Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1466 (AP)

State v. Earlapati Mruthyumjaya Raju

2023-11-21

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT A.V.Ravindra Babu, J. - The judgment, dated 15.03.2007 in C.C.No.15 of 2005, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, ('Special Judge' for short), is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal filed by the State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau ('A.C.B.' in short), Eluru Range, Eluru. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.18/ACB-RCT-EWG/03 of ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for short) against Accused Officer No.1 ('A.O.1' for short) and the offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act against Accused No.2 ('A.2' for short). 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet as above, is as follows: (i) The A.O.1-Earlapati Mruthyumjaya Raju, S/o late Gogaiah, worked as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kovvuru, West Godavari District, from 08.05.2003 to 15.12.2003. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act. One Vishnu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Suryanarayana (A.2) is a private person. Velagala Nageswara Rao, S/o Venkata Rao (P.W.1) is native of Yerugudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. He used to run a fancy store under the name and style of Rohini Enterprises. He has a Maruthi Van bearing No.A.P.10-A-3636. (ii) On 12.12.2003 night while he was brining two bags of fancy items in his Van, the A.O.1 stopped his vehicle and threatened him that he will book a case against him as he is carrying fancy items in his Van which happened to be a non transport vehicle, as such, demanded him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as a bribe for not booking a case against him. Then P.W.1 informed to the A.O.1 that those items were for his personal use. On enquiry, he produced the vehicle registration certificate. However, the A.O.1 did not return the same and informed that the certificate would be returned without registering a case if he pays bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to him. P.W.1 expressed his inability to do so, but the A.O.1 did not hear the request of P.W.1 and stuck to his earlier demand of bribe of Rs.2,000/-. However, the A.O.1 did not return the same and informed that the certificate would be returned without registering a case if he pays bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to him. P.W.1 expressed his inability to do so, but the A.O.1 did not hear the request of P.W.1 and stuck to his earlier demand of bribe of Rs.2,000/-. Having reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe due to fear that his registration certificate would not be returned, but ultimately P.W.1 decided to lodge a report to ACB. Accordingly, on 14.12.2003 he proceeded to the office of P.W.6-ACB DSP and presented Ex.P.1 report. ACB DSP after causing necessary formalities registered a case against the A.O.1 and took up investigation. (iii) On 15.12.2003 at about 4-40 p.m., on receipt of prearranged signal, P.W.6 along with his staff and mediators rushed into the office of the A.O.1 where P.W.1 informed to him that he gave the bribe amount to A.2 as per the directions of A.O.1 and shown him. Then P.W.6 instructed his staff to keep surveillance on A.2 and after disclosing his identity to the A.O.1, he got conducted Sodium Carbonate solution test on both hand fingers of the A.O.1 which proved negative result. On enquiry with the A.O.1, the A.O.1 gave his explanation and basing on the same, he called A.2 and when he conducted Sodium Carbonate solution test on both hand fingers, it yielded positive result. During further enquiry, A.2 produced the tainted amount from his left side pant pocket, which was seized by the trap laying officer in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report. When the Sodium Carbonate solution test was conducted to the left side pant pocket of A.2, it proved positive. Hence, the trap laying officer seized the relevant record and arrested the A.O.1 and A.2 and forwarded them to judicial custody and investigated into. (iv) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the competent authority to remove the A.O.1, issued prosecution sanction order vide G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 18.02.2005 against the A.O.1. Hence, the charge sheet. 5. On perusal of the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act against the A.O.1 and Section 12 of the P.C. Act against A.2. Hence, the charge sheet. 5. On perusal of the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act against the A.O.1 and Section 12 of the P.C. Act against A.2. On appearance of the A.O.1 and A.2 before the learned Special Judge and after complying the formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act against the A.O.1 and charge under Section 12 of the P.C. Act against A.2, were framed and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt against the A.O.1 and A.2, the prosecution before the learned Special Judge examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and Ex.X.1. The defence counsel got marked Ex.D.1. Further the prosecution got marked M.O.1 to M.O.10. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the A.O.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances. 7. During course of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination, the A.O.1 stated that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe amount from P.W.1 and the alleged demand is not at all correct considering the computation fee payable even if, P.W.1 were to be imposed challan and prosecuted for the alleged violation of provisions of M.V. Act. Therefore, he was falsely implicated. A.2 stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and he never demanded and accepted any bribe from P.W.1 as alleged. 