Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 100 (AP)

State v. Mude Krishnaiah S/o Subbaiah

2024-01-25

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2024
JUDGMENT : Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 03.04.2007, in Calender Case No.33 of 2002, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), where under the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’). 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, Anti Corruption Bureau, Prakasam District, Ongole filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer in Crime No.16/ACB-NPK/2001 alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows: (i) Sri Vaddella Ramanaiah (AO) worked as Assistant Lineman, Madanur Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District during the period from 03.11.1995 to 26.06.2001 and he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Sri Billa Vasantha Rao (LW.1) is a resident of Madanur Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District and he belongs to Schedule Caste Community. LW.1 is having thatched house at Madanur village. LW.1 with an intention to apply for power supply connection to his house obtained certificates regarding existence of his house and his caste from Person In-charge, Grama Panchayat, Madanur and from VAO, Madanur respectively. On 08.06.2001, LW.1 approached and handed over the certificates obtained by him to the AO and requested him to provide power connection to his house. LW.1 paid an amount of Rs.900/- to the AO as instructed by him towards Government fee for providing service connection. Subsequently, LW.1 came to know that the fees for Service Connection to SC/ST Category people is only Rs.225/- and as the Assistant Lineman (AO) mislead him and collected Rs.900/- from him, he approached AO on the evening of 20.06.2001 and requested him to provide power connection to his house. Then, the AO demanded LW.1 to pay Rs.600/- as illegal gratification for providing new Service Connection to his house. LW.1 expressed his inability to pay illegal gratification as he already paid Rs.900/-. Then, the AO demanded LW.1 to pay Rs.600/- as illegal gratification for providing new Service Connection to his house. LW.1 expressed his inability to pay illegal gratification as he already paid Rs.900/-. Then, the AO informed that they are collecting Rs.1,500/- all together towards fees and for bribe and demanded LW.1 to pay Rs.600/- towards bribe. The AO informed LW.1 that it is not possible to him to provide power connection unless he paid the demanded bribe amount. LW.1 accepted to pay the bribe and went away. (ii) As LW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the AO, he approached Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole (LW.11) on 20.06.2001 at 08:00 p.m. and gave a report against Accused Officer. The DSP, ACB, Nellore (LW.10) registered the report of LW.1 as case in Crime No.16/ACB-NPK/2001 on 21.06.2001 at 14:00 hours and investigated the case. (iii) Pre-trap proceedings were conducted at the office of Inspector, ACB, Ongole on 21.06.2001 between 02:30 p.m. and 04:00 p.m. in the presence of mediators (LW.7 and LW.8) and others. The DSP, ACB (LW.10) led the raid party consisting of LW.1, LW.7 and LW.8 and other ACB staff to Madanur Village on the evening of 21.06.2001 and waited there for arrival of Accused Officer. The AO came to the hotel of Sri Ch. Srinivasa Rao at about 08:25 p.m. on 21-06-2001 and LW.1 approached him and requested him to provide power supply connection to his house. Then the AO demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.600/- from LW.1 for doing official favour of providing new power supply connection to his house. The AO received the bribe amount from LW.1 with his right hand, counted the same with his both hands and kept the amount in his pant’s right side front pocket. On the signal given by LW.1, the DSP, ACB, Nellore along with other raid party members rushed to the AO and conducted post-trap proceedings between 08:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. on 21.06.2001 at the hotel of Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao. Sodium Carbonate solution test conducted on the both hand fingers of AO proved positive and the tainted currency notes of Rs.600/- was recovered from the AO, when produced by him from his pant pocket in the presence of mediators and the numbers of said currency notes were tallied with the numbers of the currency notes recorded earlier in the pre-trap proceedings. Sodium Carbonate Solution test conducted on the inner linings of right side front pocket of AO’s pant proved positive. The DSP, ACB seized the pant of AO and the certificates issued by Sarpanch, Madanur and VAO, Madanur from his possession (iv) The Chief General Manager, AP Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Tirupati accorded sanction order to prosecute the Accused Officer in a Court of Law under Sections 7, 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and for any other cognate offences punishable under any provisions of law vide proceedings No.CGM/HRD/DS/ASIII/PO(DC)/D.No.1010/02, dated 8.8.2002. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, ACB, Prakasam District (LW.11) filed charge sheet against the AO for the aforesaid offences. 4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law. After appearance of the accused and after complying necessary formalities under Sections 207 Cr.P.C, the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the AO and explained the same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution, during the course of trial, got examined PWs.1 to PW.7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and MOs.1 to MO.8. 6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, AO was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution for which he denied the same and in support of his defence, got examined DW.1 and DW.2 and got marked Exs.D-1 and D-2 and Exs.X-1 and X-2. 7. