Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 328 (TS)

Mallela Krishna v. State of A. P.

2025-04-16

K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. SURENDER, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.382 of 2013 was filed by A2, and Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2013 was filed by A1. 2. A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2), and A2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 109 IPC r/w Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , vide judgment in C.C.No.5 of 2006, dated 26.04.2013, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. 3. Since both the appeals question the conviction of the appellants/A1 and A2, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. 4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that K.Ramesh Kumar (A1), an employee working as UDC in Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad during the year 2004, and M.Krishna (A2), a private person functioning as a Travel Agent without any authorization from the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad during the same period, entered into a criminal conspiracy. A1 abused his official position as a public servant by receiving passport applications and processing the same in the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, unauthorizedly facilitating them for monetary consideration. 5. On the basis of a reliable source of information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad, registered a case vide RC.29(A)/2004 on 28.09.2004 against the accused. The CBI team, lead by R.M.Khan, Dy.SP, CBI, Hyderabad-P.W.36, along with two independent witnesses, Tajamul Akbar (P.W.2) and T.Nageshwar Rao, Manager, Bank of Baroda, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-L.W.4, took positions near a coconut shop in Market Police Station lane, Secunderabad at about 9.15 a.m on 29.09.2004. At about 9.30 AM, A1 came near the coconut shop on a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 13E 8658-MO2, stopped his motorcycle, and made a telephone call from his mobile phone. After about 5 minutes, A2 came near the coconut shop on a Bajaj Scooter bearing registration No.AIS 4911-MO1, parked his vehicle near the Hero Honda, and after having a conversation for a couple of minutes, A2 opened his scooter’s front dickey, removed a polythene bag containing 25 passport applications and cash of Rs.28,500/-, and kept the polythene bag in the side box of A1’s Hero Honda motorcycle. Then, both of them started their respective vehicles and, while they were moving towards the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, the CBI team stopped them and seized 25 duly filled-in Passport Applications and an amount of Rs.28,500/- from the possession of A1, and 58 cash receipts issued by the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, and a small diary from the possession of A2, in the presence of two independent witnesses. The same has been incorporated in the proceedings drawn on 29.09.2004 at Market Police Station, Secunderabad, in the presence of two witnesses. 6. It is alleged that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the above 25 applications pertained to 25 applicants who gave their applications to A2 (who is an authorized travel agent) through local agents. A2 handed over the said applications to A1, along with the amount of Rs.28,500/-, which includes an application fee of Rs.25,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per application and illegal gratification of Rs.3,500/- @ Rs.140/- per application, for unauthorized submission of those Passport Applications in the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, without the actual presence of the applicants. A1, by influencing his colleagues in the office, facilitated the submission of such applications. 7. Further, it is alleged that with regard to the seizure of the 58 cash receipts of the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad from the possession of A1, it was revealed that 57 of these receipts were related to 57 applications earlier given to A1 by A2 for similar unauthorized submission and processing in the passport office. The officials who were posted at the verification counter and cash counter, and who received these 57 applications, admitted that they had received these applications and accepted the passport fee from A1 without either authorization letters from the respective applicants in the name of A1 or the personal presence of the respective applicants. Further, it is alleged that no authorized travel agent was involved in the submission of these applicants, and thus A1 was accepting Passport applications from A2 unauthorizedly, outside the office premises, for pecuniary advantage and for influencing his colleagues in the office to get these applications processed. 8. It is further the case of prosecution that according to Chapter- IV of the Passport Manual, 2001, Passport Applications should be accepted only when submitted: (i) directly by the applicant or (ii) by his/her immediate family member (parents/children/brother/sister). 8. It is further the case of prosecution that according to Chapter- IV of the Passport Manual, 2001, Passport Applications should be accepted only when submitted: (i) directly by the applicant or (ii) by his/her immediate family member (parents/children/brother/sister). If they are submitted by anyone else, including travel agents, then it should be done only on the basis of a written letter of authority from the applicant, in which the identity of the authorized representative should be clearly indicated with reference to an identity card number or voter’s identity card or driving licence, etc. This letter of authority should be taken on file and the counter personnel should mention the same on the application form. 9. The sanction orders under Section 19 of the Act has been obtained from the Department for prosecuting A1, being the public servant, and thus A1 is liable for the offences under Sections 8, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act, and A2 is liable for the offences punishable under Section 109 IPC and Section 8, and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. 10. Learned Special Judge, basing on the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, convicted both the appellants. 11. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 36, marked Exs.P1 to P135 and MOs.1 to 4. Ex.D1, a carbon copy of Ex.P3, was marked on behalf of the defence. 12. Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A1 would submit that the applicants P.Ws.3 to 8 and 32 gave their applications to P.W.10, who runs Geetanjali Travels, Nizamabad. P.W.9, the applicant, gave his application to P.W.11, who runs Sony Travels, Armoor, and P.Ws.12 and 13 gave their applications to P.W.14, who worked in a travel agency at Siricilla. P.W.17 and P.W.21 gave their applications to P.W.20, who was running a telephone booth. P.W.20 stated that if any passport applications were asked to be filled up, he used to fill them and also used take them to Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad. P.W.21 gave his application to P.W.22. Counsel submits that the travel agents P.Ws.10, 11, 14, 20, and 22 did not support the case of the prosecution in handing over the applications to A2. None of the applicants or the travel agents have identified A1. 13. P.W.21 gave his application to P.W.22. Counsel submits that the travel agents P.Ws.10, 11, 14, 20, and 22 did not support the case of the prosecution in handing over the applications to A2. None of the applicants or the travel agents have identified A1. 13. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that there is no evidence with regard to the passport application forms being submitted by A1 to the officer in RPO, Hyderabad, for processing the applications. In fact, the officials of the Regional Passport Officer, who were examined as P.Ws.23, 24, and 26 to 31, and who were the Assistants in the Regional Passport Office, were declared hostile, and they did not speak anything against A1. In view of the above, none of the ingredients of Section 8 or Section 13(1(d) of the Act are made out against A1. 14. Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for A2, argued that there is no incriminating material against A2. He was not identified by any of the travel agents. The applicants for passport also did not identify A2. He has nothing to do with the case and has been falsely implicated by the CBI. 15. According to P.W.36, who is the Investigating Officer, on receipt of reliable information, he registered a crime on 28.09.2004. According to his verification, he came to know that A1 was meeting everybody and collecting passport applications of various persons from A2 and submitting them in the passport office. At about 8.30 a.m, along with other CBI officers, he went near the Passport Office, Hyderabad. At about 9.30 a.m, they saw A1 coming on a motor cycle and A2 on a Bajaj scooter. Both of them conversed for a few minutes and A2 opened his scooter dicky and gave a cover to A1. P.W.36, then went and questioned A1 and A2 about the passport applications that were in the polythene cover passed on by A2 to A1. P.W.36 then found 25 passport applications and an amount of Rs.28,500/- in cash, out of which Rs.25,000/- was meant for the application fee for 25 applicants and the remaining amount of Rs.3,500/- was towards commission. The cash and applications were seized. During the proceedings, other documents were also seized, which included passports, photographs, transfer certificates, etc., of different persons. 16. Both the motorcycles of A1 and A2 were also seized. The cash and applications were seized. During the proceedings, other documents were also seized, which included passports, photographs, transfer certificates, etc., of different persons. 16. Both the motorcycles of A1 and A2 were also seized. From the possession of A2, passport receipts and other documents under Exs.P99 to P106 were seized. The police also seized 58 passport application submission receipts, which were marked as Exs.P38 to 42, P44 to P75, Exs.P77 to P81, P83, P85, P86, P89, P90, and Exs.P108 to P117. 17. The plea of A1 and A2 is one of total denial, and they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. A1 and A2 denied having acquaintance with one another. 18. P.W.1, who worked as Superintendent in the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, stated regarding processing of and applying for a passport. According to him, the application has to be made in person to the Passport Office and a payment of Rs.1,000/- would be collected. According to P.W.1, A1 was working in diary section, as in-charge of the Section. On 29.09.2004, P.W.36 called P.W.1 and informed about the seizure of application forms and other documents from both A1 and A2. 19. According to P.W.1, A2 was not an authorized travel agent, and only an authorized travel agent could submit applications. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that A1 was not concerned with the counters for receiving and dispatching passport applications. P.W.1 also stated that he is not aware of the 58 receipts that were seized. 20. P.W.2, an independent mediator, was asked by P.W.36 to witness the proceedings. He was present when P.W.36 seized all the applications and other documents from A1 and A2. P.Ws.3 to 8, who are the applicants, and P.W.36 stated that they gave their applications in Geetanjali Travels at Nizamabad, which was run by P.W.10. All of them stated that the amount was paid to P.W.10 after giving their applications. P.W.10 stated that he used to collect Rs.1,400/- from each applicant, out of which, Rs.1,000/- was the amount for the application fee, Rs.200/- for transport, and Rs.100/- for the photo of the applicants when they were brought for submitting their applications. He used to get Rs.100/- for each application. P.W.10 did not speak about either A1 or A2. He was declared hostile to the prosecution case. 21. He used to get Rs.100/- for each application. P.W.10 did not speak about either A1 or A2. He was declared hostile to the prosecution case. 21. P.W.9, who is an applicant, stated that he gave his application to Sony Travels, which was run by P.W.11. P.W.11 did not identify either A1 or A2 and was also declared hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.12 and 13 are applicants who stated that they gave their applications to P.W.14. P.W.14 did not identify either A1 or A2. 22. P.W.15 stated that whenever any customer approaches him, he used to fill up the application and used to collect Rs.100/- from the application. He denied having acquaintance with either A1 or A2 or with Sri Krishna of Tirumala Travels, Hyderabad. He was declared hostile to the prosecution case. 23. P.W.16’s evidence is similar to that P.W.15. He was also declared hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.17 and 21 gave their applications to P.W.20. P.W.20 stated that he cannot identify either A1 or A2 and no applications were marked to him. 24. P.W.22 was working as an agent in Chaitanya Travels at Karimnagar. According to him, he used to collect Rs.100/- from the customer for filling up the passport application. He did not identify A1 or A2. 