt of AO beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act, and sought for conviction of Accused Officer.
14.On the other hand, learned counsel for Accused Officer submits that, no clear evidence is placed by the prosecution to prove that Accused
Officer was also in-charge for post of Senior Assistant at RM Office,
APSRTC, Nalgonda, after he was promoted as Dy. Manager and transferred to Devarakonda Depot, and that the alleged amount of Rs.5000/- is not bribe amount which AO is alleged to have demanded and accepted from
PW-1, and out of friendly relations between them, AO asked PW-1 for a hand loan of Rs.5000/- and has received the same presuming that PW-1 is lending amount to him as hand loan, and that he is falsely implicated in this case under misconception by PW-1 that AO is still in-charge of post of
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.8 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
Sr. Assistant at RM Office, Nalgonda and is intentionally delaying the process of his applications. Since there is no demand and acceptance of bribe by AO at any point of time, AO is not guilty. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of AO beyond all reasonable doubt, as such prays to acquit the Accused Officer.
15.Considering the above rival contentions, following points are framed for consideration :
1)“Whether AO was in-charge for the post of Sr. Assistant in the office of Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda after he is promoted as Dy. Manager and transferred to Devarakonda Depot ?”
2)“Whether AO had access to original files of Exs.P-15 and P-16 ?”
3)“Whether prosecution could prove the guilt of AO for the offence punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt ?”
P O I N T NOS. 1 TO 3 :
16.There is no dispute with regard to employment of AO, and it is not the case of AO that he is not a public servant within the meaning of
Section 2(c) of P.C.Act. AO is working as Dy. Manager at APSRTC Depot,
Deverakonda, Nalgonda District. Thus, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C.Act, 1988.
17.To prove its case, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, the evidence of prosecution witnesses in a nutshell is as follows :
As per the evidence of PW-1, he is a contractor who undertook the work of sweeping, cleaning of Depot, washing of buses at
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.9 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
Yadagirigutta APSRTC Depot, during 2007-2010. His original contract has expired on 29-10-2010, even though he has done extra work from 01-11-2010 to 08-12-2010 beyond his contract period. APSRTC had to pay the amount to PW-1 for the additional work done by him beyond the original contract period i.e., from 01-11-2010 to 08-12-2010. He also made an application to renew his contract till new tenders are finalized.
His brother PW-2 is also a contractor who took contract of supplying labour (Assistant Sramiks) from 2008 to 2010 for Yadagirigutta APSRTC
Depot. His brother also had requested the Depot Manager to permit him to engage 5 more Assistant Sramiks. Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta had recommended them and forwarded to Regional Manager, Nalgonda. PW-1 was looking after contract work of his brother (PW-2) also.
18.In this regard he met AO, who was working as Sr. Assistant and looking after the work of out sourcing agencies in Regional Manager
Office, APSRTC, Nalgonda, and requested him to process his files, for which AO has demanded a bribe of Rs.5000/-. PW-1 expressed his inability, again on 23-12-2010 he met AO for the same purpose who again reiterated earlier demand of Rs.5000/- bribe, PW-1 informed the same to his brother (PW-2), as he was not willing to pay the demanded bribe, he gave Ex.P-1 report. On 27-12-2010 he was called to the office of ACB-NLG at 8 AM, he was introduced to mediators PW-3 and LW-3 (Madhusudhan).
The Mediators verified the contents of the complaint, prepared pre-trap proceedings as per guidance of ACB officials.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.10 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
19.After the pre-trap proceedings are completed, the tainted currency was kept in his shirt pocket by the constable who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, PW-9 instructed him not to touch the currency notes, not to shake hands with AO, and pay the bribe amount to AO only on his demand, and give a signal to ACB officials by wiping his face with a hand kerchief after AO accepts the bribe amount.
All the trap party including PW-1 went to the office of Regional Manager,
APSRTC, Nalgonda at 10.50 AM. PW-9 again reiterated the earlier instructions to PW-1, then he entered into the office of Regional Manager, waited for some time and came to know that AO is not in the office and he went to Deverakonda. He came out of the office and informed the same to
PW-9.
