Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 886 (AP)

Chodapaneedi Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-07-31

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2024
ORDER : V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. 1. In a prosecution initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of ACB, Rajamahendravaram Range, Rajamahendravaram, there are four accused who are to face trial in C.C.No.126 of 2018 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram. A1 therein is Sub-Registrar. A2, A3 and A4 therein are document writers. Charge sheet alleges commission of offences under sections 7(13)(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against A1. It alleges offences under sections 8 and 12 of the Act, 1988 as against A2 to A4. 2. A1 seeking his discharge in terms of section 227 CrPC filed Crl.M.P.No.471 of 2019. After due hearing, the learned Special Judge by an order dated 12.11.2021 refused to discharge him and dismissed the petition. 3. Aggrieved by that order, invoking sections 397 and 401 CrPC, this revision is preferred by A1. 4. Sri Mastan Naidu, the learned counsel on behalf of Sri Rambabu Devarapu for petitioner made the following submissions: - That there is no legal material to charge the accused. The material on record does not indicate demand and acceptance of bribe amount and nothing was recovered from the revision petitioner This revision petitioner does not have any proximity or connection with A2 to A4/ private persons and by roping those private persons, prosecution unnecessarily intends to prosecute the revision petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited Dashrath Singh Chauhan V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 17 SCC 509 Their Lordships held that prosecution has to prove the twin requirement of demand and acceptance of the bribe amounts failing which the accused cannot be found guilty. That was a case where the evidence disclosed demand of bribe. However, acceptance was not proved and the evidence proved recovery of money from the other accused. In that case, prosecution failed to prove that the accused from whom recovery was made was the one who received bribe amount for and on behalf of the appellant/accused therein. It was in those circumstances, that conviction was set aside. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 The above cited ruling pertains to consideration of law and facts at the time of framing charges. It is stated that at the time of charge hearing, the trial court does not act as a mere post office. It was in those circumstances, that conviction was set aside. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 The above cited ruling pertains to consideration of law and facts at the time of framing charges. It is stated that at the time of charge hearing, the trial court does not act as a mere post office. The court must sift the material before it. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial judge hearing arguments after entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that there is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence. Kanchan Kumar V. State of Bihar, (2022) 9 SCC 577 What constitutes illegal gratification is a question of law. Whether on the evidence that crime has been committed is a question of fact. If the evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe leaves room for doubt and does not displace wholly, the presumption of innocence, the charge said to have been established. The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under section 227 CrPC, is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he shall be fully within his right to discharge the accused. Judge should not weigh the evidence as if he is conducting a trial. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he shall be fully within his right to discharge the accused. Judge should not weigh the evidence as if he is conducting a trial. If the facts taken on their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charge has to be framed. Learned counsel for revision petitioner made fervent submissions that the material placed before the learned Special Judge and the principles of law cited were not properly appreciated by the said court and thus it committed error which shall be rectified in this revision. 6. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/State submits that a detailed counter affidavit is already placed on record. It is argued that it is a clear case of demand and acceptance of bribe and the learned counsel has taken the court through the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation to sustain the contention raised. It is argued that learned Special Judge correctly considered the facts and law and refused to discharge the accused and there is no error in the impugned order and therefore no interference is required in this revision and seeks dismissal of the petition. 7. The following point falls for consideration: - “Whether the impugned order of the learned Special Judge is illegal or irregular or suffers from impropriety? POINT: - 8. The facts on record: The A1/petitioner is the Sub-Registrar, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District and A2 to A4 are Private Document Writers. On credible information, that the Sub-Registrar, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District and his office staff are indulging in corruption activities by engaging private document writers and assistant document writers and collecting huge bribe amounts from the parties who approached for registration of documents. Then, the raiding party laid a surprise check in the presence mediators on 30.07.2015 from 17.15 hours to 00:40 hours on 31.07.2015 and a total un accounted cash of Rs.2,90,390/- from three document writers and Rs.19,450/- from three office staff of Sub-Registrar Office, Rajanagaram were found and seized under cover of Surprise Check proceedings. Then, the raiding party laid a surprise check in the presence mediators on 30.07.2015 from 17.15 hours to 00:40 hours on 31.07.2015 and a total un accounted cash of Rs.2,90,390/- from three document writers and Rs.19,450/- from