Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 213 (TS)

E. Ganga Ram v. State

2025-04-02

K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.SURENDER, J. 1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.45 of 2004 dated 29.10.2009, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal is filed. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. He approached the DSP, ACB, and lodged a complaint on 29.04.2003. According to P.W.1, he purchased two plots in the year 2003, admeasuring 166.66 sq.yds. The sale deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Adilabad. On 19.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, and requested him to return the original sale deeds Exs.P1 and P2, for which, the demand for Rs.500/- was made by the appellant. Again on 21.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, and requested him to give the sale deeds. However, the appellant reiterated his demand and informed that he would not give Exs.P1 and P2 unless the demand for a bribe was fulfilled. 3. On 29.04.2003, P.W.1 met DSP, ACB/P.W.6, and lodged a complaint. P.W.6 asked P.W.1 to come the next day, i.e., on 30.04.2003, on which day the trap was arranged. The trap party gathered at 1.00 p.m in the Forest Guest House, Adilabad. The pre- trap proceedings were concluded. P.W.1 and his friend P.W.2 were asked to meet the appellant. P.W.2 was instructed to observe what transpires between P.W.1 and the appellant. 4. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office around 2.30 p.m. The appellant, on seeing P.W.1, demanded the bribe amount, and the amount was handed over to A2, who was in his chamber. Ten minutes thereafter, P.W.2 came out and signaled to the trap party, indicating the demand and the acceptance of the amount by the appellant. The trap party then entered the office, and the hands of the appellant were tested. The test on both hands proved positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The appellant, when questioned, informed that the bribe amount was with A2. The hands of A2 also tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. 5. The DSP, ACB seized Exs.P1 and P2 from P.W.1, which are the sale deeds, allegedly handed over by the appellant after accepting the bribe. 6. The appellant, when questioned, informed that the bribe amount was with A2. The hands of A2 also tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. 5. The DSP, ACB seized Exs.P1 and P2 from P.W.1, which are the sale deeds, allegedly handed over by the appellant after accepting the bribe. 6. The statements of P.Ws.1, 2, the appellant, and A2 were recorded in the post-trap proceedings/Ex.P6, and the relevant documents were also seized. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over by P.W.6 to M.Kiran Kumar, Inspector of Police (not examined), who filed the charge sheet. 7. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and the recovery of Exs.P1 and P2 on the date of the trap, were the reasons for the learned Special Judge finding the appellant guilty. However, the learned Special Judge found that A2 was not complicit along with the appellant in demanding and accepting the bribe, for which reason A2 was acquitted. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant never demanded any bribe. On the date of the trap, P.W.1 showed a receipt which was handled by the appellant for verification, and the amount was passed on by placing the amount in the receipt. Though the appellant objected and intended to return the receipt along with the amount, however, such amount was handed over to A2 to return it to P.W.1. The said version was not recorded by the DSP during the post-trap proceedings. Learned counsel further argued that there is no official duty pending as on the date of the trap. Exs.P1 and P2 were registered on 19.04.2003 by P.W.4, who is the Joint Sub-Registrar. The said documents, Exs.P1 and P2, were received by P.W.1 on the date of the registration, i.e., on 19.04.2003, and P.W.1 had acknowledged the receipt of Exs.P1 and P2. A false complaint was filed by P.W.1, and he accepted that he has signed on Ex.D1 after receiving the registered documents. The documents, Ex.D1, Exs.X1, and X2, clearly indicate that the documents were already taken by P.W.1, as such, the question of demanding or accepting bribe, does not arise. 9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kalukuri Lingaiah v. State, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 779 (AP). 10. Learned counsel further argued that the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be considered for corroboration to P.W.1’s evidence. P.W.2 is a friend of the complainant. 9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kalukuri Lingaiah v. State, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 779 (AP). 10. Learned counsel further argued that the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be considered for corroboration to P.W.1’s evidence. P.W.2 is a friend of the complainant. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P ., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 9091 of 2022, dated 10.07.2024 observed that the accompanying witness, being a close friend of the complainant, can be assumed to be an interested witness. 11. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the documents were seized from P.W.1 on the date of the trap, which were handed over by the appellant to P.W.1 on the date of the trap after receiving the bribe amount. In the said circumstances, the version of P.W.1 that the signatures were initially obtained, however, the documents were not returned, is convincing. Further, P.W.2 is an independent witness who had witnessed the demand and acceptance by the appellant and also the handing over of the documents, Exs.P1 and P2, after receiving the bribe. 