20.Thereafter all the trap party went to the office of Depot
Manager, Deverakonda, PW-9 again reiterated the earlier instructions to
PW-1, he alone went to the office of Depot Manager in the first floor, and offered coffee to AO, then both of them came out and went into New Sree
Manjunath Bhavan Udipi Hotel, opposite to Bus depot, had a coffee, on demand he gave bribe amount of Rs.5000/- to AO, who accepted the amount with his right hand, counted with his both hands and kept it in his left shirt pocket, then he came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to the officials, PW-9 and other trap party entered into the hotel, PW-9 asked him to go out. They conducted the required formalities of post-trap proceedings and recovered the tainted currency from the shirt pocket of
PW-1, incorporated his version in post trap proceedings.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.11 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
21.During cross-examination, PW-1 admits that originally his contract of washing, cleaning and sweeping of APSRTC Depots and of buses was from 01-11-2007 to 31-10-2009 under Ex.P-2 and was extended from 01-11-2009 to 31-10-2010 under Ex.P-3, so also the contract of his brother was only to supply Sramiks and to assist mechanics was from 06-10-2008 to 05-10-2010 under Ex.P-4 and other contract for supply of all 9 additional Sramiks was from 18-08-2009 to 05-10-2010 Ex.P-5, and has denied the suggestions put by counsel for accused that he was acquainted to AO since long and amount of Rs.5000/- paid to AO as on the date of post-trap proceedings was not towards bribe but towards hand loan as requested by AO. He further admitted Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-13, that Writ Petitions are filed against him by Adarsha Welfare
Society, and Writ Petitions filed by him. He also admits that experience certificates submitted by him and his brother PW-2, along with new tenders are found to be fake, and also admit that PW-6 has issued Show
Cause Notices to PW-1 and PW-2, for claiming amounts by furnishing false attendance of workers, and that PW-6 had issued proceedings to recover the excess amounts claimed by PW-1 and PW-2.
22.PW-2 is none other than the brother of PW-1 who also undertook the contract of supplying Assistant Sramiks and assisting mechanics at Yadagirigutta Depot, from 06-08-2008 to 05-10-2010 and from 18-08-2009 to 05-10-2010. He made an application to Depot
Manager, Yadagirigutta, asking to permit him to increase 5 more Sramiks, which was accepted by Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta and was forwarded to the office of Regional Manager, Nalgonda, also testified on the same
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.12 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 lines as that of PW-1 and further stated that as he was busy in politics, his brother PW-1 was looking after his contract work, and informed him that
AO has demanded a bribe of Rs.5000/- to do the official favour of processing their applications and getting approval.
23.PW-3 one of the mediators testifies that, on the instructions of
PA to Superintendent Engineer on27-12-2010 at 9 AM, he along with LW-3
Madhusudan went ACB office, Nalgonda. ACB officials gave them a copy of report and asked to go through, meanwhile PW-1 came into the office, they introduced to one another, on the instruction of ACB officials, they ascertained genuineness of the report from PW-1, who also informed that he has no enmity, friendship and do not have any financial transactions with AO. After that PW-9 asked PW-1 as to whether he brought the proposed bribe amount, then PW-1 gave Rs.5000/- in Rs.1000/- denominations, which was given to PW-3, who noted down serial numbers of currency notes, and gave to a constable who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and kept them in the left side shirt pocket of
PW-1, after ensuring that the pocket is empty. PW-9 instructed PW-1 not to touch the currency notes, not to shake hands with AO and to give the bribe amount only on demand by AO and not otherwise, if AO accepts the bribe amount, to come out of the office and give a signal by wiping his face with a hand kerchief.
24.Thereafter, PW-9 prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers, asked all the trap party members including PW-1, PW-3 and LW-3 to dip their hands in the solution, when all the trap party
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.13 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 members including PW-9 Inspectors, PW-1 mediator, dipped their hands, the colour of the solution did not change. Then PW-9 asked the constable who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, to dip his hands in the solution, as the constable dipped his hands, the solution turned into pink colour. After that the solution was thrown out, phenolphthalein powder which was used for demonstration was sealed in a separate cover. The sodium carbonate powder which was used for demonstration also is seized in a separate cover, after that he concluded pre-trap proceedings (MR-I) at 10.40 AM which is Ex.P-7.
25.After that PW-9 instructed the constable who applied phenolphthalein powder to stay in the office, and the other trap party including PW-1 proceeded to RM office, APSRTC, NLG at 10.45 AM, they reached the office by 10.50 AM. After that AO went into the office of
Regional Manager and other trap party members waited outside the office. After two minutes PW-1 came out and informed that AO did not go to RM office, he went to DM office, Deverakonda.
26.Then all the trap party went to DM office, Deverakonda. PW-9 again reiterated earlier instructions to PW-1, then PW-1 went into the first floor of the office, other trap party waited outside the office, after 5 minutes PW-1 along with another person came out and went into Sree
Manjunatha Udipi Hotel, all the trap party followed them, and waited outside the hotel from where PW-1 and the person who came along with
PW-1 are visible, They sat on a table & had a coffee, after that PW-1 gave the tainted currency to that person who took the amount with his right
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.14 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 hand, counted with both hands and kept in his left side shirt pocket, then
PW-1 came out and gave a pre-arranged signal, then PW-9 along with other trap party entered into the hotel, PW-9 has shown his identify card to that person, and introduced other trap party to him. After that PW-9 prepared sodium carbonate solution, asked AO to dip his hands into the solution, as AO dipped his hands in the solution, it turned into pink colour.
Then PW-9 seized the solution in a glass bottle. After that PW-9 questioned Accused officer, the version disclosed by AO is incorporated in the mediators report II, On the request of PW-9, AO took out the currency notes from his shirt pocket, he and LW-3 verified, compared the numbers of tainted currency notes with MR-I, found to be same currency notes, and the cash is also seized by PW-9 which is marked as MO-5. The inner lining of shirt pocket of AO came into contact with tainted currency, is also subjected to phenolphthalein test which yielded positive result, and was seized. Sodium carbonate solution used for, is seized which is marked as
MO-6 and MO-7. The remaining sodium carbonate powder is also seized in a separate cover and is marked as Ex.P-8.