25. P.Ws.23, 24, 26 to 31 are the Assistants working in the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad. Some of the applications and cash receipts were marked through these witnesses. All of them stated that A1 was working as UDC in the office and denied knowing A2. None of the witnesses from passport office stated that A1 used to submit application forms in the counters. 26. The case of CBI is that the applications used to be collected in various travel agencies by the travel agents. The said applications were collected along with the requisite fee and extra amount. According to CBI, A1 was paid Rs.100/- for each application. On the date of search, i.e., on 29.09.2004, the applications and other receipts were found in possession of A1 and A2. The documents included the documents pertaining to applicants for passport. 27. Other than the officials of the passport office, none of the witnesses who applied for passports or the travel agents identified A1 or A2. According to the evidence placed on record, the receipts were issued by the passport office. The documents included the documents pertaining to applicants for passport. 27. Other than the officials of the passport office, none of the witnesses who applied for passports or the travel agents identified A1 or A2. According to the evidence placed on record, the receipts were issued by the passport office. The applications Exs.P7 to P31, cash receipts, Exs.P32 to 34 and 38 to 75, 77 to 81, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 93, 108 to 117 were all marked during the course of trial, apart from other documents pertaining to the passport applicants. Admittedly, the applications were not received either by A1 or A2. The money for the applications was also not received by A1 or A2. However, the witnesses from the RPO office have identified the case receipts said to have been issued by them. 28. The allegations against A1 is for the offences under Sections 8, 13(1)(d). For an offence under Section 8, the ingredients that are required to be satisfied by the prosecution are: i) accepting any gratification for inducing any public servant by corrupt or illegal means; ii) to do any official act to show favour or disfavor to any person. 29. None of the witnesses from the RPO, Hyderabad have stated that they were induced by A1 or A2 for issuing the receipts or accepting the passport applications. Likewise, none of the applicants or the travel agents stated that the money collected was for the purpose of inducing any public servant, or that it was collected by travel agents or given by the applicants for the purpose of inducing any public servant in the Regional Passport Office. When there is no evidence before this Court to infer that any amount was either collected or given for the purpose of inducing any public servant or for doing any official act by A1, the question of conviction under Section 8 does not arise. 30. To attract an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, a person must have, by corrupt or illegal means, obtained for himself any pecuniary advantage, or abused his position as a public servant and obtained any pecuniary advantage. 31. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, none of the witnesses have stated that any amount was meant either for A1 or anyone in the passport office for the purpose of processing the applications or submitting the applications in the passport office. 32. 31. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, none of the witnesses have stated that any amount was meant either for A1 or anyone in the passport office for the purpose of processing the applications or submitting the applications in the passport office. 32. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be assumed, on the basis of certain applications and amount being seized from A1 and A2, that the said amount was meant for either inducing any public servant in the passport office or that A1 had abused his official position and collected such amounts from the applicants. 33. Admittedly, none of the travel agents who collected passport applications and money, or the passport office assistants who issued the receipts, are made as accused in the present case. There is no allegation against any of them. 34. The only evidence placed by the prosecution is the alleged seizure of applications, receipts, etc. If the case of P.W.1, who is the Superintendent of the Passport Office, is that the applications have to be directly submitted in the passport office, then the applications found with A1 and A2 would not be accepted by the passport office. In such a case, merely because passport applications were found in the possession of A1, there cannot be any assumption that the applications were collected for being submitted in the RPO office. 35. Insofar as the receipts are concerned, it is not the case that the receipts were not issued to the applicants when their applications were submitted. As already stated, neither the applicants have spoken anything against A1 and A2 nor have the officials who seized the receipts found in possession of A1 and A2, stated that the said receipts were issued to A1 and A2 for any consideration or at the instance of A1. Not a single witness from the passport office or any of the applicants for passport, have spoken against the appellants/A1 and A2. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that any of the ingredients of either Section 8 or Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act are made out against A1 and A2. Assumption of A1 and A2 committing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, only on the basis of the applications and receipts seized from their possession, cannot form basis to convict them. 36. Assumption of A1 and A2 committing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, only on the basis of the applications and receipts seized from their possession, cannot form basis to convict them. 36. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.5 of 2006 dated 26.04.2013, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 37. Accordingly, both Criminal Appeals are allowed.