Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 853 (AP)

K. P. Pullaiah v. State Of A. P.

2005-09-09

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2005
( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred by A. 1 and a. 2 respectively in C. C. No. 9 of 1995 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and acb Cases, Nellore. They were tried for the offences under Sections 7, 11 and 13 (l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ). Both the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, and they were acquitted for the offences under Sections 11 and 13 (l) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Act. The appellants aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge through the judgment dated 28. 6. 1999 preferred these appeals separately challenging the validity and legality of the convictions and sentences imposed against them. ( 2 ) SINCE both the appeals arose out of the same judgment, they are clubbed and this common judgment is being delivered. ( 3 ) THE appellants are described as a. 1 and A. 2 in this judgment for the purpose of convenience. ( 4 ) THE story of the prosecution leading to the conviction of A. 1 and A. 2 is, briefly, as follows: A. 1 worked as an Excise Subinspector, at Mydukur, Cuddapah District and A. 2 worked as a Home Guard. P. W. 1 is the de facto complainant. His father by name Subba Reddy was running a wine shop at Mydukur known as "eswara Wines" since 1987. P. W. 1 obtained a licence to run another wine shop known as "new eswara Wines" and was running the said wine shop. He was assisting his father in the said business. On 7. 2. 1988 the enforcement wing of the Excise Department raided the shop of his father in his presence. The raid party found some stock without licence. A crime was registered against p. W. 1 and his father and it ended in conviction in April 1994. They preferred an appeal and it is pending. On 27. 4. 1994 the Excise Superintendent issued a show cause notice to P. W. 1 for cancellation of licence issued in his favour. On 3. 5. A crime was registered against p. W. 1 and his father and it ended in conviction in April 1994. They preferred an appeal and it is pending. On 27. 4. 1994 the Excise Superintendent issued a show cause notice to P. W. 1 for cancellation of licence issued in his favour. On 3. 5. 1994 a. 1 sealed his shop pursuant to the directions of the Excise Superintendent. On 4. 5. 1994 p. W. 1 sent Ex. P. 4 reply, which was received by the Excise Superintendent under ex. P. 5 acknowledgment. Subsequently, p. W. 1 filed W. P. No. 9460 of 1994 before this High Court seeking a direction for the release of the stock seized by A. 1 from his shop known as "new Eswara Wines". The high Court passed an order on 11. 5. 1994 in w. P. M. P. No. 11535 of 1994, in favour of p. W. 1, directing the excise officials to release the seized stocks. On 15. 5. 1994 p. W. 1 approached the Superintendent of excise along with the order of the High court for the release of the stock. On the same day, the Excise Superintendent directed A. 1 to open the seal of the shop and handover the stock to P. W. 1. P. W. 1 approached A. 1 to remove the seals and to open the doors of the shop. At that time, A. 1 demanded Rs. 5,000/- towards bribe for opening the seals and when P. W. 1 expressed his inability, A. 1 reduced the amount to Rs. 3,000/ -. Though A. 1 opened the shop by removing the seals, he refused to give the stock register unless and until the bribe of Rs. 3,000/- is paid. P. W. 1, who has no inclination to pay the bribe to A. 1, preferred Ex. P. 10 complaint to A. C. B. Officials on 16. 5. 1994. On the same day, p. W. 7 arranged a trap. P. W. 1 and his brother P. W. 2 followed by P. W. 7 and members of the trap party reached the office of the A. 1 at about 5. 00 p. m. Immediately, p. Ws. l and 2 went to A. 1. 5. 1994. On the same day, p. W. 7 arranged a trap. P. W. 1 and his brother P. W. 2 followed by P. W. 7 and members of the trap party reached the office of the A. 1 at about 5. 00 p. m. Immediately, p. Ws. l and 2 went to A. 1. When A. 1 demanded the bribe, P. W. 1 told him that the money was ready, but A. 1 told him to come on the next day i. e. , on 17. 5. 1994 and further told that in case he goes for checking of shops, the amount may be paid to A. 2. On the next day i. e. , on 17. 4. 1994 at about 11. 30 a. m. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 went to the excise Station and found A. 1 absent. While they were enquiring about A. 1, A. 2 came and asked P. W. 1 to give the bribe of rs. 3,000/- as demanded by A. 1. Accordingly, P. W. 1 paid the amount to A. 2. A. 2 counted the notes, kept the amount in his left pant pocket. Subsequently, the amount was recovered from A. 2 and the phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both the hands and the left pant pocket of A. 2 proved positive. P. W. 8 after completion of investigation laid the charge-sheet. ( 5 ) WHEN charges under Sections 7, 11, 13 (l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the act were framed, the appellants denied the charges and claimed for trial. ( 6 ) THE prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants examined P. Ws. 1 to 8 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 23 and M. Os. l to 9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. ( 7 ) THE learned Special Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the appellants guilty of the charge for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, while acquitting them for the offences under Sections 11 and 13 (l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 8 ) THE prosecution alleged that A. 1 demanded Rs. 3,000/- towards bribe for returning the stock register to P. W. 1. But, p. W. 1, on the instructions of A. 1, handed over the money to A. 2. ( 8 ) THE prosecution alleged that A. 1 demanded Rs. 3,000/- towards bribe for returning the stock register to P. W. 1. But, p. W. 1, on the instructions of A. 1, handed over the money to A. 2. ( 9 ) A. 1 denied the demand and acceptance of the bribe and pleaded that p. W. 1 paid the amount to A. 2 to hand over the same to one person by name subbarayudu for the purpose of remitting the same into the treasury. ( 10 ) IN the light of the contentions of both the parties, the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants for the offence under section 7 of the Act and whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower Court are liable to be set aside or modified? ( 11 ) POINT: P. W. 1 is the de facto complainant. He alleged that when he approached A. 1 for return of the stock register of his wine shop, A. 1 demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and on expressing his inability, reduced the amount to Rs. 3,000/- for delivering the stock register. He further alleged that as per the instructions of A. 1, the tainted money was delivered to A. 2 and it was recovered from A. 2. ( 12 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the money was not recovered from A. 1 and it was only recovered from A. 2. In the light of the above circumstances, it has to be considered whether the evidence placed by the prosecution established that A. 1 demanded the bribe for returning the stock register and accepted the money through. A. 2 and whether the defence of the accused that P. W. 1 gave the money to a. 2 to handover the same to one subbarayudu for remittance in the Treasury is probabalised through the circumstances explained by the accused. ( 13 ) THE conviction of P. W. 1 and his father for an excise offence, their preferring an appeal against the conviction, the seizure of the shop of P. W. 1 by A. 1 under the instructions of Excise Superintendent, an order of release of stocks obtained by P. W. 1 from the High Court, the opening of the seals and delivery of the stocks to P. W. 1 by A. 1 are not in dispute. ( 14 ) P. W. 1 deposed that on 15. 5. 1994 he met A. 1 by delivering a copy of the order of the Excise Superintendent and requested to handover the stock and register. On that A. 1 said that unless he pays rs. 5,000/- as bribe, the seals will not be opened. Then he told A. 1 that he is in troubles due to closing of the shop and requested him not to demand the bribe. Thereupon, A. 1 demanded P. W. 1 at least to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards bribe and informed him that he would come to his shop in the evening. In the evening A. 1 came to his shop, removed the seals and handed over the stock to him, but did not return the stock register. When he requested for return of the stock register, A. 1 reiterated his demand of Rs. 3,000/- and stated that unless the said amount is paid to him towards bribe, he will not give the stock register and threatened to file a case against him. As he was not inclined to pay the bribe, he along with P. W. 2 approached the A. C. B. Officials on 16. 5. 1994 and presented Ex. P. 10 complaint. After complying all the formalities and as per the instructions of the Dy. S. P. , p. W. 2 and himself went to the office of a. 1 at about 5. 00 p. m. and on seeing him a. 1 ascertained whether he brought the bribe. When he answered affirmatively, A. 1 stated that he was busy in making arrangements for inauguration of a new police station and instructed him to bring the money on 17. 5. 1994. A. 1 further told him that in the event of his going for checking of wine shops, the bribe amount may be paid to A. 2. On 17. 5. 1994 when he went to the office of A. 1 at about 11. 