27.After that, PW-1 was called, his version is incorporated in MR-II report. On question by PW-9, AO replied that he took the amount from
PW-1 as hand loan but not as bribe. When questioned about the files of
PW-1 and PW-2. AO replied that said file are already approved by Regional
Manager four months back, and they are in his house at Nalgonda, he further stated that he will show them if they accompany him, same is incorporated in MR-II. Thereafter, PW-9 drafted rough sketch of the scene, and obtained their signatures which is marked as Ex.P-8, and concluded
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.15 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 the proceedings at 4.15 PM marked as Ex.P-9 MR-II.
28.They went to the house of AO at Nalgonda, searched the house of AO, but concerned files of PWs. 1 and 2 are not found in his house, then they went to the office of AO, searched the office of Regional Manager,
APSRTC, Nalgonda. PW-6 Regional Manager, was there along with other staff members. All are examined by PW-9 who informed that AO is in- charge Sr. Assistant. Personal Officer Regional Manager informed that two files pertaining to PWs. 1 and 2 were marked to AO, the same is incorporated in search proceedings, AO himself took out two files from the bottom of his almirah which are Exs.P-10 and P-11. Pertaining to allotment of original contracts of PWs. 1 and 2 in 2007, Exs.P-12 and P-17 Inward
Register and Movement Register are also seized under Ex.P-15 proceedings.
29.PW-4 worked as Junior Assistant in the office of DM,
Yadagirigutta from 2010 to 2011, testifies that Ex.P-15 is the Note file pertaining to extension of outsourcing contract works of PW-1 and Ex.P-16 is the Note file pertaining to enhancement of 5 more Sramiks by PW-2.
The above two files were approved and forwarded by the then Depot
Manager, Yadagirigutta, namely B. Swamy, RM, Nalgonda, to RM,
Nalgonda, he himself handed over them to a clerk in the office of Deputy
Chief Mechanical Engineer (PW-5) at RM office, Nalgonda.
30.PW-5 is the then Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer in the office of
RM, APSRTC, Nalgonda worked in 2010 and 2011, testifies that originals of
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.16 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
Ex.P-15 and P-16 were forwarded from DM office, Yadagirigutta, are received in his office on 01-12-2010, entered into Dispatch Register on 3-12-2010 and on 6-12-2010 respectively, and are sent to Regional
Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda. Ex.P-17 is the Dispatch Register and Ex.P-18 are two relevant entires pertaining to Ex.P-15 and P-16 in Dispatch
Register.
31.PW-6 is the then Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda would testify that originally AO was working as Sr. Assistant in the office of RM,
APSRTC, Nalgonda and was looking after the works of tenders, establishment and out sourcing section, he was promoted in the month of
September,2010 as Deputy Superintendent and transferred to Siddipet as per orders dt. 11-08-2010, but modification orders were passed posting him as Dy. Manager to Deverakonda depot as per orders dt. 27-09-2010,
AO was relieved on 29-09-2010 from his office and joined at Deverakonda.
As per the orders in Ex.P-5, AO is redirected to report at the office of
Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda for finalization of tenders, AO was kept in-charge of the post of Sr. Assistant, and would further testify that he had received two files pertaining to PWs. 1 and 2 i.e., originals of
Exs.P-15 and P-16 from DM, APSRTC, Yadagirigutta Depot through PW-5, approved the files and sent them to Personal officer, who informed that he has handed over the files to AO for further process. In cross-examination of he admits that PW-1 and PW-2 have furnished experience certificates said to have been issued by Kamineni Hospitals, Narketpally, and on verification those certificates are found to be fake, and are not issued by
Kamineni Hospitals.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.17 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
32. PW-7 is the then Personnel officer of RM, APSRTC, Nalgonda testifies that PW-6 gave him two files pertaining to PW-1 and PW-2, originals of Exs.P-15 and P-16 by endorsing as “process” in turn he marked the files, and sent them to AO for further process. PW-8 is the officer concerned testifies affirmatively with regard to authorization given to Respondent officials, to register the case against AO.
33.PW-9 is the trap laying officer has testified that on 24-12-2010 at 10.30 AM PW-1 gave a report in Ex.P-1 and after going through the contents of it, he verified genuineness of report and after verifying the antecedents of AO, he got permission & a case against AO, in
Cr.No.34/ACB-HR/2010, for the offence under Section 7(a) of P.C.Act is registered and obtained signature of PW-1 in the relevant column of FIR.
