Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 106 (AP)

P. Appala Raju v. State

2012-01-30

NOUSHAD ALI

body2012
JUDGMENT The appellant/accused-officer, a Public Servant, was tried on two charges under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) in C.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”). The first charge is under Section 7 of the Act; and the second charge, which is connected with the first one, is under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, both based on the allegations of bribery and trap. 2. The trial Court, after considering the matter, by its judgment dated 20.1.2005 convicted the appellant of both the charges and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act; and further sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Questioning the said judgment, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is hereinafter referred to as “the Accused Officer”. 3. At the relevant point of time, the Accused Officer was working as Telephone Mechanic in Rambilli Telephone Exchange, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and as such, he was a Public Servant. He was prosecuted by duly obtaining Ex.P-9 sanction order, which facts are not in dispute. 4. P.W.1, who is the defacto-complainant and a teacher by profession, submitted an application for installation of telephone connection in his house. Accordingly, the telephone was installed on 10.9.2001. The case of the prosecution is that in that context, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P-2 complaint alleging that the Accused Officer demanded Rs.500/- as bribe threatening him that he would disconnect the telephone and would not attend repairs. Unwilling to pay the said amount, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P-2 complaint to P.W.6-Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam, who registered the same as Ex.P-14 FIR Crime No.RC.27(A)/2001-VSP on 3.10.2001. Unwilling to pay the said amount, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P-2 complaint to P.W.6-Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam, who registered the same as Ex.P-14 FIR Crime No.RC.27(A)/2001-VSP on 3.10.2001. Thereupon P.W.5-Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam, made arrangements to lay a trap of the Accused Officer and accordingly, pre-trap proceedings were held on 4.10.2001 in R & B Inspection Guest House, Yelamanchili, by securing P.W.2 – B. Mahesh Babu and P.W.3 – Ch. Divakara Rao. Five currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination brought by P.W.1, were coated with phenolphthalein powder and after the usual process, the amount was handed over to P.W.1 with instructions to pay the same to the Accused Officer on his demand. Accordingly prepared Ex.P-4 first mediators report. 5. P.W.2 was instructed to accompany P.W.1. Both of them went to the residence of P.W.1. The trap team consisting of P.Ws.3, 5 and other accompanying staff proceeded separately. While P.Ws.1 and 2 waited in the hall, the trap team stayed in the Master Bed room of P.W.1. The Accused Officer then came there and P.W.1 paid the amount to him on demand. The Accused Officer received the same and kept it in his shirt pocket. P.W.2, who was the accompanying witness, informed the incident to the other team members, who intercepted the Accused Officer before he left the house and recovered the tainted amount from his shirt pocket. The colour test conducted on the fingers of both the hands of the Accused Officer and his shirt pocket yielded positive results. Thus, according to the prosecution, the Accused Officer demanded and accepted illegal gratification for doing an official favour to P.W.1, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. 6. The trial Court framed two charges, which are as follows: “CHARGE No.1: That you, on 4.10.2001 at the residence of K. Krishna Prasad at Rambilli, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, being a Public Servant employed as Telephone Mechanic at Rambilli Telephone Exchange of Rambilli Mandal, demanded and accepted Rs.500/- as bribe from Sri K. Krishna Prasad, in pursuance of your earlier demands for yourself, as gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for official favour in the exercise of your official functions for not disconnecting his telephone connection and to attend the repair works, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. CHARGE No.2: That you, on 4.10.2001 at the residence of K. Krishna Prasad at Rambilli, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, being a Public Servant employed as Telephone Mechanic at Rambilli Telephone Exchange of Rambilli Mandal, demanded and accepted Rs.500/- as bribe from Sri K. Krishna Prasad, in pursuance of your earlier demands for yourself, as gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for official favour in the exercise of your official functions for not disconnecting his telephone connection and to attend the repair works, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your official position as such public servant obtained for yourself a pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.500/- as bribe, and thereby committed the offence specified under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(2) of that Act, and within my cognizance.” 7. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused Officer, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15, besides marking material objects MOs-1 to 5. 8. No evidence was adduced by the Accused-Officer, but he denied the demand and acceptance. He took the plea that the said amount was given towards the cost of an extra telephone instrument for installation at the request of the wife of P.W.1, but not as bribe. 9. The trial Court accepted the version of the prosecution and upheld both the charges and accordingly convicted and sentenced the Accused Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the Accused Officer has preferred the present criminal appeal. 10. Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Accused Officer; and Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 11. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Accused Officer did not commit the alleged offences and was falsely implicated in the case. He has been convicted without any acceptable evidence against him. He would contend that the trial Court misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence and convicted the Accused Officer on untenable grounds. He would, therefore, contend that the conviction and sentence recorded against the Accused Officer is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 12. He has been convicted without any acceptable evidence against him. He would contend that the trial Court misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence and convicted the Accused Officer on untenable grounds. He would, therefore, contend that the conviction and sentence recorded against the Accused Officer is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for C.B.I., while refuting the said allegations, would submit that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of bribe by the Accused Officer by adducing clinching evidence against him. He would submit that the incident, wherein the Accused Officer demanded and accepted the amount, was witnessed by P.W.2, who was an accompanying witness. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2, clinchingly prove that the amount received by the Accused Officer was towards illegal gratification and the plea set up by the Accused Officer is only an afterthought. 13. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and examined the evidence available on record. 14. There is no dispute that P.W.1 was sanctioned a telephone connection, which was installed in his house on 10.9.2001 and the Accused Officer was working as a Lineman (mechanic). There is also no dispute that the tainted amount was recovered from the Accused Officer on 4.10.2001 and the colour test conducted on his fingers and shirt yielded positive results. As noticed above, the plea of the Accused Officer is that the amount recovered from him was not towards any illegal gratification, but the same was paid to him towards the cost of the extra telephone instrument. 15. Before considering the issue, it is necessary to examine the legal requirements under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. 16. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act are that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant and he should accept the gratification for himself or others as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act in the exercise of his official function. 17. Likewise, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, an accused should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 18. 17. Likewise, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, an accused should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 18. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, the initial burden is upon the prosecution to establish that the Accused Officer demanded illegal gratification to show an official favour and received or agreed to receive the same. When once the said burden is discharged by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act would arise. But, insofar as the offence falling under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, no presumption would arise, but the prosecution has to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing relevant evidence. 19. In the light of the aforesaid legal ingredients, it is to be considered whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused Officer demanded and accepted bribe and whether the accused proved his plea of defence. 20. P.W.1-de facto-complainant is the crucial witness at whose instance the Accused Officer was prosecuted. His evidence is duality and does not fully support the case of the prosecution. On the one hand, he stated that amount was paid to the Accused Officer as bribe and, on the other hand, he stated that it was towards the cost of the telephone instrument. 21. He stated that the telephone was fixed on 10-09-2001 by two boys. Three days later, the Accused Officer met him on the road, and enquired whether the boys had fixed the telephone at his house. When he replied that the telephone was fixed, the Accused Officer laughingly wanted him to give Rs.500/-. Ten days later, the Accused Officer again met him on the road and demanded Rs.500/-. When he asked the Accused Officer as to why he should pay Rs.500/-, he did not give any reason and went away saying that he would inform the reason when the amount was given to him. Again 3 or 4 days later, when the boys, who had fixed the telephone in his house, came to his neighbour’s house, he enquired with them as to why the amount was to be given to the Accused Officer, upon which the said boys told him that it was towards some formality, which they are not aware of it. Again 3 or 4 days later, when the boys, who had fixed the telephone in his house, came to his neighbour’s house, he enquired with them as to why the amount was to be given to the Accused Officer, upon which the said boys told him that it was towards some formality, which they are not aware of it. He therefore presumed that the Accused Officer was demanding bribe even on the date of lodging Ex.P-2 complaint. Thus, though P.W.1 stated that the Accused-Officer asked him amount, he did not state its purpose nor he used the word bribe. On the other hand, P.W.1 himself was not sure whether the amount was towards bribe. 22. His further evidence is that on 4.10.2001, the Accused Officer met him in his house and enquired about his welfare. He then sat by his side in the hall. P.W.1 then enquired about the dynamic locking system and the Accused Officer explained to him the procedure and noted down in Ex.P-5 Diary of the year 2000. At that time he gave the amount to the Accused Officer, who received the same and kept it in his shirt pocket. 23. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he and his family members wanted to have a second instrument installed in the bed room by purchasing it privately. He admitted that 2 or 3 days prior to 10.9.2001, his wife secured a private instrument through the Accused Officer, and kept it in his house. P.W.1 further admitted that the Accused Officer was asked by his wife to collect the amount from him towards the cost of the instrument. 24. It is thus evident that P.W.1 was lurching in doubt and was not sure whether the amount demanded by the Accused Officer was towards bribe or not from the beginning. He was not sure even on the date of giving Ex.P-2 complaint. On the other hand, there is a tacit admission by P.W.1 that the amount was the cost of the instrument. 25. Ex.P-6 Mediators Report prepared during the trap needs to be traversed at this stage. The Accused Officer was questioned by P.W.5 as to whether he accepted the bribe. The Accused Officer denied and said the amount was given to him as a formality. P.W.5, who is the Investigating Officer, spoke this fact in his evidence. 25. Ex.P-6 Mediators Report prepared during the trap needs to be traversed at this stage. The Accused Officer was questioned by P.W.5 as to whether he accepted the bribe. The Accused Officer denied and said the amount was given to him as a formality. P.W.5, who is the Investigating Officer, spoke this fact in his evidence. Even if the said statement is taken on its face value, it cannot be presumed that the amount was paid to him as bribe. 