8. The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the A.O.1 and A.2 not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. However, the learned Special Judge made a finding that it is expedite in the interest of justice to prosecute P.W.1 for perjury and accordingly directed launching of prosecution by way of filing complaint for the offence of perjury against P.W.1. Felt aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the unsuccessful State filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Felt aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the unsuccessful State filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the prosecution before the learned Special Judge proved the pendency of official favour with the A.O.1 in respect of the work of P.W.1 as on the date of report lodged by him and as on the date of trap? (2) Whether the prosecution before the leaned Special Judge proved that prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap, the A.O.1 demanded P.W.1 to pay bribe for not booking a case against him and in pursuant to such demand, accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- through A.2? (3) Whether the prosecution proved that A.2 facilitated the commission of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act by the A.O.1, as such, he was abettor in the commission of offence as alleged against the A.O.1 in the manner as alleged? (4) Whether the prosecution proved the charges against both the A.O.1 and A.2 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act and Section 12 of the P.C. Act, as the case may be, beyond reasonable doubt? (5) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge? POINT NOs.1 to 5:- 10. Though the learned Special Judge gave a finding that there was valid sanction to prosecute him, but the findings of the learned Special Judge that the A.O.1 was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and that the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the A.O.1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act is not under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, considering the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.P.16-sanction order, there is positive evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned Special Judge to prove that the A.O.1 was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and that the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him for the offences alleged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act. These aspects are not under challenge during the course of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in any way. 11. P.W.1 was the defacto-complainant, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P.1 with the ACB. P.W.2 was the Service Engineer in the office of District Medical and Health Officer, Eluru, who acted as mediator for pre-trap under Ex.P.6 and post-trap under Ex.P.15. P.W.3 was the Section Officer in Transport Roads and Buildings to prove sanction against the A.O.1. The prosecution examined P.W.4 to speak about certain procedural aspects in respect of the seizure of Registration Certificates from the owners of the vehicles. P.W.5 was the person, who caused discrete enquiries upon the report of Ex.P.1 at the instructions of P.W.6, which ultimately resulted into registration of F.I.R. P.W.6 was the trap laying officer. 12. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Appellant/State, would contend that for obvious reasons and for the reasons best known, P.W.1 gave a goby to the contents of Ex.P.1 and deviated from it and he deposed false in support of the defence of the A.Os. So, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Having alleged in Ex.P.1 that the A.O.1 demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.5,000/- and later reduced to Rs.2,000/-for not booking a case against him, he deviated from the contents of it. However, the seizure of the C-book from the possession of the A.O.1 on the date of trap by the trap laying officer is not in dispute. Therefore, it shows that the pendency of the official favour. Even in Ex.P.7, the voluntary explanation of the A.O.1, he admitted the seizure of the Registration Certificate from P.W.1 and he was in possession of such a document on the date of trap. The evidence reveals that it was seized from the A.O.1 on the date of trap and during the post-trap. So, the prosecution proved the pendency of the official favour. In respect of the demand for bribe prior to the trap and during trap, P.W.1 deviated from Ex.P.1, as such, there is no direct evidence to prove the same. However, the amount was recovered from the possession of A.2 who was driver of the A.O.1. The recovery of tainted amount was established by virtue of the evidence of the mediator and trap laying officer. However, the amount was recovered from the possession of A.2 who was driver of the A.O.1. The recovery of tainted amount was established by virtue of the evidence of the mediator and trap laying officer. A.2 forwarded a thrust theory. In fact, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that when he met the A.O.1 with a request to return his Registration Certificate, he asked the driver to return it and the driver returned it and then the A.O.1 through driver i.e., A.2 accepted the bribe amount. The prosecution established the recovery of the tainted amount from A.2 who was no other than the driver of the A.O.1. The learned Special Judge did not take into consideration of all these aspects. The recovery of the tainted amount from A.2 can be attributed against the A.O.1. A.2 accepted the tainted amount at the instructions of the A.O.1. The learned Special Judge on erroneous reasons, recorded an order of acquittal, as such, it is liable to be interfered with. 13. Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would contend that there is no dispute about the seizure of Registration Certificate during post-trap. In Ex.P.7, the voluntary explanation, the A.O.1 put up a possible reason that when he made search of the vehicle of P.W.1 on 12.12.2003, he found that he (P.W.1) was not carrying required documents in support of the vehicle and he (P.W.1) undertaken to produce before the A.O.1, if he grants some time. On humanitarian grounds, he allowed P.W.1 to produce the documents at a later time, but took 'C' book. Later, on the date of trap, when P.W.1 came to him to get back the 'C' book, he asked the driver to give the same to P.W.1. Later, they went away and they did not know what happened. The amount was not recovered from the possession of the A.O.1. P.W.1 gave a goby from the contents of Ex.P.1. Therefore, the allegations of demand of bribe as alleged in Ex.P.1 are not at all proved. Ex.P.1 and Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 cannot be read any substantive evidence. Even according to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 did not attribute anything against the A.O.1 on the date of trap. According to the defence theory, P.W.1 