34.Then, he called the mediators PW-3 and LW-3 Madhusudhan to his office on 27-12-2021, gave them a copy of Ex.P-1 asked them to go through the report, introduced PW-1 to the mediators and vice versa, thereafter mediators ascertained genuineness of contents of report and voluntariness of PW-1, signed on copy of Ex.P-1. They also enquired PW-1 as to whether he has any financial transactions and any enmity with AO,
PW-1 replied that he has no enmity and has no financial transactions with
AO. After that on request of PW-9, PW-1 produced Rs.5000/- as proposed bribe, the denomination and numbers of notes were noted down by the mediators in MR-I (Ex.P-7), on his instructions, a constable by name M.A.
Aziz has applied phenolphthalein powder to currency notes, and kept them in left side shirt pocket of PW-1 after ensuring that the pocket is
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.18 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 empty. Then he demonstrated the significance of phenolphthalein test to mediators and to PW-1, after completing the MR-I (Ex.P-7) he left the constable who applied phenolphthalein powder in the office, instructed
PW-1 not to touch the currency notes, not to shake hands with AO and to give the bribe amount to AO only on his demand, and give a signal by wiping his face if AO accepts the bribe. After that all the trap party including PW-1 proceeded to the office of AO in two Government vehicles.
They reached the office by 10.50 AM. PW-1 went into the office, came back and informed that AO is not in RM office, he went to office of DM at
Deverakonda.
35.Then all the trap party including PW-1 proceeded to
Deverakonda in two Government vehicles and they reached the office at 11 PM. He once again reiterated the instructions to PW-1, PW-1 went into the office of DM, All the trap party waited outside the office. After some time, PW-1 came along with another person from the first floor of the building, they both entered into Sree Manjunatha Udipi Hotel, opposite to the bus stand, all the trap party waited outside the hotel at a place from where PW-1 and other person are clearly visible. They both sat at a table, had a coffee, after that PW-1 handed over the amount to the other person, who received the currency notes with his right hand, counted them with both hands, and kept them in his left side shirt pocket. After that PW-1 came out of the house, gave a pre-arranged signal, then the trap party including PW-19 entered into the hotel, asked PW-1 to wait outside, he introduced himself and also other trap party to AO, prepared sodium carbonate solution, and instructed AO to dip his hands in the
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.19 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 solution, AO dipped fingers of both his hands, and liquid turned into pink colour, AO took out currency notes from his shirt pocket. The mediators verified the denominations and numbers of currency notes with MR-I (Ex.P-7) and found to be the same currency notes. Thereafter, he seized the currency notes, and again prepared sodium carbonate solution in another glass tumbler, dipped the shirt pocket of AO which also turned into pink colour, has seized currency notes as well as shirt of AO. Then the above solutions used for phenolphthalein test of AO are properly sealed and seized, and the version of PW-1 and AO is incorporated into MR-II (Ex.P-9). AO stated that he has not received the amount as bribe, but as hand loan from PW-1, on questioning about the pending files of PW-1 and
PW-2, AO replied that those files were already processed and approved by him four months back and are in his house, he will show them if they come to his house. After that he prepared rough sketch of scene, attested by mediators and closed proceedings at 4.15 PM. All the trap party went to house of AO at Nalgonda, they searched for the files in his house, but no such file (originals of Exs.P-15 and P-16) are found in his house.
36.Then they went to the office of RM, APSRTC, Nalgonda, searched for the files, he also examined Personal Assistant of RM who has produced note files pertaining to PW-1 and Movement Register of RM office. When he questioned AO about the above files, AO himself searched in his almirah and brought two files pertaining to PW-1 and PW-2. On verification both files, they are the files pertaining to contract works of
PWs. 1 and 2 in 2007 & 2008, are seized and are marked as Exs.P-10 and
P-11.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.20 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
37.PW-10 is the Inspector, ACB who had assisted PW-9, examined and recorded the statements of Pws. 2,4 and 5, got the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and filed charge sheet after completing the entire investigation. In the cross-examination he would admit that original applications of PWs. 1 and 2, and original files of
Ex.P-15 and P-16 are not seized either at RM office, Nalgonda or at the house of AO.
P O I N T NO.1 :
“Whether AO was in-charge for the post of Sr. Assistant in the office of
Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda after he is promoted as Dy.
Manager and transferred to Devarakonda Depot ?”
38.It is the contention of Counsel for AO that he was notplaced as in-charge for the post of Sr. Assistant, he was only asked to attend the work of finalization of new tenders of out sourcing works in the office of
Regional Manager. Whereas PW-5 Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer, PW-6 the then Regional Manager, Nalgonda would say that he was also placed in- charge of Sr. Assistant, in the office of RM office, Nalgonda. He attended all the works in the office, pertaining to the post of Senior Assistant.
39.During the cross-examination of above witnesses, Counsel for
AO put some suggestions to the effect that accused was not placed in- charge of post of Senior Assistant as per the modified orders issued by
Regional Manager, after he took charge of Dy. Manager at Deverakonda, which were denied by the prosecution witnesses. Putting suggestions and
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.21 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 getting denial of, does not amount to proof of the above fact. It is admitted by AO that by virtue of Ex.P-5, he was redirected to report at the Office of RM to attend the work of finalization of tenders, it is also true that no other person is posted at his previous post (Sr. Assistant). AO is also silent in eliciting the fact, whether any other person is posted as Sr.