three office staff of Sub-Registrar Office, Rajanagaram were found and seized under cover of Surprise Check proceedings. Basing on the surprise check report, a case in Crime No.05/RCO-RJY/2015 under sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1)(a)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered on 01.08.2015 at 11:00 am against the Petitioner/A1/ Sri Ch. Ramesh, Sub-Registrar, Rajanagaram and three document writers/A2/Sri Vadrevu Satya Venkata Srinivas Kumar, A3/Sri Pragada Trimurthulu, @ Dorababu and A4/Sri Donka Srinivasa Rao who collected commissions of Rs.1,32,170/-, Rs.85,420/- and Rs.72,800/- respectively at a rate of 0.5% to 5% on consideration value from the parties who approached the Sub-Registrar office, Rajanagaram on 30-07-2015 for registration. After completion of investigation, the ACB has sent Final Report to the Government on 18.07.2016 recommending for prosecution of A1/Petitioner under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Act, 1988 and A2 to A4 under sections 8 and 12 of the Act, 1988. The ACB further recommended for Departmental action against A1 and three office staff for possession of excess amounts. The Government agreed with the recommendations of the Bureau and issued G.O.Ms.No.417, dated 31.08.2016 of the Revenue (Vig.ll) Department for prosecution of A1/Petitioner and three document writers in a court of law. Accordingly, the Bureau has filed Charge Sheet in the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases Court, Vijayawada on 18.11.2016 vide C.C.No.19 of 2017. Later the case was transferred to the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases Court, Rajamahendravaram vide C.C.No.126/2018. 9. During investigation, the investigating agency records the statements of witnesses which would possibly be the oral evidence at the trial. However, those statements recorded themselves cannot be tendered as evidence at the trial and the makers of the statement will have to swear and depose facts which may or may not be tallying with statements recorded during investigation. Charge hearing is the starting point of a criminal trial. At that stage, it is those statements that were recorded during investigation along with the documents collected during investigation that are available for consideration at the time of taking a decision of charging or discharging the accused. Charge hearing is the starting point of a criminal trial. At that stage, it is those statements that were recorded during investigation along with the documents collected during investigation that are available for consideration at the time of taking a decision of charging or discharging the accused. What was there in the case diary was the material for consideration at that stage. Therefore, it is those statements recorded by the investigating agency during investigation that fall for consideration during charge hearing. In the case at hand, by the time, the raiding party reached the scene of offence, the money was in the hands of A2 to A4 and the money was not in the hands of A1/ the revision petitioner. Allegation is that A2 to A4 collected the money from the persons at the behest of A1 and they were with A1 to hand over the same but before they did it, they were caught. It is in the light of these facts, the contentions raised by the revision petitioner falls for consideration. It is contended that there is no demand and no acceptance and no recovery and therefore revision petitioner shall be discharged. However, the case diary shows statements of several witnesses which show facts in a different light. For instance, the statement of LW.3/ Sri Thorati Satyanarayana is that he intended to purchase a house bearing Door No.2-94 from his co-villager and together they came to Sub-Registrar’s office on 30.07.2015 and they met the document writer/ Sri Vadrevu Satya Venkata Srinivas Kumar/A2. Then the document writer took them to the Sub-Registrar/ Sri Ch.Ramesh/A1/revision petitioner. Then the Sub-Registrar verified the documents and told them that on the sale consideration value, the requisite stamp duty, registration fee, user charges all together would be Rs.24,635/-. It is also stated that that the Sub-Registrar told him that to register this document they should pay 5% on the value of sale consideration which amounts to Rs.16,000/- and they should pay that amount to the document writer/A2. He further stated that he accordingly paid Rs.16,000/- to A2 and A2 then prepared the document and for the purpose of registration kept it with the Sub-Registrar/A1. He then narrates about the facts concerning trap etc. This statement has to be taken on its face value. This statement indicates the version of a direct witness. He further stated that he accordingly paid Rs.16,000/- to A2 and A2 then prepared the document and for the purpose of registration kept it with the Sub-Registrar/A1. He then narrates about the facts concerning trap etc. This statement has to be taken on its face value. This statement indicates the version of a direct witness. As per this statement, the demand was straight from the mouth of revision petitioner and there was the guidance from the revision petitioner about the method and manner by which he would receive and accept that money. The material on record would show recovery of that amount from A2 which was in tune with the method prescribed by the revision petitioner. Whether all this is true or false is a matter of trial. What is available in black and white cannot be ignored. What is stated by this witness and many other witnesses like him is part of the record. The learned Special Judge is right in holding that he is clearly of the view that there is prima facie case to charge this revision petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner that there is no legal material to charge and that there is no demand, acceptance and recovery and by roping in private persons state wanted to malign this revision petitioner are contentions not based on facts. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. There is no merit in the revision. Hence, point is answered against the petitioner. 10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.