30 a. m. along with P. W. 2, A. 1 was not present in the office. When he was ascertaining about a. 1, A. 2 came and asked him to handover the amount as demanded by A. 1. He handed over bribe amount to A. 2. A. 2 counted the currency notes and kept the tainted notices in his left pant pocket and handed over the stock register to him. When he was ascertaining about a. 1, A. 2 came and asked him to handover the amount as demanded by A. 1. He handed over bribe amount to A. 2. A. 2 counted the currency notes and kept the tainted notices in his left pant pocket and handed over the stock register to him. Immediately, he came out and gave a signal to the Dy. S. P. and others. Immediately, the dy. S. P. and his staff and mediators went into the Excise Station. P. W. 2 and himself were asked to wait out side. Sometime later they were called and examined. ( 15 ) IN the cross-examination, P. W. 1 stated that there were nine wine shops at mydukur Town. There is no Sub-Treasury at Mydukur. Therefore, if anybody wants to remit the money to the Government, he has to go either to Proddutur or to Cuddapah. There was a practice of giving money to some boys working in the shops to remit the money to the Government treasury either at Cuddapah or at Proddutur and they used to bring the receipts after remitting the amounts. One Subbarayudu is one of such persons. He used to remit the amounts to Government on behalf of the wine shop owners at Cuddapah and proddutur. He denied a suggestion that A. 1 never demanded him to pay Rs. 5,000/- or reduced the amount to Rs. 3,000/- at any time. He denied a suggestion that he and his brother gave money to A. 2 instructing him to handover the same to Subbarayudu for remitting the same in the Treasury on the ground that they were leaving for some other work. He denied a further suggestion that to shift A. 1 from that place, p. W. 2 and himself colluded and falsely implicated A. 1 in this case. ( 16 ) P. W. 2, the elder brother of P. W. 1, deposed that when P. W. 1 requested A. 1 to open the shop on 15. 5. 1994 at about 12. 30 p. m. and deliver the stock, A. 1 demanded rs. 5,000/- towards bribe for opening the shop and for delivering the stock register. When P. W. 1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, A. 1 demanded P. W. 1 to pay at least Rs. 3,000/- towards bribe and further stated that he would come to the shop at 5. 5,000/- towards bribe for opening the shop and for delivering the stock register. When P. W. 1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, A. 1 demanded P. W. 1 to pay at least Rs. 3,000/- towards bribe and further stated that he would come to the shop at 5. 00 p. m. On the same day, at about 5. 00 p. m. when P. W. 1 and himself waited for A. 1 at the shop of P. W. 1, A. 1 came at about 5. 00 p. m. and opened the shop by removing the seals. After opening of the shop, A. 1 asked the bribe of Rs. 3,000/ -. P. W. 1 promised to pay the amount on the next day and requested A. 1 to return the stock register. A. 1 replied that unless he pays Rs. 3,000/-, the stock register would not be returned. On 16. 5. 1994 P. W. 1 and himself went to the A. C. B. Officials and p. W. 1 preferred Ex. P. 10 complaint. After all the instructions from the Dy. S. P. , A. C. B. , on 16. 5. 1994 P. W. 1 and himself went to the office of A. 1 with the tainted money. P. W. 1 and himself went to the office of a. 1 and found him present. On seeing them, a. 1 asked P. W. 1 whether he brought the bribe of Rs. 3,000/ -. When P. W. 1 informed that he brought the money, A. 1 asked them to come on the next day with the bribe amount, on the ground that he was busy on that day due to the visit of the Superintendent of Excise and the District Collector in connection with the inauguration of the new building of the police station. A. 1 further told them that in the event of his going for rounds in the town, the amount may be paid to A. 2 and take return of the stock register. On the next day, P. W. 1 and himself reached the office of A. 1 at about 11. 30 a. m. and on entering the office, they noticed the non-availability of A. 1 and the presence of A. 2. A. 2 asked P. W. 1 whether he brought the bribe and further informed that if the bribe amount is paid he would return the stock register. 30 a. m. and on entering the office, they noticed the non-availability of A. 1 and the presence of A. 2. A. 2 asked P. W. 1 whether he brought the bribe and further informed that if the bribe amount is paid he would return the stock register. A. 2 further told them that A. 1 instructed him to receive the bribe amount. Therefore, they may pay the amount and take back the stock register. P. W. 1 paid the tainted money to A. 2. A. 2 received the same with his right hand and counted the same and kept the bribe amount in his left pant pocket. Immediately after receipt of the amount, A. 2 handed over the stock register to P. W. 1 by taking it from the almyrah. Afterwards they came out and p. W. 1 gave the pre-arranged signal. The dy. S. P. and other raid party entered the office and on ascertainment he told the dy. S. P. along with P. W. 1 as to what had transpired from the time of their entering into the office till P. W. 1 gave the prearranged signal. ( 17 ) IN the cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that P. W. 1 and himself falsely implicated A. 1, knowing fully well that they were in possession of the stock register, and that they took the stock register to the Excise Station in a zip bag and planted the same. He denied a further suggestion that P. W. 1 handed over Rs. 3,000/- to A. 2 directing to pay the same to one subbarayudu to remit the same in the treasury. ( 18 ) P. W. 3, a mediator for the pre-trap and post trap panchanamas, deposed that after the perusal of Ex. P. 10 complaint and after ascertaining about the correctness of the contents of Ex. P. 10 from P. W. 1, P. W. 7 got the currency notes applied with phenolphthalein powder and kept them in the shirt pocket of P. W. 1. He further deposed that when they waited out side the office on 17. 