Assistant.
40.Evidence of PWs. 3 and 9 discloses that after the trap and AO was caught by the officers, his office is also searched by PW-9, wherein
AO himself took out two files (Exs.P-10 &P-11) from the bottom of his almirah, all the other witnesses PWs. 5,6 & 7 also confirm the fact. AO also did not deny the above fact. Admittedly, Exs.P-10 & P-11 are the two files, pertaining to original contracts of PWs. 1 and 2 entered into by them with RM, Nalgonda, when they first took the contracts in 2007 to 2010, 2008 respectively. Apparently, Exs.P-10 & P-11 are not the files pertaining to new tenders said to have been called for, and yet to be finalized by AO.
They are the old files dealt by Sr. Assistant, pertaining to out sourcing section of RM Office, Nalgonda way back in 2007. Unless he is asked to or he was attended all the works of Sr. Assistant, he will not be allowed to have access to all the files and infrastructure of the post of Sr. Assistant and it appears that he has attended all the works of Sr. Assistant in the office of Regional Manager, Nalgonda. Whereas AO time and again tried to elicit that as per Ex.P-5 modified proceeding he was redirected to report at RM office and to attend finalizing of tenders work, and he is not instructed to be in-charge of the post of Sr. Assistant, as such, he did not attend any other works of Sr. Assistant, but could not substantiate his
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.22 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 contention either by relying on the evidence and material placed by prosecution or at least by producing any other relevant evidence to that effect.
The conduct of AO shows that he was impliedly allotted all other works of his previous post, and has attended all other works of Sr.
Assistant. As such, the court finds that AO also was in-charge of post of Sr.
Assistant in the office of Regional Manager, Nalgonda, after he took charge as Depot Manager at Deverakonda.
Thus, the point is answered in favour of prosecution and against
Accused officer.
P O I N T NO. 2 :
“Whether AO had access to original files of Exs.P-15 and P-16 ?”
41.The prosecution has examined the office staff of RM office,
Nalgonda. PWs. 4,5,6 & 7, out of which PW-4 is the Junior Assistant of the office of DM, Yadagirigutta who has testified that he handed over the original files of Exs.P-15 and P-16 at the office of PW-5 on 01-12-2020, and
PW-5 the then Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer, APSRTC, Nalgonda Depot, has confirmed that on 01-12-2010 his office staff has received originals of
Exs.P-15 and P-16, he himself has recommended both the files and sent them to Regional Manager, Nalgonda by entering into Dispatch Register on 03-12-2010 and on 06-12-2010. (Ex.P-17) and the corresponding entry of Ex.P-17 dt.02-12-2010 entry no.2 shows that the file bearing
No.1/122(25)/2007, Yadagirigutta, extension of washing, sweeping of buses, is referred to RM, Nalgonda. Entry No.1 of Ex.P-17 Register
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.23 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 dt.06-12-2020 also reveals that a file bearing No.1-725(1)/10 pertaining to
Yadagirigutta, of outsourcing and sramiks is referred to RM, Nalgonda.
Thus, it is clear that originals of Exs.P-15 & P-16 are received in the office of RM and are circulated for further process to AO.
42.PW-6 the then Regional Manager also speaks about two files pertaining to PW-1 and PW-2 i.e., originals of Exs.P-15 and P-16 were received from Depot Manager, Yadigirigutta, are recommended to him by
PW-5, in turn he approved them and handed over to PW-7 (the then
Personnel officer) who in turn handed over the files to AO for further process. PW-7 also says that two files pertaining to PWs. 1 and 2, (1)
Renewal of the contract and (2) Recommending for increasing number of outsourcing Sramiks were handed over to him by PW-6 by endorsing as “process”, he in turn marked the files and handed them over to AO.
Ex.P-12 is the File Movement Register of RM office, Nalgonda, relevant entries of Ex.P-12 discloses that a file bearing No.1-122(25)/07 (Ex.P-15) was circulated from the office of RM as per the entries dt.06-12-2010 and was received on 08-12-2010, by concerned person, another file bearing
No.1/725(1)/10, Yadagirigutta, outsourcing Sramiks was also in circulation on 22-12-2010 and was received by concerned person on 22-12-2010.
43.The above evidence of PWs. 4 to 7, Exs.P-12 and P-17,P-18 dispatch register reveals that the original files of Exs.P-15 and P-16 are received at the office of PW-6, and are circulated in the office and are received by AO. But AO has not deny or disproved the evidenciary value of Exs.P-12,P-17 and P-18 and the relevant entries. But he put some
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.24 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 suggestions which are denied by the witnesses, he did not place any material to disbelieve the evidence of PWs. 4 to 7 and Exs.P-12,17 & 18.
Even during the post-trap proceedings (Ex.P-9) when AO was questioned about the files pertaining to PWs. 1 and 2 he replied that those two files were already processed and approved by him four months ago, he kept them in his house and he will give those files if PW-9 comes to his house.