thrust the amount into the pocket of A.2. Ex.P.1 and Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 cannot be read any substantive evidence. Even according to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 did not attribute anything against the A.O.1 on the date of trap. According to the defence theory, P.W.1 thrust the amount into the pocket of A.2. The prosecution did not establish the link between the recovery of amount from A.2 and the A.O.1. A.2 had no knowledge whatsoever about the pendency of the official favour. Virtually, the evidence is lacking that A.2 facilitated the commission of offence. The learned Special Judge with a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded an order of acquittal which cannot be interfered with. The findings of the learned Special Judge are quietly reasonable. In support of the contentions, he would rely upon the decision in N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (1) Supreme 609 . 14. Before going to appreciate the contentions of both sides with regard to the pendency of the official favour and allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe, it is pertinent to look into the contents of Ex.P.1, report lodged by P.W.1. The substance of the allegations in Ex.P.1 is that P.W.1 is running fancy goods business under the name and style of Rohini Enterprises. He has Maruthi Van for his personal use bearing No.A.P.10-A-3636. On 12.12.2003 at night 9-00 p.m., while he was carrying two bags of fancy goods pertaining to his shop in his Maruthi Van and when he reached Surya Petrol Bunk, Kovvuru, the A.O.1 stopped the Maruthi Van and threatened him that he will book non-transport vehicle against him, as he is carrying two small bags of goods. He pleaded that they are bringing for his personal use. The A.O.1 told him that he will book a case in spite of his request. On his repeated requests, he (A.O.1) demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- for not booking a case. Ultimately, he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and he took his (P.W.1) 'C' book and told him that unless he paid that demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/-, 'C' book will not be given and he will book a case against him. So, this is the sum and substance of the allegations. 15. When it comes to the evidence of P.W.1, he did not speak the case of the prosecution on crucial aspects. So, this is the sum and substance of the allegations. 15. When it comes to the evidence of P.W.1, he did not speak the case of the prosecution on crucial aspects. His evidence in substance is that on 12.12.2003 while he was returning to his house from Rajahmundry and when the vehicle reached near Surya Petrol Bunk, Kovvuru at 8-00 p.m., one person stopped his van and asked him to produce 'C' book for checking by Motor Vehicle Inspector. He gave 'C' book. He was in the Van after handing over 'C' book to that person. That person after some time asked him that he (P.W.1) has to give pollution certificate and insurance, etc. He was not having by then and that they are available in his house. The said person told him, he should not carry the goods in Maruthi Van and he has to carry the goods in a goods carriage and that his vehicle would be seized on that account. He told him that if a case is booked, he has to pay Rs.5,000/-, as such, he has to bring at least Rs.2,000/- to take back his 'C' book. He cannot say the person who stopped the Maruthi Van. So, having felt humiliation and at the advice of some family members, he decided to lodged a report. On 14.12.2003 he gave report to ACB DSP which is Ex.P.1. He further spoke about the pre-trap proceedings with regard to the applying of phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes. His evidence with regard to the post-trap is that as per the instructions of ACB, he proceeded to the office of the A.O.1 and the A.O.1 was not there and he returned and informed the same to ACB, who asked him to wait there. At 4-00 p.m., the A.O.1 came. Then he went there and asked him about his 'C' book and he informed him that 'C' book is available with the driver and asked him to take it from the driver. He went to the driver at the road and met him. A.2 was the driver at that time. A.2 asked him to pay the amount. Then he gave Rs.2,000/- by taking out from his shirt pocket. He does not remember with which hand he received the amount. After receiving the amount, he returned 'C' book which was available with him. Then he gave the pre arranged signal. A.2 was the driver at that time. A.2 asked him to pay the amount. Then he gave Rs.2,000/- by taking out from his shirt pocket. He does not remember with which hand he received the amount. After receiving the amount, he returned 'C' book which was available with him. Then he gave the pre arranged signal. He informed the DSP that he gave the amount to A.2. This is the sum and substance of the evidence of P.W.1. Prosecution got declared him as hostile and during cross examination, he denied the case of the prosecution as alleged in Ex.P.1 and the post-trap proceedings. 16. It is to be noted that during the course of cross examination of P.W.1, there is no dispute about the seizure of Registration Certificate of P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed that he cannot say the name of the person and he does not know the name of the person and he did not identify the person who seized 'C' book. However, the evidence of P.W.2, the mediator and P.W.6, the trap laying officer, proves the seizure of 'C' book from the possession of the A.O.1. Apart from this, Ex.P.7 is the self-styled explanation separately written by the A.O.1 which reveals about the seizure of 'C' book from P.W.1 on 12.12.2003. The substance of it is that when he searched the vehicle of P.W.1, he was not possessing required certificates and he undertaken to produce in the later time and on humanitarian grounds, he allowed P.W.1 to give, but he took 'C' book, etc. Though P.W.1 did not speak about the identity of person who seized 'C' book but Ex.P.7 which is voluntary in nature coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, trap laying officer, would prove the seizure of 'C' book by the trap laying officer from A.O.1 during post-trap. So, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the pendency of the official favour. 