5. 1994 at about 12. 30 p. m. P. W. 1 gave a pre-arranged signal. Immediately all of them entered into the office of A. 1 and found A. 2 present. He further deposed that when they waited out side the office on 17. 5. 1994 at about 12. 30 p. m. P. W. 1 gave a pre-arranged signal. Immediately all of them entered into the office of A. 1 and found A. 2 present. On enquiry A. 2 informed them that as per the instructions of A. 1, he delivered the stock register covered by M. O. I to P. W. 1. On rinsing the fingers of both the hands of a. 2 in the sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned to pink colour. Afterwards, a. 2 removed the tainted currency notes from his left pant pocket. On verification of the numbers of the currency notes, they tallied with the numbers noted by them in the pre-trap proceedings covered by ex. P. 13. The left pant pocket of A. 2 also gave positive result when subjected to sodium carbonate test. They also incorporated the statement given by A. 2 regarding the receipt of the money. In the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he drafted Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P. 16 only as per the instructions of the Dy. S. P. with false allegations to suit the case. ( 19 ) P. W. 4, a Section Officer of the secretariat, mentioned about the sanction order issued by the Principal Secretary of revenue Department to prosecute the accused in this case. He denied a suggestion that the Principal Secretary did not apply his mind while according sanction to prosecute the accused. The evidence of this witness is not relevant to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of the bribe by a. 1 through A. 2. ( 20 ) P. W. 5, a Home Guard of Excise station, Mydukur, stated that on 17. 5. 1994 at about 11. 30 a. m. P. Ws. l and 2 went into the room of A. 1 and came out of the said room at about 12. 30 p. m. He further stated that P. W. 7 and other staff entered the excise station and when ascertained about A. 1 he informed them that A. 1 might be at his house. He had no personal knowledge about the trap. 30 p. m. He further stated that P. W. 7 and other staff entered the excise station and when ascertained about A. 1 he informed them that A. 1 might be at his house. He had no personal knowledge about the trap. ( 21 ) P. W. 6, the then Excise superintendent, deposed that as per the directions of the High Court he gave instructions to A. 1 to open the seals of wine shop of P. W. 1 and handover the stock to enable P. W. 1 to continue the business till further orders. ( 22 ) P. W. 7, the then Dy. S. P. and trap laying officer, deposed about P. W. 1 giving ex. P. 10 complaint, preparation of pre trap proceedings, sending P. Ws. l and 2 with tainted money to the office of A. 1 and A. 2, recovery of the money from the left pant pocket of A. 2 and the positive result of the phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both the hands and left pant pocket of A. 2. He further stated about his questioning A. 2 as to where he kept the amount received from P. W. 1 and A. 2 causing production of the tainted money from his left pant pocket, and the seizure of the money etc. ( 23 ) P. W. 8, the Inspector of Police, deposed about his further investigation, obtaining sanction order from the concerned authority to prosecute A. 1 and A. 2 and filing the charge-sheet. ( 24 ) OUT of the above evidence placed by the prosecution, the evidence of P. Ws. l to 3 is material regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by A. 1 through a. 2. ( 25 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants contended that though P. W. 1 and p. W. 2 stated that A. 1 demanded bribe for delivery of the stock register, there was no mention about it either in Ex. P. 13 pre-trap panchanama or in Ex. P. 16 post-trap panchanama and there was no mention about the seizure of the stock register. When there was no seizure of the stock register, the question of A. 1 demanding bribe for return of the same does not arise. When a. 1 was present in the office on 16. 5. P. 13 pre-trap panchanama or in Ex. P. 16 post-trap panchanama and there was no mention about the seizure of the stock register. When there was no seizure of the stock register, the question of A. 1 demanding bribe for return of the same does not arise. When a. 1 was present in the office on 16. 5. 