26. The learned Standing Counsel would strenuously contend that though P.W.1 deposed partly in favour of the Accused Officer, his evidence cannot be rejected to the extent it supported the case of the prosecution. Placing reliance on Ex.P2-complaint and the evidence of P.W.2, the counsel would argue that the evidence supporting the case of the prosecution is liable to be accepted, since P.W.1 has no reason to falsely implicate the accused-officer. In other words, it is his contention that though two views are possible from the evidence, the one favourable to the prosecution shall be taken into consideration. I am unable to accept the said contention. Firstly, Ex.P1-complaint is not substantive evidence. Secondly, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of a person who himself is the complainant, because the complainant would be naturally interested in supporting his own complaint. I am supported in taking the said view by the judgment of the Apex Court in BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB ( (1990) 4 SCC 692 ). The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows : “It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that though PW-10 in his chief examination has supported the prosecution version in all its material particulars has given a complete go-by and struck a death kneel to the prosecution in his cross-examination stating that due to darkness he could not identify the culprits. The High Court was inclined to place reliance on his evidence on the ground that this witness in his statement before the police; evidentially referring to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during the investigation as well in the first information report Ex. P.O., has narrated all the relevant facts and had not whispered in those statements that he could not identify the appellant due to darkness. This reasoning of the High Court in our view is erroneous. P.O., has narrated all the relevant facts and had not whispered in those statements that he could not identify the appellant due to darkness. This reasoning of the High Court in our view is erroneous. Needless to stress that the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. shall not be used for any purpose except to contradict a witness in the manner prescribed in the proviso to Section 162(1) and that the first information report is not a substantial piece of evidence. The High Court has misled itself into relying upon these two statements and thereby has fallen into a serious error. It is pertinent to note in this connection that PW-7, an Advocate who is a disinterested witness has testified to the fact that both PWs 9 and 10 met him after the incident, but they did not tell the name of the appellant.” 27. I am also unable to accept the contention that the evidence favourable to prosecution shall be accepted. In T.SUBRAMANIAN vs. STATE OF T.N. ( (2006) 1 SCC 401 )the Apex Court held the view that when two views are reasonably possible from the evidence adduced by the prosecution – one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused – the view favourable to the accused shall be taken into consideration. Thus, I am inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.1 which has supported the plea of the accused that the amount was paid to him towards the cost of the telephone instrument. The trial Court though noticed that two views are possible, convicted the accused mainly on the ground that the P.W.1 admitted giving the amount in Ex.P2-complaint and that he reiterated the same in his evidence and the accused did not examine the son of P.W.1 in support of his plea. In the light of what has been discussed above on the acceptability of the evidence of P.W.1 and the decision of the Apex Court, it is not possible to sustain the reasoning of the trial Court. 28. The learned standing counsel would still argue from the recovery of the amount from the accused-officer it should be legally presumed that what was received by the accused-officer is bribe. 28. The learned standing counsel would still argue from the recovery of the amount from the accused-officer it should be legally presumed that what was received by the accused-officer is bribe. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in B.NOHA v. STATE OF KERALA ( (2006) 12 SCC 277 ).There is no controversy with regard to the principle argued by the learned counsel. In the said case, the evidence of a witness was sought to be discarded on the ground that he was an interested witness, but there was sufficient evidence on record as to why the illegal gratification was demanded and accepted by the accused therein. It is true that if the accused has accepted any gratification, a presumption would arise against him under Section 20 of the Act, but such presumption is always rebuttable by the accused-officer. 29. In C.M. GIRISH BABU v. CBI ( (2009) 3 SCC 779 ), the Apex Court held the following view: “It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. "It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence of proof his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 4 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur verdict of guilt. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts to prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e.; that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." (See Jhingan v. State of U.P. AIR 1966 SC 1762 : (1966) 3 SCR 736 . (Emphasis supplied)” 30. While reiterating the same view in BANARSI DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA ( AIR 2010 SC 1589 ), it was further held as follows: “In light of the statement of two hostile witnesses PW-2 and PW-4, the demand and the acceptance of illegal gratification alleged to have been received by the accused for favouring PW-2 by recording the Khasra Girdawaris in the name of her mother cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. We make it clear that it is only for the two witnesses having turned hostile and they having denied their statement made under Section 161 of the I.P.C. despite confrontation, that the accused may be entitled to acquittal on technical ground. But, in no way we express the opinion that the statement of witnesses including official witnesses PW-10 and PW-11, are not accepted by the Court. Similarly, we have no reason to disbelieve the recovery of Ex. P-1 to P-4 vide Ex. P-D.” 31. Thus, it is settled proposition that there cannot be any presumption merely because the amount was recovered from an accused-officer. 32. In the instant case, the plea of the accused that the amount was paid to him towards the cost of the telephone instrument is admitted by P.W.1 himself. Thus, in my considered view, the presumption against the accused-officer should be rebutted. 33. On an analysis of the evidence as above, having regard to the probabilities of the case, I am of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the conclusions drawn by it in convicting the accused-officer are not tenable. Thus, in my considered view, the presumption against the accused-officer should be rebutted. 33. On an analysis of the evidence as above, having regard to the probabilities of the case, I am of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the conclusions drawn by it in convicting the accused-officer are not tenable. I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused officer are liable to be set aside and he is entitled for acquittal. 34. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 20.1.2005 in C.C.No.1 of 2002 passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam, against appellant-Accused Officer for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, and he is accordingly acquitted of the said charges. 35. The bail bonds executed by the appellant-Accused Officer shall stand discharged. The amount of fine paid, if any, shall be refunded to him.