17. Turning to the allegations of demand of bribe attributed against the A.O.1 as alleged in Ex.P.1 and in the posttrap, P.W.1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Merely because the prosecution was able to prove the pendency of the official favour, it does not lead to a conclusion that the A.O.1 demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe. 17. Turning to the allegations of demand of bribe attributed against the A.O.1 as alleged in Ex.P.1 and in the posttrap, P.W.1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Merely because the prosecution was able to prove the pendency of the official favour, it does not lead to a conclusion that the A.O.1 demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe. In view of the admissions made by P.W.1 during the course of cross examination by the Special Public Prosecutor as to the contents of Ex.P.1 and further contents of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement, they are nothing but voluntary, but, however, for obvious reasons P.W.1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. For this part of behavior of P.W.1, the learned Special Judge made appropriate findings as if P.W.1 appears to have given false evidence and ordered prosecution of perjury against him which is altogether a different issue. But, insofar as the allegations of demand as alleged in Ex.P.1 and in post-trap proceedings are concerned against the A.O.1, there is no substantive evidence at all. Ex.P.1, Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 and further post-trap under Ex.P.15 cannot be read any substantive evidence. It is not a case where the tainted amount was recovered from the physical possession of the A.O.1. On the other hand, the amount was said to be recovered from the possession of A.2. Even it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that at the directions of the A.O.1, he delivered the tainted amount to A.2. According to P.W.1, the A.O.1 asked him to take back the original 'C' book from the driver (A.2) and later he took 'C' book A.2 and A.2 asked him to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/-and then he paid the amount. So, absolutely, a link is missing in the evidence that at the instructions of the A.O.1, A.2 took the tainted amount. 18. It is to be noted that Ex.P.8 is the voluntary explanation took by ACB DSP from A.2 on a separate paper. As seen from Ex.P.8, it reads that when A.2 gave 'C' book to P.W.1, he tried to give a sum of Rs.2,000/- and then he refused to take the amount and warded off his hand, but he forcibly thrust the amount in his pocket. The defence of A.2 is in tune with Ex.P.8 during the course of cross examination of P.W.1. The defence of A.2 is in tune with Ex.P.8 during the course of cross examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the defence of A.2 during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 as if P.W.1 thrust the amount into pocket of A.2 is not without any basis from the record and it is from the voluntary explanation of A.2 during post-trap proceedings. The prosecution did not establish that A.2 facilitated the commission of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act by the A.O.1. The mere recovery of the amount from A.2 would not prove the charge against the A.O.1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The mere recovery of amount from A.2 in the absence of collusion between the A.O.1 and A.2 would not prove the charge under Section 12 of the P.C. Act. Except the solitary circumstance that amount was recovered from A.2, the prosecution did not establish anything with regard to the allegations of demand against the A.O.1 prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap. So, when P.W.1 did not speak that the A.O.1 demanded any bribe either prior to the trap or during the post-trap, his evidence that A.2 asked him to pay the amount cannot carry any weight especially when the defence of A.2 is in tune with Ex.P.8, voluntary explanation given by him during post-trap. 19. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in N. Vijayakumar's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which such money and article is found is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Apart from this, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724 held that to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, prosecution has to prove the foundational facts. Coming to the present case on hand, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the foundational facts. Under the circumstances, as the recovery of amount was not from the A.O.1 and as the prosecution failed to establish the nexus between the A.O.1 and A.2, there is no benefit of presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Coming to the present case on hand, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the foundational facts. Under the circumstances, as the recovery of amount was not from the A.O.1 and as the prosecution failed to establish the nexus between the A.O.1 and A.2, there is no benefit of presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. It is a case where the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts to sustain the charges against the accused. The learned Special Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded an order of acquittal. Under the circumstances, the well reasoned judgment of the learned Special Judge is not liable to be interfered with. The prosecution before the learned Special Judge failed to prove the allegations of demand alleged against the A.O.1 prior to the trap and on the date of trap and further failed to prove the allegation that A.2 facilitated the commission of offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act. The evidence on record warrants the learned Special Judge to extend the benefit of doubt. However, the findings of the learned Special Judge as against P.W.1 for ordering the prosecution under perjury are reasonable and they are not liable to be interfered with. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal, as such, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 15.03.2007 in C.C.No.15 of 2005, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. 21. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this judgment to the trial Court as well as to the Court where the perjury case against P.W.1 is pending for information. 22. The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the judgment to the trial Court on or before 28.11.2023. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.