It goes to show that he has admitted that files were with him and during search of the office of AO, which is also not denied by AO.
44.To substantiate the point, Learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions :
Sukhdev Yadav Vs. State Of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 86.
Sham Swarup Bhatnagar Vs. The State, 1983(1) Crimes – 77
where in it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that “Once trustworthyness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same. If evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy,it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in the evidence.”
45.Per contra, Counsel for Accused officer has relied on another
Judgment of Hon’ble High Court T. Ramesh Reddy Vs State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2010 (1) ALD (CRL) 342 AP “When a case rests upon the evidence of a solitary witness, the law is well settled that it must be true, trustworthy free from doubt and
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.25 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 wholly reliable, when the evidence of a witness is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar to base conviction on the solitary testimony of the witness. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously so as to place any reliance on his evidence.”
46.Coming to the facts of the case, the evidence of PWs. 4 to 7 is clear to the effect that AO by orders of PW-6 and also by his conduct had dealt with the entire section of Sr. Assistant of the office of RM, APSRTC,
Nalgonda. There is no doubt of iota to disbelieve their version since their oral testimony is also sufficiently corroborated by documentary evidence i.e., Exs.P-12,P-17 and P-18. Whereas, AO did not place any material to disbelieve the version stated by PWs. 4 to 7 on the above point, nothing is elicited even in cross-examination of PWs. 4 to 7. When the ocular and material evidence as well as search proceedings conducted in the office of
RM, where AO himself took out Exs.P-10 & P-11, which makes it crystal clear that AO discharged the duties of Sr. Assistant after rejoined at the office of RM, after his transfer to Deverakonda and it is also established by the prosecution that original files pertaining to Exs.P-15 and P-16 were handed over to AO officially and he dealt with those files.
47.It is evident by the versions of PWs. 3,6,9 and 10 that original files of Exs.P-15 and P-16 were not traced out as such, they are not seized either from the house of AO or from the office of AO. In view of the above findings, as it was already established that AO is the person who has the
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.26 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 custody of originals of Exs.P-15 & P-16, obviously he is the person who has to be made responsible or liable for misplacement of the files. In the given set of facts, a presumption can be drawn against the AO that since he is arrested and is the accused in the above crime, he might have misplaced or destroyed original files of Exs.P-15 & P-16 to safeguard his interest and to avoid liability.
48.Thus, the above point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against AO that AO was given custody of original files of Exs.P-15 &
P-16 and he is responsible for misplacement of those files.
P O I N T NO.3 :
“Whether prosecution could prove the guilt of AO for the offence punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt ?”
49.Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7 of P.C.Act.
Section 7 of P.C.Act reads as follows :
Any public servant who,—
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause for bearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.27 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.— For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration.—A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2.—For the purpose of this section,—
(i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.
Section 13 of P.C.Act reads as follows :
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.28 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he,—
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for a(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
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Prosecution has examined the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and 9 to prove the above point.
50.PW-1 is the defacto complainant. PW-2 is his brother. Their evidence shows that both of them were contractors executing the work of cleaning premises, cleaning the buses and sweeping of the bus stand and bus depot by PW-1 and assisting mechanics and to provide (labour)
Assistant Sramiks at Yadigirigutta bus depot by PW-2, contract of PW-1 had come an end by 29-10-2010 and had made an application to Depot
Manager, Yadagirigutta seeking renewal of his contract from 01-10-2010 to till finalization of new tenders, PW-2 also made an application to the
Depot Manager, Yadagiriguta seeking to enhancement of 5 more Sramiks since the extending Sramiks.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.29 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
51.PW-4 corroborates above version stating that those two files were approved by the then Depot Manager, Yadagirigutta and were forwarded to Regional Manager, Nalgonda for further process and sanction. Since AO was in-charge of Sr. Assistant in the office of Regional
Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda, looking after out sourcing contract works, those two files were circulated to him by PW-6 by endorsing “process”, same are marked and handed over to AO on 22-12-2010, soon before
Exs.P-1,P-7 & P-9.
52.In view of the findings for Point Nos. 1 & 2, an official favour pertaining to PWs. 1 and 2 is pending with AO. The oral testimony of PW-1 supported by Ex.P-1 also reveals that PW-1 met AO several times requesting to process his files i.e., originals of Exs.P-15 & P-16, for which
AO has demanded the bribe of Rs.5,000/-, and he even threatened PW-1, that he will not process the files at all if the demanded bribe amount is not paid to him. Even during the cross-examination of PW-9, he replied that he do not know whether they have prior acquaintance and AO had asked for a hand loan of Rs.5000/- from PW-1 whereas PWs. 1 and 2 have replied that they do not have such prior acquaintance at all.
53. Whereas AO would contend that PW-1 and AO were good friends since long time, when father of PW-1 was working in APSRTC, they were having good terms with each other, out of access, AO had asked for hand loan of Rs.5000/- from PW-1, and PW-2, said that he would arrange
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.30 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 the amount after some days, and that AO received the amount of
Rs.5000/- as on the date of trap presuming that it is a hand loan being given by PW-1, which is denied by PW-1.
