Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 33 (TS)

S. K. Yakoob v. State ACB, City Range.

2025-02-05

K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.Surender, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2007 was filed by A1 and Criminal Appeal No.735 of 2007 was filed by A2. A1 was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year, respectively under both counts. A2 was convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months vide judgment in C.C.No.19 of 2003 dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same judgment of Special Court, both the appeals are disposed off by way of this Common Judgment. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that A1 worked as Senior Assistant in RTA Office, Central Zone, Khairatabad and A2 was a registered RTA Agent. The defacto complainant is P.W.1. He lodged complaint with the ACB on 07.03.2001 at 10.30 a.m. According to P.W.1, he was authorized agent in the RTA. A licence was issued by the Joint Commissioner of RTA, Hyderabad, to render services as an agent in the RTA Office. P.W.1 applied for reassignment of lorry bearing No.KRZ 5936 on behalf of Kerala Transport Company. One P.K.Nair was the representative of the said transport company. The application, relevant papers and challan were handed over to A1 on 01.03.2001. Two days after giving application, P.W.1 met A1, who demanded Rs.500/- as bribe for doing the work. Again on 05.03.2001, P.W.1 met A1 and asked him about the R.C.book, for which A1 demanded to pay bribe of Rs.500/- for delivering the R.C book and asked P.W.1 to come on 07.03.2001 with the bribe amount. 3. On 07.03.2001, P.W.1 went to the ACB office and met DSP/P.W.5. P.W.1 lodged a written complaint Ex.P11. The said complaint was filed at 10.30 a.m and the trap was arranged within 2 ½ hours i.e., at 1.00 p.m. P.W.5 arranged for independent witnesses, P.W.2 and another. The trap party including P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and others gathered in the ACB office at 2.00 p.m. P.W.2 namely Yadaiah was asked to accompany P.W.1 to the office of A1 to observe what transpires in between A1 and P.W.1. 4. The trap party including P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and others gathered in the ACB office at 2.00 p.m. P.W.2 namely Yadaiah was asked to accompany P.W.1 to the office of A1 to observe what transpires in between A1 and P.W.1. 4. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party went to the office of RTA at Khairatabad at 3.45 p.m. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office, and about 4.00 p.m, P.W.1 came out and relayed signal indicating acceptance of bribe. When the trap party entered into the office of A1, A2 was found sitting opposite A1. Sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the hands of A1 to verify whether he handled the bribe amount, which proved negative. A2 was asked to rinse his hand in sodium carbonate solution and the solution turned pink in colour indicating that the bribe amount was handled by him. A2 produced the tainted currency notes from his left side shirt pocket. 5. The relevant file was seized including the attendance register. DSP questioned A1, A2, P.Ws.1 and 2, and their statements were recorded in the second mediators report. After concluding the second mediators report Ex.P9, A1 and A2 were arrested. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.6. P.W.6 examined witnesses, collected relevant documents and filed charge sheet after obtaining sanction order from the competent authority. 6. P.W.1 deposed about the demand of bribe prior to lodging complaint. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 stated about demand and acceptance of bribe by A1 on the date of trap, and A1 asking A2 to collect the amount. 7. P.W.1 was a licenced agent in the office of RTA at Khairatabad. A2 was also a licenced RTA agent as admitted by P.W.1 and the Investigating Officer/P.W.6. A2 entered into the witness box and examined himself as D.W.1. He stated that the application in question was processed when entrusted by A1, and for processing the said application filed by P.W.1, A1promised to pay him Rs.500/- towards A2’s service charges. When the application was made by P.W.1 on 01.03.2001, A2 was also present. P.W.1 stated that service charge of Rs.500/- as demanded by A2 was high. Both A2 and P.W.1 approached A1, but A1 asked P.W.1 and A2 to settle their issues. The vehicle was inspected on 03.03.2001 and the file was processed. When the application was made by P.W.1 on 01.03.2001, A2 was also present. P.W.1 stated that service charge of Rs.500/- as demanded by A2 was high. Both A2 and P.W.1 approached A1, but A1 asked P.W.1 and A2 to settle their issues. The vehicle was inspected on 03.03.2001 and the file was processed. As on 05.03.2001, work was complete and a new number was assigned to the vehicle on the basis of application made by P.W.1. A2 took the R.C book to his house on 05.03.2001 to hand it over to P.W.1. However, when A2 attempted to give R.C.book (Ex.P2) to P.W.1, P.W.1 informed that he would collect the R.C book on 07.03.2001. 8. D.W.1/A2 further stated that on the date of trap i.e., 07.03.2001, P.W.1 paid Rs.500/- to him in between 2.30 p.m to 3.00 p.m as a service charge outside the RTO office and wanted to apologize to A1 and also thank him. Both A2 and P.W.1 then went and met A1 in his office. Immediately, the ACB personnel entered into the office and conducted test. Though, A2 explained the events that transpired, the DSP, ACB did not pay attention to his version. 9. P.W.1 did not state in his complaint Ex.P1, which was made on 07.03.2001 i.e., that application for assigning new registration number was processed on 03.03.2001. On 03.03.2001, inspection of the vehicle was complete and certified by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The said file was processed and the new number was assigned on 05.03.2001 itself. 