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the Accused Officer not guilty of the charges and accordingly acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful State, represented by Inspector of Police, ACB, Prakasam District, Ongole filed the present Appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal. 9. Now in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that AO is a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the PC Act for the charges framed against him? 2) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap AO demanded PW.1 to pay bribe of Rs.600/- and pursuant to such demand, he accepted the bribe amount and he did so by corrupt and illegal means by abusing his official position? 3) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved the charges against the AO beyond reasonable doubt? 4) Whether the judgment, dated 03.04.2007, in Calender Case No.33 of 2002, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? 10. POINT No.1: A perusal of the evidence of PW.5, coupled with Ex.P-9 sanction, reveals that the Sanctioning Authority, after due application of mind, accorded sanction to prosecute the AO. The findings of the Sanctioning Authority particularly in this regard are not disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondent/AO during the course of hearing of the Appeal. Hence, the learned Special Judge, insofar as this point is concerned, rightly answered the issue. POINT Nos.2 to 4: 11. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Appellant-State, would contend that PW.1 fully supported the case of the prosecution. Exs.P-2 and P-3 – certificates submitted by PW.1 before AO on 08.06.2001 were recovered from the AO on the date of trap when he carried the same to the Hotel. The chemical test conducted to both hands fingers of AO yielded positive result. The amount was recovered from the physical possession of AO. The trap mediator i.e., PW.4 and the Trap Laying Officer – PW.6 and PW.7 - Inspector of Police, ACB, who assisted PW.6, supported the case of prosecution. There was no dispute about recovery of the tainted amount from the Accused. The learned Special Judge found favour with the defence of the accused on the ground that prosecution did not prove that PW.1 submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 before AO on 08.06.2001. The reasoning made by the learned Special Judge is not tenable. The evidence on record would prove the charges as such the Appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. Sri A. Hariprasad Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent/AO, would contend that there was no piece of document to show that PW.1 submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 and paid Rs.900/- to AO along with the application. The evidence on record would prove the charges as such the Appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. Sri A. Hariprasad Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent/AO, would contend that there was no piece of document to show that PW.1 submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 and paid Rs.900/- to AO along with the application. PW.1 claimed that he had a thatched hut for which Service Connection is necessary. Exs.P-2 and P-3, the so called certificates, did not reveal the door number of the hut. The evidence on record disclosed that PW.1 was residing in the house of his father which had a door number and which had Service Connection. Existence of thatched hut of PW.1 was not proved. There was no possibility for anybody to give Service Connection without there being any door number. On the date of trap only PW.1 handed over Exs.P-2 and P-3 by paying Rs.600/- to AO with a request to AO that he wanted to get Service Connection under General Category for which Rs.425/- is necessary and the rest of the amount was towards transportation charges. There is evidence of PW.2 in cross-examination that he stated before the ACB officials that there was a practice for the Lineman, at request of the consumers, to assist them by taking such amount when the customers were not able to get the necessary things. Prosecution deliberately withheld such version during the course of trial i.e., chief-examination of PW.2. However, he admitted the said version in his cross-examination. There was no pendency of official prior to the date of trap. Even on the date of trap, PW.1 handed over only Exs.P-2 and P-3 with a request to AO to assist him properly. The learned Special Judge rightly considered the evidence on record and extended an order of acquittal which needs no interference. 13. As seen from Ex.P-1 – report, the substance of the case of the prosecution is that, PW.1 made an application and submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 on 08.06.2001 before AO by paying a sum of Rs.900/- for having Service Connection to his hut. AO collected Rs.900/- though PW.1 belongs to SC Category and the amount that was supposed to be paid by him was less. It is the case that AO further demanded Rs.600/- so as to process his request. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he deposed in favour of the case of prosecution. AO collected Rs.900/- though PW.1 belongs to SC Category and the amount that was supposed to be paid by him was less. It is the case that AO further demanded Rs.600/- so as to process his request. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he deposed in favour of the case of prosecution. According to him, on 08.06.2001, he submitted application along with the certificate of the Village Sarpanch for providing power connection to his house. He paid Rs.900/- as instructed by AO. AO further demanded, on 20.06.2001, a sum of Rs.600/- as bribe. So, felt aggrieved of such demand, he lodged a report with ACB Officials. He also deposed that during the course of post-trap, AO demanded to pay him Rs.600/- and accordingly he paid it. This is the substance of the contents of Ex.P-1 as well as the evidence of PW.1. 14. As seen from the cross-examination part of PW.1, he deposed that it is true that at first time when he met the AO, he informed him to bring the caste certificate and certificates of VAO and Sarpanch. He denied that AO did not demand bribe of Rs.600/-. He denied that on 08.06.2001 he did not give any application to AO and did not pay any amount of Rs.900/- to AO on that day. He denied that he gave Exs.P-2 and P-3 on the date of trap. He further deposed in re-cross-examination that in Exs.P-2 and P-3, there is no door number mentioned for his alleged house. He admitted that previously he used to reside in the residential house of his father which had a door number. 