54.The basic rule of evidence as under Sections 101,106 of Indian
Evidence Act, burden is on the person who asserts the fact i.e., he who asserts must prove the fact. The prosecution in the present case by relying on the evidence of prosecution witnesses and Ex.P-1 has made it clear that an official favour pertaining to PWs. 1 and 2 is pending with AO and AO has demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe from PW-1 to do the official favour, which is illegal gratification other than legal remuneration.
Whereas the AO who has taken the defense that the amount received by him is not the bribe and it is the hand loan amount sought by him by PW-1 and he has received it presuming to be loan amount being lent by PW-1, has failed to elicit anything during the cross-examination of PWs. 1 and 2 to that effect, and did not place any material on his behalf to substantiate his contention.
56.In support of its case, Learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied on the following Judgments :
State of A P Vs. Umamaaheshwara Rao,
D. Sudarshan Vs. ACB, Warangal, 2013 ALD
Where in three Hon’ble High Court rejected the defence taken by Accused Officer that the amount was received by him is a loan amount from Defacto Complainant, but not the bribe as alleged by prosecution.
In view of the above evidence and material and in view of the
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.31 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 above Judgments, it is clear that there is demand of bribe by AO. Thus, the Court is of the view that prosecution has proved that AO has demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from PW-1 to do the official favour.
57.The evidence of PW-3,PW-9 and Ex.P-9 reveals that as on the date of trap, the AO was caught red handed after he accepted the bribe of
Rs.5000/- from PW-1 and during Ex.P-9 proceedings also, AO had admitted that he received Rs.5,000/- from PW-1 and the Phenolphthalein test conducted also yielded positive result. Since AO himself admitted that he received the amount from PW-1, burden shifts to his shoulders to prove otherwise of it had already failed to prove his defence that he had prior acquaintance with PW-1 and sought for a hand loan of Rs.5,000/- from him, had received the amount presuming to be the loan amount, but not knowingly as it is the bribe being given by PW-1. AO had also placed some material evidence i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-13 existence of which is admitted by
PW-1 himself and also by PW-6 which show that there was some Writ
Petitions filed against PWs. 1 and 2 and that they have furnished fake experience certificates for the new tenders which are being processed by
AO and that since PW-6 had issued Show Cause Notices and Proceedings for recovery against PWs. 1 and 2, he bore grudge against AO misunderstanding that AO is behind all these incidents and had falsely implicated him in this case. Since he has taken the plea for the first time that burden is on him to prove the above fact. But AO had failed even to prove the above fact.
58.In support of its contention, Prosecution has relied on the
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.32 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 following Judgments :
1) Sukhdev Yadav Vs. State Of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 86.
2) Sham Swarup Bhatnagar Vs. The State, 1983(1) Crimes – 77 wherein it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that “Once trustworthyness of evidence stated in a case stands satisfied, the court should not hesitate in accepting the same. If evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy,it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in the evidence. Even One truthful witness is sufficient to convict a person under Prevention of Corruption Act if tainted money is recovered”.
3)State of A.P. V/s Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy.
(2000) 9 SCC 752 wherein it is held that - it is well settled 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-Evidence
Act,1872-Ss.101 and 106.
59.Per contra, Counsel for AO has relied on the following
Judgments :
1)State of Kerala Vs. C.P.Rao 2011 (2) SCC (Crl.) 1010
2)C.M.Girish Babu Vs CBI, Cochin (2009) 3 SCC 779
3)C. Sivakumar Reddy Vs. State of A.P.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.33 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 863 (AP)
Mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused. When there is no corroboration of Testimony of Complainant regarding demand of bribe by accused it has to be accepted that the complainant’s version is not corroborated and therefore the evidence of complaint cannot be relied on.
4)Haridev Sharma Vs State of Delhi
AIR 1976 SC 1489 “No conviction can be sustained on the basis of mere trap incident when the vital parts of the prosecution case which formed genesis for the trap incident cannot be accepted.”
60.Whereas in the present case, the prosecution has placed sufficient material and evidence to substantiate its contention that AO has dealt with section of Sr. Assistant at the office of RM, Nalgonda and he had also had access and also dealt with original files of Exs.P-15 and P-16, prosecution also proved that AO had demanded and also accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from PW-1. There is sufficient corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also in the form of material evidence.
61.In the light of the above evidence, material and in view of the findings, the Court is of the opinion that the AO had misused his official capacity as a public servant, had demanded and accepted a bribe of
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.34 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
Rs.5,000/- from PW-1. It is nothing but illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, thus, he has committed the offence punishable under
Section 7 of P.C.Act,1988.
62.He being a public servant has demanded and accepted bribe of
Rs.5,000/- from PW-1 for discharging his official duty which is the official favour required by PW-1, which amounts to misconduct by a public servant and the misconduct committed by him is with a criminal intention of taking illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, as such, the above misconduct of AO amounts to criminal misconduct by a public servant. Thus, AO has committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act,1988.
