Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 220 (TS)

M. Subramanyam A1 v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-04-02

K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.SURENDER, J. 1. The appellant/A1, who worked as the Sub-Treasury Officer, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District, was trapped by the ACB, on the allegation of demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant/P.W.1. The prosecution version was believed by the learned Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who convicted the appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2008 dated 21.07.2010. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed. A2 was found not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w13(2) of the Act. 2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB. 3. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that he was working as Sericulture officer at Banswada, Nizamabad. He was deputed to work at Banswada of Nizamabad. His seniority was fixed, and the Assistant Director, Sericulture, Shadnagar submitted his arrears of pay fixation amounting to Rs.1,32,879/- to the Sub-Treasury Office, Shadnagar. P.W.1 requested the appellant to receive the bill, but he refused. P.W.1 asked the appellant to process the bill, however, the bill was not passed. P.W.1 called the appellant three days thereafter, and requested him to pass the bill. On 09.04.2007, the appellant issued a token. On 24.04.2007, the appellant demanded 10% of the total bill amount as a bribe. The said demand was also made on 30.04.2007 when P.W.1 requested the appellant to pass the bill. On 10.05.2007, P.W.1 called the appellant on the phone, and again on 11.05.2007, P.W.1 called the appellant on the phone. On 11.05.2007, P.W.1 called the appellant on the phone again and requested him to pass the bill. However, the bill was not passed. After P.W.1 agreed to pay the demand for bribe, the bill was passed on the same day and the amount was credited to his account. Since P.W.1 did not agree to pay the amount, the three bills relating to increments arrears, pay fixation arrears, and DA, which were presented on 18.05.2007, were kept pending until 04.06.2007 by the appellant. After P.W.1 agreed to pay the demand for bribe, the bill was passed on the same day and the amount was credited to his account. Since P.W.1 did not agree to pay the amount, the three bills relating to increments arrears, pay fixation arrears, and DA, which were presented on 18.05.2007, were kept pending until 04.06.2007 by the appellant. When P.W.1 requested him to pass the bills, the appellant allegedly asked P.W.1 to fulfill the earlier promise of a bribe of 10% in the pay fixation arrears bill. On 04.06.2007, P.W.1 requested the appellant to pass the bills. However, a demand of Rs.5,000/- was made. Again, P.W.1 called the appellant on the phone and enquired about the pending bills. On 16.06.2007, P.W.1 called the appellant again and requested him to pass the bills. However, the appellant insisted on the payment of a bribe of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the consistent demand for a bribe by the appellant, P.W.1 approached the ACB and lodged a Telugu written complaint/Ex.P1 on 17.06.2007. 4. The complaint was handed over to the DSP, ACB/P.W.6. P.W.6 then asked P.W.1 to come back to the office on 19.06.2007. On the said date, the trap was arranged. The trap party included P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.6/DSP, ACB, P.W.7, and others. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party then went to the office of the appellant. P.W.1 entered the office around 1.45 p.m. P.W.1 went inside and entered the chambers of the appellant. The appellant then demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- and stated that he would not pass the bill unless the amount was paid. Meanwhile, A2 entered the chamber of the appellant and sat in a chair. P.W.1 passed on Rs.5,000/- to the appellant, who, in turn, handed over the amount to A2, who kept the amount in his left-side pant pocket. Having received the amount, the appellant informed that he would pass the bill. Thereafter, P.W.1 went out and signaled to the trap party. P.Ws.3, 6, 7, and other trap party members entered the chambers of the appellant. A test was conducted on the hands of the appellant and also A2, and the tests turned out positive. The amount was seized from A2. 5. The statements of A1, A2, and P.W.1 were recorded in the post-trap proceedings/Ex.P12. 6. According to DSP/P.W.6, Exs.P2, P3, P4, P7, P8, P9, and P10 were seized from A1. A test was conducted on the hands of the appellant and also A2, and the tests turned out positive. The amount was seized from A2. 5. The statements of A1, A2, and P.W.1 were recorded in the post-trap proceedings/Ex.P12. 6. According to DSP/P.W.6, Exs.P2, P3, P4, P7, P8, P9, and P10 were seized from A1. Exs.P2, P3, and P4 are the files pertaining to the bills of P.W.1. Exs.P7 and P8 are the registers maintained in the office of the Sub Treasury Office, Shadnagar. 7. After conclusion of the post-trap proceedings, P.W.6 handed over the investigation to P.W.7/Inspector, who was also a member of the trap party. P.W.7 concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet, after obtaining the sanction orders from the competent authority. 8. The defence of the appellant is that no bills, pertaining to P.W.1 were pending in the office on the trap date, and the bills had already been returned. P.W.1, therefore, filed a false case against him. 9. According to the complainant, three bills which are i) increment arrears, ii) pay fixation arrears, and iii) DA bill adjustment, were presented for a total amount of Rs.7,696/-. In respect of the bills of P.W.1, P.W.6 stated that a token number- 1047 relating to increment arrears, token number-1048 relating to pay fixation arrears, and token number-1049 relating to DA adjustment amount were allotted. 