Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 525 (TS)

K. Ranga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-08-10

K.SURENDER

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/AO was convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988 vide judgment in CC No.37 of 2003 dated 23.07.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the AO worked as Prohibition & Excise Inspector. P.W.1 was running a wine shop, which was owned by P.W.2. Accused officer visited the wine shop on 15.06.2002 and demanded to pay Rs.20,000/- as yearly mamool. Again he visited the shop on 25.06.2002 and 04.07.2002. The accused officer further instructed that an amount of Rs.10,000/-has to be paid at his residence in the evening of 05.07.2002. P.W.1 lodged a complaint with ACB on 04.07.2002. A trap was arranged on 05.07.2002. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the ACB office at Karimnagar with the bribe amount. P.W.5 and another independent mediator and DSP-P.w.6 and Inspector-P.W.7, who formed the trap party, were present in the office. The pre trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P6. The trap party proceeded to the house of the accused officer at 6.55 p.m. Around 7.00 to 8.00 pm, P.W.2 gave pre arranged signal, as such, the trap party entered into the house and conducted sodium carbonate solution test and both the hands of the accused officer, when rinsed in the solution, turned into pink colour. The trap amount was removed from the table drawer and handed over to DSP. When questioned during post trap proceedings, the accused officer stated that he has taken hand loan of Rs.10,000 for his personal use. DSP questioned whether any note for the loan was executed, he stated that no such note was executed. 3. The trap amount was removed from the table drawer and handed over to DSP. When questioned during post trap proceedings, the accused officer stated that he has taken hand loan of Rs.10,000 for his personal use. DSP questioned whether any note for the loan was executed, he stated that no such note was executed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exs.D1 to D7 which are crime occurrence reports and panchanama conducted on 01.11.2002, 12.06.2002, 25.06.2002. It goes to show that the alleged demand of on 25.06.2002 and 13.06.2002 are incorrect, as the accused officer conducted raids at various places. Further, the alleged amount of bribe by the accused officer is towards mamool and there was no official work pending. However, taking advantage of his position, the alleged demand of bribe is made. Both the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution case and supported the defence version of the accused officer as stated during post trap proceedings that the amount was towards loan. In the said circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and since no demand is proved, conviction under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 cannot be maintained in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; i) N.Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 SupremeCourtCases 687. He also relied on the judgment of C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, AIR 2009 SC 2022 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the version of the accused officer therein that the amount was paid towards the repayment of loan. ii) He also relied on the judgment of Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that defence can be established by preponderance of probability and if any explanation is offered during Section 313 Cr.P.C examination and same is found to be reasonable, it cannot be refused merely on the ground that the said explanation was not given when the amount was seized. iii) In Gaddam Mutyala Rao v. State of A.P., (2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 972 (AP), this Court held that in the case of hostility of the prosecution witnesses, Court can consider other circumstances showing the demand and acceptance of bribe. iii) In Gaddam Mutyala Rao v. State of A.P., (2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 972 (AP), this Court held that in the case of hostility of the prosecution witnesses, Court can consider other circumstances showing the demand and acceptance of bribe. iv) T.Subramaniam v. State of Tamilnadu, 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 262 (S.C), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the reasons for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant has to be acquitted. 4. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that since the bribe amount is recovered from the accused officer and the accused officer has accepted receiving of money, though stated that it was loan, presumption under Section 7 is attracted and the accused officer failed to discharge his burden. In the said circumstances, conviction by the trial Court cannot be interfered with. In support of his contentions he relied on the judgments; i) Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, ( 2000 (8) SCC 571 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in any trial for the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d), if it is proved that the accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person, any gratification, it shall be presumed that unless the contrary is proved that the said amount was towards illegal gratification; iii) In Girija Prasad (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 625, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld an order of the High Court reversing the acquittal judgment of the trial Court on the ground of the accused failing to discharge his burden; iv) Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 46; v) Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575 , Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court held that once it is shown that the amount received by any accused is towards illegal gratification, presumption has to be raised. 5. The alleged demand of bribe was towards mamool. There is no official favour or work that was pending in the office of the accused officer. However, the official favour was not to interfere with the business, for which reason, mamool was asked. 5. The alleged demand of bribe was towards mamool. There is no official favour or work that was pending in the office of the accused officer. However, the official favour was not to interfere with the business, for which reason, mamool was asked. During the course of trial, both P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and stated that the said amount was towards loan. 6. D.W.1 was examined, who stated that the accused officer and others were on patrolling duties and registered a case on 04.07.2002. D.W.2 is also another Excise Inspector, who stated that on 25.06.2002, DW.2 and the accused officer conducted search at the premises where illicit distilled liquor was found. D.W.3, who is another witness corroborated the evidence of D.W.2. D.W.4 is another witness to support the case of the accused officer that on 25.06.2002 a case was registered and he filed charge sheet in the Huzurabad Court. 7. The demand allegedly made on 25.06.2002 is not proved by the prosecution by oral and documentary evidence. The evidence of defence witnesses cannot be overlooked only for the reason of their supporting the accused. Both prosecution and defence witnesses have to be treated equally. In the back ground of P.W.2 stating that the amount was given towards loan and the same corroborating with the earliest version of the accused officer stated in the post trap proceedings, the same has to be believed. Though, witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case that in itself would not entail to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in its totality and only concentrate upon the recovery aspect to draw an inference of guilt. On multiple occasions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the demand is not proved, any recovery which is not in consonance with the facts of the case and its circumstances, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused officer when demand is not proved and the defence version was acceptable. 8. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in CC No.37 of 2003 dated 23.07.2008 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. 9. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.