12. P.W.1 deposed that he had shown the receipt to the appellant to meet him in the office. After the appellant verified the receipt, the documents, Exs.P1 and P2, were handed over. However, the pre-trap proceedings do not reflect that P.W.1 was carrying any receipt with him to be shown to the appellant. 13. In the complaint, Ex.P3, it is no where mentioned by P.W.1 that the signatures were already taken in the Sub-Registrar Office, either by the appellant or by anyone in the office acknowledging the receipt of Exs.P1 and P2. Even in the chief examination before the Court, P.W.1 did not state that he had signed any documents acknowledging the receipt on Exs.P1 and P2. 14. The case of the appellant is that the registration was done by P.W.4, and there was no involvement of the appellant. Even in the chief examination before the Court, P.W.1 did not state that he had signed any documents acknowledging the receipt on Exs.P1 and P2. 14. The case of the appellant is that the registration was done by P.W.4, and there was no involvement of the appellant. P.W.4 stated as follows: “As seen from the acknowledgment register produced by me the document bearing No.1128/2003 on 1129/2003 (P-1 and P-2) was registered by me and I issued a receipt and obtained the acknowledgment of PW1 on the receipts I also obtained acknowledgment register of delivering the registered documents of PW1 and PW2 on 19.4.2003 at 1:55 PM and 1:59 pm Ex.X-1 is the acknowledgment registered is relevant entry is marked as Ex.X- 2. Ex.D-1 is the true copy of the said entry X-2 attested by the Joint Sub-Registrar by Mr.Manohar Masadhe and I can identify the signature on Ex.D-1. As per record Ex.X-1 and X-2 entry Ex.P-1 and P-2 were delivered to PW1 on 19.4.2003.”] 15. P.W.4 further admitted that the appellant had no role either in the registration of Exs.P1 and P2 or in delivering the documents to P.W.1. 16. A2 entered the witness box and examined himself as D.W.1. According to him, P.W.4 was the Joint Sub-Registrar and the appellant was the Senior Assistant. On 30.04.2003, i.e., the trap date, D.W.1 prepared Ex.D2 photocopy of the sale deed, and gave it to P.W.4. At that time, P.W.1 came there and handed over the receipt, and beneath the receipt, some amount was kept. The said person immediately rushed out of the office room. The appellant then gave the amount to D.W.1 and asked him to return it to that person. When D.W.1 was going out, the ACB officials came inside the office and caught hold of A2. Thereafter, the proceedings were conducted. 17. P.W.6/Investigating Officer stated as follows: “It is true during post trap proceedings I did not file any registered documents in the custody of Ao1. It is true that PW2 did not state to me that in his presence on the date of the registration of the document i.e., on 19.4.2003 the AO1 demanded any bribe amount from P.W.1. It is true the office of the Sub-Registrar will maintain an acknowledgment register and I verify the acknowledgment register Ex.X-1 shown to me. It is true that PW2 did not state to me that in his presence on the date of the registration of the document i.e., on 19.4.2003 the AO1 demanded any bribe amount from P.W.1. It is true the office of the Sub-Registrar will maintain an acknowledgment register and I verify the acknowledgment register Ex.X-1 shown to me. As seen from Ex.X2 entry Ex.P1 and P2 were delivered to PW1 and acknowledged by him on19.4.2003. It is true the registered documents Ex.P1 and P2 delivered to him on 19.4.2003 there was no need to go the sub registrar office after 19.4.2003. It is true AO1 stated during post trap proceedings that he did not demand any amount from PW1 and PW1 voluntarily paid some amount and that he handed over the same to A2 Abdul Waheed Asst. documentary Writer. It is true as per Ex.P6 at page 2 A2 was found standing at the door of the sub registrar office by the time the trap party member entered in the said office.” 18. P.W.1 had concealed the receipt, and on the said date, he allegedly showed and handed it over to the appellant. P.W.4 and P.W.6 also specifically admitted that, as per Ex.X2 entry, Exs.P1 and P2 were delivered to P.W.1, and it was also acknowledged. Further, the spontaneous explanation given by the appellant was that he had informed that P.W.1 had paid some amount and that he handed it over to A2. Further, A2 was found at the door of the Sub-Registrar office when the trap party members entered. 19. From the sequence of the events that transpired in the case, Exs.P1 and P2-sale deeds were already handed over to P.W.1 on 19.04.2003. The version of the appellant appears to be correct. P.W.4 was the officer who registered the documents Exs.P1 and P2 and they were received by P.W.1 even prior to trap. 20. The DSP, ACB, ought to have taken steps to send any other witness, other than P.W.2, who is a friend of P.W.1, to observe what transpires between P.W.1 and the appellant. Considering the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi’s case (supra), on the present facts also, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be considered as corroboration to the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant. The case of the prosecution is doubtful. Considering the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi’s case (supra), on the present facts also, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be considered as corroboration to the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant. The case of the prosecution is doubtful. Exs.D1, X1, and X2 indicate that Exs.P1 and P2 were already received by P.W.1, confirming that the documents were received by P.W.1 earlier, and a false complaint was filed. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. 21. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.45 of 2004, dated 29.10.2009 is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 22. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.