10. During the course of the cross-examination, P.W.1, when confronted with the details of the bills and the numbering to determine whether the said token numbers pertain to his bills, stated as follows: “I do not remember whether I claimed Rs.2,860/- towards increment arrears vide token No.1047. I do not remember whether I claimed Rs.1567/- towards my pay fixation arrears and the token No.is 1048. I do not remember whether I claimed Rs.3,269/- towards DA adjustment in token No.1049. Those bills were not passed immediately after the date of submission of those bills. I do not remember the date of passing of pay fixation arrears bill. It is true my claim with regard to DA arrears adjustment and increment arrears were passed during the second week of 8/2007.” 11. P.W.6, in his cross-examination, deposed as follows: “It is true as per Ex.P2 the bill with token No.1047 and bill with token No.1049 were returned by the office of STO on 21.5.07. I am not aware whether pay fixation arrear bill was passed on 18.5.07. P.W.6, in his cross-examination, deposed as follows: “It is true as per Ex.P2 the bill with token No.1047 and bill with token No.1049 were returned by the office of STO on 21.5.07. I am not aware whether pay fixation arrear bill was passed on 18.5.07. As per the seized records during post trap proceedings by 17.6.07, no bills pertains to PW1 were pending with AO1.” 12. P.W.3, in his cross-examination, deposed as follows: “It is true at the instructions of AO-1 the concerned clerks produced all the relevant files and they were seized. Till the time of production of those files by the concerned clerks those files were in their custody. It is true as per the return slip contained in Ex.P2 the bills relating to token number 1047 and 1049 were returned on 21.5.07. It is true that in page No.195 of Ex.P8 there is a mention the bill relating to pay fixation arrears of P.W.1 was passed on 11/5.” 13. P.W.4, who deposed about the sanction order, admitted as follows: “It is true as per the contents of final report received by our office, the disputed bills were already passed by AO1 by the date of trap.” 14. For the reasons best known to P.W.1, he denied having knowledge about the specific details of the token numbers of the arrears bills. Admittedly, the token numbers 1047 and 1049 were returned on 29.05.2007. P.W.6 admitted that on the date of the trap, no bills pertaining to P.W.1 were pending. 15. It is on record that the bills of P.W.1 have been returned. P.W.5 stated as follows: “In case of rejection of the bill by the STO, it will be in the custody of token clerk till the concerned messenger get return the bill. It is true it is a duty of messenger who carried the bill to the STO, to collect the return bill from token clerk. Once the STO return the bill the bill will not be placed before him again till it was resubmitted after complying the return order.” “As per the endorsement on Ex.P2 the bills relating to token Nos.1047 & 1049 were returned by the STO, Shadnagar on 21.5.2007.” 16. P.W.1 admitted that the bill of Rs.1,32,879/- had already been passed without any bribe being given. The subject matter of the three bills was not pending on the date of the trap. P.W.1 admitted that the bill of Rs.1,32,879/- had already been passed without any bribe being given. The subject matter of the three bills was not pending on the date of the trap. The total amount of 3 bills was Rs.7,696/-, for which an alleged demand of Rs.5,000/- was made to pass the said bills. 17. P.W.3-independent mediator, in his cross-examination, admitted that the appellant instructed the concerned clerks to produce all the relevant files and they were seized. P.W.3 further admitted that the concerned files were in the custody of the clerks. Admittedly, the bills were returned, and the returned bills were also not with the appellant. On the date of the trap, the relevant bills were produced by other clerks in the office from their custody. 18. According to the chief examination of P.W.1, he narrated that he called the appellant several times on different dates and requested him to pass the bills. However, the prosecution has failed to collect any phone records to substantiate the version of P.W.1 that he had called the appellant several times. The version given by P.W.1 is falsified by the evidence and documents produced by the prosecution. The returned bills were not re-presented, and as such, the question of processing the bills does not arise. 19. The complaint was filed on 17.06.2007, whereas the bills were returned on 21.05.2007. In the said back ground of the case, the allegation of demand cannot be believed. 20. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that, according to P.W.2, the bills were not returned to him or the other officers, gains significance. 21. According to P.W.2, the two token numbers, 1047 and 1048, of P.W.1 were not in the custody of the appellant. P.W.2 further admitted that, as on 21.05.2007, two bills under Ex.P2 (out of three bills) were returned on 21.05.2007. P.W.5 narrated that in cases where a bill is rejected, the token clerk retains the custody of the bill, and it is the duty of the concerned messenger, who carried the bill to the STO, to collect the returned bill from the token clerk. Once the Sub-Treasury Officer returns a bill, it cannot be placed before the STO office again until it is resubmitted. 22. Once the Sub-Treasury Officer returns a bill, it cannot be placed before the STO office again until it is resubmitted. 22. In view of the above discussion, the argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be sustained, nor can the findings of the learned Special Judge. 23. Mere recovery of the amount from A2 cannot form a basis to infer the demand for bribe by the appellant. The bills were already returned, and for the reasons best known to the DSP, ACB, no one was asked to accompany P.W.1 to witness what transpired between P.W.1 and the appellant. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another , [(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152] , held that mere acceptance of the amount de hors the proof of demand, will not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 25. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.10 of 2008 dated 21.07.2010 is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 26. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.