63.In view of the above findings, the prosecution has proved the guilt of AO beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section7 &
Section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of P.C.Act,1988.
64.In the result, AO is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 &Section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of P.C.Act,1988 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of November, 2021.
sd/-
I Addl. Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.35 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
65.I have questioned Accused Officer and heard him with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him.
He submitted that he is aged 60 years and is chronic
Orthopaedic patient, he has two children who are yet to be married, his son’s marriage is scheduled to 8thDecember, 2021 and his mother 78 years old who is not keeping good health, and he is the only person to look after his mother at her advanced stage, and prays to take a lenient view.
66.Considering the above submissions made by AO, I am not inclined to comply the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act to AO in view of the nature and gravity of the offence. This Court is of the view that
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, AO is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Two years and also to pay a fine amount of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS.
Further, AO is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/
W 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.36 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
Both the above sentences shall run concurrently.
The remand period of 17 days already undergone by AO from 28-12-2010 to 13-01-2011 shall be set off U/sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. AO is informed that he has got a right to file appeal against the Judgment
before the Hon’ble High Court.
MO-5 tainted currency of Rs.5,000/- shall be confiscated to
State, MOs. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 (Resultant solutions of right and left hand wash of AO, Samples of Sodium Carbonate powder and Phenolphthalein powder, Resultant solution of wash of shirt pocket of AO and remaining
Sodium Carbonate powder) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of November, 2021.
sd/-
I Addl. Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION
PW-1Sri S.Venkataramana PW-2Sri S.Gnaneshwar Giri PW-3Sri N.Seetha Ram Reddy PW-4Sri Gandamalla Mallaiah PW-5Sri Ch.Appalanarayana
PW-6Sri R.Nagaraju
PW-7Sri R.S.Raghunath
PW-8Smt Kavitha Rupula
PW-9Sri N.Chandra Sekhar
PW-10Sri S.Venkat Reddy
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.37 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex. P1Complaint report given by PW-1 to DSP-ACB. Ex. P2Deed of contract executed between PW-1 and Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer on 6-11-2007. Ex. P3Revised agreement dated 10-12-2009 between RM, Nalgonda and PW-1. Ex. P4Deed of contract. Ex. P5Revised deed of contract. Ex. P6Copy of complaint. Ex. P7Mediator Report - I Ex. P8Rough Sketch Ex. P9Mediator Report - II Ex.P10Made up file No.02/122 (57)/07-RM-N pertaining to PW-1. Ex.P11Made up file No.02/725 (9)/08-RM pertaining to PW-2. Ex.P12File movement register 2009-2010. Ex.P13Proceedings dt:27.12.2010. Ex.P14Search List. Ex.P15Note file No.01/122(25)/07 YGT, Dt:30.11.2010. Ex.P16Note file No.01/725(1)/10 YGT, Dt:30.11.2010. Ex.P17Dispatch Register Ex.P18Two Relevant entry made in the dispatch register (page No.46 in Ex.P17) Ex.P19Sanction Order dt:8.1.2013. Ex.P20FIR. Ex.P21Attendance Register of DM Office, Yadagirigutta.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE
Ex. D1Xerox copies of the Hon’ble High Court orders in WP No.11153 of 2011 Dt: 3.11.2011.and WPMP No.7575 of 2012 in WP No.5971 of 2012. Ex. D2Xerox copies of the Hon’ble High Court orders in WPMP No.7575 of 2012 in WP No.5971 of 2012, Dt:16.4.2012. Ex. D3Attested copy of promotion cum transfer orders dt:11.8.2010. Ex. D4Attested copy of modification orders dt:27.9.2010. Ex. D5Attested copy of relieving order. Ex. D6Copy of complaint dt:10.2.2010. Ex. D7Copy of certificate, dt:10.8.2009. Ex. D8Copy of letter addressed to KIMS Hospital, dt:3.12.2010.
I Addl.ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.38 of 38 Judgment in C.C.No.12/2013
Ex. D9Copy of letter dt:16.5.2010. Ex.D10 Attested copy of show cause notice, dt:28.1.2011 given to PW-1. Ex.D11 Attested copy of final order, dt:21.3.2011. Ex.D12 Attested copy of show cause notice, dt:28.1.2011 Ex.D13 Attested copy of final order, dt:21.3.2011. Ex.D14 Relevant portion of 161 statement of PW-7.
MATERIAL OBJECTS
MO-1Sealed cover containing the sample of phenolphthalein powder (Pre-trap Proceedings) MO-2Sealed cover containing the sample of sodium carbonate powder (Pre-trap Proceedings) MO-3Sealed bottle containing right hand wash of AO MO-4Sealed bottle containing left hand wash of AO MO-5Tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- MO-6Sealed bottle containing sodium carbonate solution when subjected to inner linings of the shirt pocket of AO which turned into pink colour. MO-7Shirt of AO (Light blue colour). MO-8Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used for conducting phenolphthalein test, (Post trap Proceedings).
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of November, 2021.
sd/-
I Addl. Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.