15. As evident from the evidence of PW.2, the procedure for any person to get a domestic service connection is to submit LT application along with cash of Rs.25/- at AE Office with proof of ownership over the premises. The persons belonging to SC/ST have to produce caste certificate obtained from MRO also. Though the applications will be entered into LT Application Register but, after receipt of considerable number of applications, they will be entrusted to concerned Lineman or Line Assistant. Lineman will inspect the premises for verification. SC/ST people have to pay Rs.100/- towards development charges and Rs.100/- towards security deposit. 16. Prosecution examined PW.3, who issued Ex.P-3 certificate in favour of PW.1 stating that PW.1 had a thatched house and he belongs to scheduled caste community. Lineman will inspect the premises for verification. SC/ST people have to pay Rs.100/- towards development charges and Rs.100/- towards security deposit. 16. Prosecution examined PW.3, who issued Ex.P-3 certificate in favour of PW.1 stating that PW.1 had a thatched house and he belongs to scheduled caste community. In cross-examination, he testified that he did not see whether the hut was in existence or not. Even PW.1 did not produce any house tax receipt before him. 17. It is to be noted that Exs.P-2 and P-3, the so called certificates issued in favour of PW.1, did not reveal the door number to the so called hut of PW.1. Except the self serving evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence to show that PW.1 submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 and also application along with cash of Rs.900/-, as claimed by him, before AO on 08.06.2001. AO was not competent to receive those things because procedure is clearly stated by PW.2 that such things are to be submitted before the AE office. So, absolutely, there was no convincing evidence to prove that as on 08.06.2001 PW.1 submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3, cash of Rs.900/- along with the application. To succeed, prosecution has to establish pendency of official favour prior to the date of trap. In my considered view, the prosecution miserably failed to show that AO was competent to receive the application of PW.1 and that PW.1 submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 and cash along with the application on 08.06.2001. The so called application of PW.1 submitted on 08.06.2001 did not see the light of the day. So, there was no convincing evidence to prove the pendency of official favour prior to the date of trap. 18. Coming to the episode which was said to be occurred on the date of trap, there was no dispute that Exs.P-2 and P-3 and cash of Rs.600/- was recovered from the possession of AO. It is evident from the evidence of PW.4 – the trap mediator and PW.6 – Trap Laying Officer. AO had set forth a defence that PW.1 on the date of trap submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 along with a sum of Rs.600/- and out of it, Rs.425/- was meant for necessary charges under general category and the rest of the amount was for his transportation expenses. AO had set forth a defence that PW.1 on the date of trap submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 along with a sum of Rs.600/- and out of it, Rs.425/- was meant for necessary charges under general category and the rest of the amount was for his transportation expenses. It is to be noted that PW.1 had to submit the caste certificate which was supposed to be issued by concerned MRO to AO as demanded. Apart from this, according to the evidence of PW.2 in cross-examination, he gave a statement under 161 Cr.P.C statement before the DSP, ACB that sometimes field staff are collecting applications and depositing amounts from the consumers at their request and completing all the above formalities. He also admitted that he stated in 161 Cr.P.C. statement that there is a practice of submitting applications by the field staff in the Section Office as the villagers were requesting the field staff to do so. This procedure stated by PW.1 before the DSP, ACB was in connection with the defence of the accused. It appears that the prosecution deliberately did not elicit these facts from his mouth during the chief-examination. When the learned defence counsel elicited this version during cross-examination, prosecution kept quiet without seeking any further clarification. So, the defence set forth by the AO is in tune with the statement of PW.2 before the DSP, ACB. 19. It is to be noted that though there was no dispute about the seizure of Exs.P-2 and P-3 from the AO, his defence is that on the date of trap only PW.1 handed over the same to him to process his request as he was not able to complete all formalities. It is to be noted that when it is the evidence of PW.1 and the case of prosecution that PW.1 submitted application also on 08.06.2001, if really AO demanded bribe, he would have also carried such application along with Exs.P-2 and P-3 to a hotel where he was alleged to have collected bribe amount. In fact, there was no necessity for PW.1 to carry Exs.P-2 and P-3 to the hotel on the date of trap. So, it probabilizes the defence theory that PW.1 submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 before AO on the date of trap only. If he had submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 on the date of trap before AO, the entire edifice of the case of prosecution stands crumbled. So, it probabilizes the defence theory that PW.1 submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 before AO on the date of trap only. If he had submitted Exs.P-2 and P-3 on the date of trap before AO, the entire edifice of the case of prosecution stands crumbled. The learned Special Judge with due consideration of the evidence on record and with tenable reasons extended an order of acquittal in favour of the accused. The grounds set-forth by the learned Special Judge for extending an order of acquittal are on reasonable basis and they are not un-reasonable. So, when the judgment of the learned Special Judge is supported with proper reasons, this Court shall be slow in reversing an order of acquittal. Absolutely, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Judge. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 03.04.2007, in Calender Case No.33 of 2002, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.