1994, nothing prevented him to receive the bribe amount when P. W. 1 informed him that he brought the bribe amount. Had A. 1 demanded the bribe, he would have tried to snatch away the bribe immediately after p. W. 1 informing that he brought the money. Though the money was paid to A. 2, it was not towards bribe and it was intended to be handed over to one person by name Subbarayudu for remittance of the amount in the Treasury on their behalf. In ex. P. 3 panchanama for seizure of stock register and in the writ petition, there was no mention about the seizure of the stock register. P. W. 1 brought the tainted notes and P. W. 2 brought the stock register for the purpose of planting in the process of laying trap. Since a criminal case was filed against P. W. 1 and his father and a show- cause notice was issued pointing out certain irregularities, P. W. 1 and his father bore grudge against the appellants and implicated them through false allegations. He, therefore, requested to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of both the appellants and they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. ( 26 ) UNDER charge No. l, it was alleged by the prosecution that A. 1 accepted rs. 3,000/- from P. W. 1 through A. 2 as illegal gratification for returning the stock register of M/s. New Eswara Wines, Mydukur as demanded by him prior to 17. 5. 1994. The substance of the charge indicates that the alleged demand of bribe was for the return of the stock register. P. W. 1 in his chief examination stated that when he gave a copy of the order of the Superintendent of excise and requested A. 1 to open the, shop, handover the stock and the stock register, a. 1 told him that unless he pays Rs. 5,000/- as bribe, he will not open the seals of the shop. P. W. 1 in his chief examination stated that when he gave a copy of the order of the Superintendent of excise and requested A. 1 to open the, shop, handover the stock and the stock register, a. 1 told him that unless he pays Rs. 5,000/- as bribe, he will not open the seals of the shop. When he told A. 1 that he is in financial trouble due to closing of the shop, A. 1 demanded that at least Rs. 3,000/- may be paid towards bribe. He further stated that in the evening A. 1 came to his shop, removed the seals and handed over the stock to him but did not return the stock register. He further stated that when he questioned A. 1 to give the stock register, he replied unless rs. 3,000/- is paid towards bribe, he will not return the stock register and threatened to file a case against him. In the cross examination, P. W. 1 stated that there are nine wine shops in Mydukur town. There is no sub-treasury in their town. If anybody wants to remit money to the Government, he has to go either to Proddutur or to cuddapah. He further stated that there is a practice of the shop owners giving money to some boys, working in the shops, or some others to remit the money to the government either at Cuddapah or at proddutur and they used to bring the receipts after remittance to the concerned shops. Subbarayudu is one of such persons, who used to remit the money to Government on behalf of the shop owners. In the further cross-examination, he stated that except the stock register, the appellants did not take the bill books and other records at the time of putting seals to the shop. A suggestion was given to him that A. 1 did not seize the stock book while sealing the shop and the stock register was left in the shop itself. But, it was denied by P. W. 1. It was further suggested to P. W. 1 that when he went to the A. C. B. Office along with P. W. 2 they carried a zip bag containing, stock register, though it was denied by P. W. 1. ( 27 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of p. W. 2, on 15. 5. 1994 Sunday at about 12. It was further suggested to P. W. 1 that when he went to the A. C. B. Office along with P. W. 2 they carried a zip bag containing, stock register, though it was denied by P. W. 1. ( 27 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of p. W. 2, on 15. 5. 1994 Sunday at about 12. 30 p. m. P. W. 1 and himself went to Excise station, met A. 1 and requested him to remove the seals of the shop and deliver the stock register, A. 1 demanded Rs. 5,000/- for opening the shop and delivering the stock register. When P. W. 1 expressed his inability to pay Rs. 5,000/- A. 1 demanded P. W. 1 to pay Rs. 3,000/- as bribe. The further version of P. W. 2 is that A. 1 came to the shop of p. W. 1 at about 5. 