Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 771 (AP)

State of A. P. v. Chevalavarapu Srinivasa Rao

2023-05-05

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, challenging the judgment, dated 30.11.2006 in C.C.No.22 of 2002, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (“Special Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer No.1 (A.O.1) not guilty of the charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and further found Accused Nos.2 and 3 (A.2 and A.3) not guilty of the charges under Sections 12 and 15 of the P.C. Act and accordingly, acquitted A.O.1, A.2 and A.3 under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and further made an order to prosecute P.W.5 for perjury. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.22/ACB-VJA/00, alleging in substance as follows : (i) A.O.1 was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Vijayawada as on 30.10.2000 and also on the date of trap i.e., 03.11.2000, as such, he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988. (ii) A.2 worked as R.T.A. Agent, Vijayawada and A.3 as the Assistant of A.2 and they are private person. (iii) One Abdul Khader S/o Shaik Dastagiri, resident of Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada (P.W.5) was eking out his livelihood by running a Tractor bearing No.APL/8171-8172 and due to financial difficulties, he could not maintain the tractor and stopped plying it from 1999 onwards and hence submitted an affidavit along with C-book to A.O.1 on 12.10.2000 for tax exemption for the stoppage period. (iv) The M.V.I. inspected the tractor on 28.10.2000 and gave a favourable report on 30.10.2000 and P.W.5 submitted the report to A.O.1 and requested him to process the file for getting tax exemption for the stoppage period of his Tractor. On that A.O.1 demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for doing the said official favour as gratification, for which P.W.5 expressed his inability to pay the demanded bribe amount and on that A.O.1 informed him that he would not put up his file, unless he was bribed. On that A.O.1 demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for doing the said official favour as gratification, for which P.W.5 expressed his inability to pay the demanded bribe amount and on that A.O.1 informed him that he would not put up his file, unless he was bribed. (v) Again on 03.11.2000 P.W.5 approached the office of A.O.1 in the morning and when enquired, A.O.1 reiterated his demand of bribe, for which P.W.5 expressed his inability. Then A.O.1 instructed him to pay the said bribe on the same day evening and take his C-book and as P.W.5 was unwilling to pay the demanded bribe amount to A.O.1, he proceeded to the office of P.W.7- the Dy.S.P., A.C.B., Vijayawada, and presented Ex.P.13-report and the Dy.S.P. after observing necessary formalities, registered a case. (vi) On 03.11.2000 at about 4-55 p.m., P.W.5 along with P.W.1 approached the office of A.O.1 and requested him to process the above said file. Then A.O.1 reiterated his earlier demand and directed P.W.5 to give the same to his agent A.2 and as per the instructions of A.2, A.2’s Agent A.3 accepted the bribe amount from P.W.5 and thereby the accused were successfully trapped and on enquiry by the Dy.S.P. A.3 produced the tainted amount from his front shirt pocket and when S.C. solution test was conducted to both hand fingers of A.3, it proved positive, so also the inner linings of the shirt pocket and thereafter the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- and other relevant record were seized. (vii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has accorded sanction to prosecute A.O.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.158, dated 11.09.2002. Hence, the charge sheet. 4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and after appearance of the A.O.1, A.2 and A.3 and after following the procedure under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 against A.O.1 and further charge under Section 12 of P.C. Act, 1988 against A.2 and A.3 and further charge under Section 15 of the P.C. Act against A.2 and A.3 and explained the same to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to establish the guilt against A.O.1, A.2 and A.3, the prosecution before the Court below, examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and M.O.1 to M.O.9. 5. In order to establish the guilt against A.O.1, A.2 and A.3, the prosecution before the Court below, examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and M.O.1 to M.O.9. A.O.1, A.2 and A.3 got examined D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 in support of their case. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, A.O.1, A.2 and A.3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same. A.O.1 stated that he was unnecessarily implicated in this case. A.2 stated that he is not a public servant and the Agent Balaji instructed him to look after the case papers and asked him to receive Rs.1,000/- as fee from P.W.5 and he never demanded or accepted any amount and never instructed him to pay the money to A.3 and he was falsely implicated. A.3 stated that he does not know about the money and for what reason it was given and he does not know P.W.5 and never talked to him. 6. The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found A.O.1, A.2 and A.3 not guilty of the charges and accordingly, acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful State filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of the Court below in acquitting A.O.1, A.2 and A.3. 7. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved the pendency of the official favour of P.W.5 before A.O.1 prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap? (2) Whether the prosecution proved before the Court below that A.O.1 demanded P.W.5 to pay bribe of Rs.1,000/- for doing official favour, as such, on the date of trap accepted the same through A.2 and A.3 as alleged? (3) Whether the prosecution proved before the Court below that A.2 and A.3 facilitated and abetted the commission of offence as alleged in collusion with A.O.1.? (4) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada? Point Nos.1 to 4:- 8. (3) Whether the prosecution proved before the Court below that A.2 and A.3 facilitated and abetted the commission of offence as alleged in collusion with A.O.1.? (4) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada? Point Nos.1 to 4:- 8. Firstly, insofar as the fact that 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 is concerned, the Court below found favour with the case of the prosecution. Before the Court below, the prosecution examined P.W.3, the Section Officer and got marked Ex.P.9 sanction order. The above findings of the Court below are not challenged by the respondents during the course of hearing of the appeal. Hence, insofar that aspect is concerned, there is no dispute. 9. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.C.B. and Special Public Prosecutor for State, would contend that for obvious reasons, P.W.5 when he was examined before the Court below deviated from the contents of report lodged by him and deposed false for which the Court below ordered prosecution of him on the ground of perjury. The learned Special Judge found favour with the case of the prosecution with regard to the pendency of the official favour. With regard to the allegations of demand of bribe from P.W.5 by A.O.1, P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that prior to the date of trap, twice A.O.1 demanded P.W.5 to pay the bribe, but, he did not support the case of the prosecution. However, during the course of trap when P.W.5 approached A.O.1, he demanded bribe and asked A.2 to receive and then A.2 asked A.3 to receive the same and there is no dispute with regard to the recovery of tainted amount from A.3. For obvious reasons, P.W.1-the mediator and P.W.4-another mediator during the course of cross examination deposed in favour of the A.O.1, A.2 and A.3. However, the recovery of the tainted amount from A.3 is not in dispute. A.2 and A.3 had no business to remain in the office of A.O.1. With the above submissions, she contends that the evidence on record would warrant the conviction. 10. However, the recovery of the tainted amount from A.3 is not in dispute. A.2 and A.3 had no business to remain in the office of A.O.1. With the above submissions, she contends that the evidence on record would warrant the conviction. 10. Sri Badeti Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for the first respondent, would seeks to support the judgment of the learned Special Judge on the ground that though the pendency of the official favour was held to be established by the prosecution, but, the findings of the learned Special Judge were that it was pending by 30.10.2000, but, not on the date of trap. However, as P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution, there was no substantive evidence to prove the allegations under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act against A.O.1. The learned Special Judge with sound reasons extended an order of acquittal which is not liable to be interfered with. He would further submit that this argument can also be considered insofar as second and third respondents (A.2 and A.3) are concerned and that they have nothing to do with A.O.1 and being R.T.A. Agents, they used to attend the office of A.O.1 in discharge of their duties towards their clients and P.W.1, the mediator did not support the case of the prosecution, as such, he sought to support the judgment of the learned Special Judge. 11. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the pendency of the official favour. P.W.1 is mediator for the pretrap and post-trap. P.W.2 worked as Senior Assistant in the office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Vijayawada. P.W.4 was another panch witness for the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. P.W.5 was no other than the defacto-complainant. P.W.6 was the Inspector of ACB and P.W.7 was the trap laying officer. 12. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.1 during events happened in the post-trap with regard to the seizure of documents is that D.S.P. seized the identity card of A.2 which is Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 is the Photostat copy of certificate of registration of Tractor and Trailer. Ex.P.5 is made up file containing 12 sheets relating to application of Abdul Khader, etc., and it was seized from the possession of A.O.1. 13. According to P.W.2, L.W.1-Abdul Khader applied for exemption of tax for stoppage of his tractor and trailer before him. Ex.P.4 is the Photostat copy of certificate of registration of Tractor and Trailer. Ex.P.5 is made up file containing 12 sheets relating to application of Abdul Khader, etc., and it was seized from the possession of A.O.1. 13. According to P.W.2, L.W.1-Abdul Khader applied for exemption of tax for stoppage of his tractor and trailer before him. After perusing the file i.e., the report of M.V. Inspector, he recommended that the stoppage of vehicle may be accepted from exemption of tax. He sent the file to Assistant Secretary, who approved and again it was sent to A.O.1. Again A.O.1 put up the same on 01.11.2000 for his approval. He (P.W.2) approved the file by putting the signature and placed for final order before Assistant Secretary/Deputy Transport Commissioner. Ex.P.5 is the said file. P.W.4, another mediator testified about the seizure of documents from A.O.1 during the course of post trap. According to him, on enquiry by D.S.P., A.O.1 produced Ex.P.5 file so also Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.7. P.W.5, the defacto-complainant, did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.7, the trap laying officer, deposed about the seizure of file from A.O.1 during the post-trap. The contention of A.O.1 before the Court below is that there was no official favour in respect of P.W.5 pending with him as he did already his duties. 14. It is to be noticed that according to P.W.5, he submitted Ex.P.10 on 12.10.2000 in the name of his father along with Ex.P.11 and the authorization under Ex.P.12 to attend on his behalf. Though P.W.2 deposed that by 01.11.2000 A.O.1 complied his part of duties, but, the fact remained is that as on the alleged date of demand i.e., 30.10.2000, the official favour was pending with A.O.1. Apart from this, even during the post-trap, A.O.1 produced the file relating to P.W.5 before the mediators as well as trap laying officer. Under the circumstances, the prosecution categorically established the pendency of the official favour. 15. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the prosecution proved the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by A.O.1 and that A.2 and A.3 facilitated the commission of offence. As seen from Ex.P.13, the report lodged by P.W.5 before ACB, the substance of the allegation is that he had Tractor bearing No.APL 8171-8172 which was in the name of his father. As seen from Ex.P.13, the report lodged by P.W.5 before ACB, the substance of the allegation is that he had Tractor bearing No.APL 8171-8172 which was in the name of his father. It is not plying from 30.09.1999 due to repairs and financial difficulties. So as to claim tax exemption, he prepared affidavit and submitted along with C-book and demand draft to A.O.1 on 12.10.2000. On 28.10.2000 Motor Vehicles Inspector inspected the vehicle and gave a report. Then, he gave the said report to A.O.1 on 30.10.2000. A.O.1 demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- and told him that unless he has paid, his work will not done. Again on 03.11.2000 when he went to R.T.O. Office at 11-00 a.m., A.O.1 demanded Rs.1,000/- and that he was instructed to pay the amount by evening, as such, he presented report. 16. Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, admittedly, he did not support the case of the prosecution. According to him, he submitted Ex.P.10 application along with Ex.P.11 Notary affidavit to A.2 without knowing his identity. Then, A.2 told him that to process the same, he has to pay Rs.1,000/-. So, he approached the ACB. Ex.P.13 is report. He did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to pre-trap and post-trap. His evidence relating to post-trap is that he approached A.2 and A.2 asked him whether he brought the amount and asked him to give the amount to A.3, as such, he gave the amount to A.3. By virtue of the answers elicited from him by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is very clear that he deliberately deposed false against the case of the prosecution so as to help the A.O.1, A.2 and A.3, for which the Court below rightly gave a finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice that he shall be prosecuted for perjury and gave directions to file a complaint. Absolutely, with regard to the allegations of demand of bribe on 30.10.2000 and on 03.11.2000 prior to the trap and further demand during post-trap, there was no substantive evidence adduced by the prosecution. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, he was accompanying witness with instructions to him to observe the events between A.O.1 and P.W.5, but, according to P.W.1, the accompanying witness, he noticed that the complainant approached one person, who was standing and had some conversation. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, he was accompanying witness with instructions to him to observe the events between A.O.1 and P.W.5, but, according to P.W.1, the accompanying witness, he noticed that the complainant approached one person, who was standing and had some conversation. The said person shown another person and then the complainant approached him and had some conversation. The said person also shown another person and the complainant approached him and gave the amount. He deposed that the accused are the persons to whom he seen in the office. Therefore, it is a case where even the evidence of P.W.1 is not clear that A.O.1 demanded P.W.5 to pay the bribe and directed him to pay the amount to A.2 and A.2 directed P.W.5 to pay the amount to A.3. So, the evidence of P.W.1 was of no use to the case of the prosecution. Apart from this, the prosecution also cross examined him after cross examination of the defence counsel. Absolutely, there remained nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 so as to say that A.O.1 demanded bribe from P.W.5 during post-trap and accepted the brie through A.2 and A.3. P.W.4 another mahazar witness was not an accompanying witness and his evidence is of no use as he did not observe the events between P.W.5 and A.O.1. 17. There is no dispute that the amount was recovered from A.3. There is no dispute that A.2 and A.3 were the R.T.A. agents, who used to work in R.T.A. Office. The prosecution failed to establish the link between A.O.1 and A.2 and A.3. The accused examined D.W.1 who deposed that he is working as R.T.A. Agent at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. He was the authorized agent. He knows A.2, who worked as Agent. He knows A.3, who worked under A.2. Ex.P.3 is the identity card of A.2. Certificates will be issued by Deputy Transport Commissioner in favour of authorized agents. Ex.D.1 is the attested Photostat copy of the licence given to A.2. He signed Ex.P.12 issued by Sk. Dastagiri in connection with his vehicle and he entrusted the said work on commission basis through A.2 as he was busy on 12.10.2000. Hence, P.W.5, the owner of the vehicle, took the documents to the office of DTC and he asked P.W.5 to contact A.2 who will attend. So, A.2 got the work completed on 01.11.2000. Ex.P.4 was stoppage of tax was accepted. Hence, P.W.5, the owner of the vehicle, took the documents to the office of DTC and he asked P.W.5 to contact A.2 who will attend. So, A.2 got the work completed on 01.11.2000. Ex.P.4 was stoppage of tax was accepted. He came to know that A.2 and A.3 were falsely implicated. 18. By virtue of the above, there was no dispute that A.2 and A.3 were working as R.T.A. Agents, whose duty was to assist the clients by getting necessary commission fee, etc. The prosecution miserably failed to establish the link between A.O.1 and A.2 & A.3. Even assuming for a moment that P.W.5 paid the amount to A.3 at the instructions of A.2, it cannot be taken as bribe as P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution. Absolutely, there was no substantive evidence to prove the demand, dated 30.10.2000 and 03.11.2000 prior to the trap and during post-trap. Apart from this, absolutely, there was no substantive evidence to prove that A.2 and A.3 facilitated the commission of offence by aiding and abetting the A.O.1. The Court below with sound reasons found A.O.1 and A.2 and A.3 not guilty of the charges. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. 49. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 50. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this judgment to the concerned Judicial Magistrate of First Class where the perjury case against P.W.5 is pending. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.