00 p. m. , opened the shop by removing the seals and later demanded rs. 3,000/- towards bribe. P. W. 1 promised to pay the bribe on the next day and requested to return the stock register. In the cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that P. W. 1 handed over the money to A. 2 to pay the same to one Subbarayudu to remit the amount into the Treasury on their behalf. ( 28 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that since there was no mention about the stock register in the report prepared at the time of seizure of the stocks, the contention of P. W. 1 that the stock register was taken away by the appellants cannot be accepted. P. W. 1 in his evidence stated that A. 1 seized his stock register without giving any receipt and without noting the same in the Panchanama. He further stated that A. 2 handed over the stock book to him after counting the money of Rs. 3,000/- paid by him. P. W. 2 also stated that A. 2 took away the stock register without passing any acknowledgment and without referring the seizure of the same in Ex. P. 3 panchanama. He further stated that A. 1 demanded bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- for opening the shop and delivering the stock register. P. W. 1 promised to pay the bribe amount on the next day. A. 1 reduced the bribe amount to Rs. P. 3 panchanama. He further stated that A. 1 demanded bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- for opening the shop and delivering the stock register. P. W. 1 promised to pay the bribe amount on the next day. A. 1 reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 3,000/- P. W. 1 requested a. 1 to return the stock register. P. W. 2 denied a suggestion that though they were in possession of the stock register, they falsely implicated A. 1 in this case. He denied the further suggestion that he took the stock register to the Excise Station and planted the same at the time of the trap. P. W. 3 deposed that when P. W. 1 produced the stock register, after it was returned by A. 2, p. W. 7 seized the said stock register. P. W. 7 stated that in Ex. P. 10 complaint, P. W. 1 specifically mentioned that A. 1 demanded the bribe amount of Rs. 3,000/- to return the stock register of P. W. 1. In Ex. P. 10 complaint, given to P. W. 7, P. W. 1 specifically mentioned that after preparation of the panchanama for the seizure of the liquor stocks, A. 1 seized the stock register without mentioning it in the panchanama and further mentioned that when he asked A. 1 to return the stock register, A. 1 told him that if he wants the stock register he has to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards bribe and if he fails to pay the amount he will not give the register and file a case for some other cause. In Exs. P. 11 and P. 12, 164 cr. P. C statements also, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 mentioned that when P. W. 1 asked for the return of the stock register, A. 1 stated that after giving Rs. 3,000/- he will return the register, otherwise he will file some other case and seal the Brandi Shop. In the post trap panchanama, covered by Ex. P. 16, p. W. 1 stated that A. 2, after counting the amount and keeping it in his left pant pocket, handed over the stock register to him. The above material placed by the prosecution amply established that P. W. 1 was compelled to prefer Ex. In the post trap panchanama, covered by Ex. P. 16, p. W. 1 stated that A. 2, after counting the amount and keeping it in his left pant pocket, handed over the stock register to him. The above material placed by the prosecution amply established that P. W. 1 was compelled to prefer Ex. P. 10 complaint to P. W. 7, on account of the demand of bribe, by A. 1, for the return of the stock register, acceptance of the amount through A. 2 and returning the stock register. ( 29 ) THE defence plea that P. W. 1 paid the amount to A. 2, to handover the same to one Subbarayudu for remitting the same into the Sub-Treasury, situated at Proddutur or Kadapa, towards the amount payable to the Excise Department. Subbarayudu is said to be a native of the same place, therefore, there would not have been any problem to P. W. 1 to handover the money to subbarayudu, for the purpose of remittance, and they would not have preferred to give the amount, to an employee of excise department. ( 30 ) THOUGH, the above defence was taken by the accused that the amount was paid to A. 2 to deliver the same to subbarayudu for remittance in the treasury, they could not elicit information from any of the witnesses that the said Subbarayudu was in the habit of remitting the amounts of p. W. 1. The appellants failed to examine the said Subbarayudu in support of their defence whether he obliged P. Ws. l and 2 at any time to remit the amount on their behalf. Therefore, the appellants failed to probablise their defence, which would have improbablised the version of the prosecution. I, therefore, do not find any force in the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. ( 31 ) THE learned Special Judge gave a specific reason for not accepting the contentions raised by the appellants and found the appellants guilty of the charges. ( 32 ) AFTER going through the entire evidence placed by the prosecution and as the appellants failed to probablise their defence as to the amount recovered from a. 2, which was received by him at the instance of A. 1, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Special Judge was right in finding the appellants guilty of the charges. I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. ( 33 ) IN the result, the appeals are dismissed by confirming the judgment of the lower Court dated 28-6-1999 in all respects.