10. P.W.3, who worked as Assistant Secretary at Khairatabad and in-charge of the relevant file Ex.P3, admitted as follows: “It is true that as seen from Ex.P3 file the application at page No.13 was received in our office on 01.03.01 and it was put up by AO1 on the very same date for orders to inspect the vehicle. I ordered for the inspection of the vehicle on 01.03.01. Thereafter, the file was sent to concerned MVI for inspection of the vehicle. Only on production of vehicle before the MVI he will verify the chasis and engine number of the vehicle with reference to the RC book and then he will endorse about his inspection mentioning the details. As seen on the reverse of page No.1 of Ex.P3 file the MVI inspected the vehicle and certified on 03.03.01. Only on production of vehicle before the MVI he will verify the chasis and engine number of the vehicle with reference to the RC book and then he will endorse about his inspection mentioning the details. As seen on the reverse of page No.1 of Ex.P3 file the MVI inspected the vehicle and certified on 03.03.01. Again on 03.03.01 after such an inspection of vehicle by MVI AO1 had put up the file before me for reassignment and transfer of ownership of vehicle on 03.03.01 and on the very same date I passed orders. Thereafter, AO1 had put the file before me on 05.03.01 assigning new number AP9W-4936. Accordingly, I passed orders on 05.03.01. Ex.P7 is the attendance register of our office and as seen from Ex.P7, 4.03.01 was SUNDAY. After my orders of reassigning new number, the file was sent to computer section for data entry. After entering the data in the computers the entries will made in RC book. In Ex.P2 at page No.6 the entries were made by AO1 on 05.03.01 and through section superintendent it was placed before me on the same day and accordingly I signed as registering authority. There was no delay on the part of AO1 inputting up the file before me at any stage. Only after signature on Ex.P2 dt.05.03.01 it was ready for delivering to the concerned party.” 11. P.W.1 specifically mentioned in his complaint that on 05.03.2001, there was a demand of bribe to handover the RC book, however he did not state the fact that the file was processed and the inspection was also complete. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the complaint was falsified and even according to the Assistant Secretary, the entire processing was complete. Once the process was complete, it cannot be said that there was a demand for bribe. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the back ground of the case and all the surrounding circumstances in a case have to be looked into, and not only the events that transpired on the trap day. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in A.Kishan Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 (3) ALD (Crl.) 96 ) (TS) . Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the back ground of the case and all the surrounding circumstances in a case have to be looked into, and not only the events that transpired on the trap day. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in A.Kishan Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 (3) ALD (Crl.) 96 ) (TS) . Further, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana , [(2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 574] and argued that unless demand of bribe is proved, only on the basis of recovery of the amount, accused cannot be convicted. 13. The grievance of the complainant/P.W.1 is that the application was made on 01.03.2001 and when P.W.1 met A1 on 05.03.2001, A1 demanded Rs.500/- for delivering the RC book. 14. It is not in dispute that it is for A1 to deliver the RC book to the concerned party. P.W.1 was an authorized agent and according to P.W.3, the Assistant Secretary of the RTA office, stated that as on 05.03.2001, RC book Ex.P2 was ready and only after signature, RC book will be ready to be delivered to the concerned party. P.W.3 stated that he had signed on Ex.P2 on 05.03.01. However, the RC book was not handed over to P.W.1. The grievance of P.W.1 is that for delivering the RC book, Rs.500/- was demanded. On the date of trap, P.W.2, who is an independent person accompanied P.W.1. In the presence of P.W.2, A1 demanded the amount and asked A2 to receive the said amount. After A2 received the amount, Ex.P2 RC book was handed over to P.W.1. 15. The processing of file and entries in the R.C book being completed on 05.03.01, corroborates with the version of P.W.1 that A1 demanded Rs.500/- to be paid for delivering R.C book to P.W.1. On the date of trap, after A1 demanded the amount and directed it to be paid to A2, and after A2 received the amount, RC book Ex.P2 was handed over to P.W.1. There leaves no room for doubt that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by A1. 16. The case of A1 is that there was a departmental enquiry and P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in the said departmental enquiry. There leaves no room for doubt that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by A1. 16. The case of A1 is that there was a departmental enquiry and P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in the said departmental enquiry. However, the certified copies of the earlier statements made during departmental enquiry were neither filed nor confronted to P.Ws.1 and 2. The version of A2/D.W.1 is that the R.C.book/Ex.P2 was collected by him on 05.03.2001 to hand it over to P.W.1. However, P.W.1 insisted that he would come to the office and collect the R.C book on 07.03.2001. In his chief examination, D.W.1 stated that in between 2.30 p.m to 3.00 p.m on the date of trap, P.W.1 met him outside the office and handed over the tainted currency of Rs.500/- to him. Thereafter, both of them went to A1, since P.W.1 wanted to apologize to A1. The defence of A1 that P.W.1 met A2 outside the office on the date of trap cannot be believed. According to the prosecution, the first mediators’ report was drafted from 2.00 p.m to 3.15 p.m and the trap party started from the office of DSP, ACB at 3.15 p.m. When P.W.1 was in the office of ACB in between 2.30 p.m to 3.00 p.m, the question of P.W.1 meeting A2 outside the office and handing over the bribe amount, does not arise. Apparently, D.W.1 entered into the witness box to help A1. The defence of A1 that P.W.1 met A2 outside the office was not even suggested to P.W.2/independent mediator nor the trap laying officer/P.W.5. It is an admitted fact that A1 was not competent to issue reassignment number and transfer of the ownership. However, A1 was the person to hand over the R.C. book which was completed in all respects to the concerned party. The defence taken by A1, that A2 had taken the RC book on 05.03.2001 itself and thereafter, on the date of trap i.e., on 07.03.2001 money was handed over to A2 and thereafter, both A2 and P.W.1 met A1 is falsified, as evident from the record. 17. A2 was also an agent in the office of RTA. He was not named in the complaint by P.W.1 nor is it the case of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that on the date of trap, A2 had either demanded or accepted the amount on behalf of A1. 17. A2 was also an agent in the office of RTA. He was not named in the complaint by P.W.1 nor is it the case of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that on the date of trap, A2 had either demanded or accepted the amount on behalf of A1. Admittedly, A2 was sitting at the table of A1 opposite to him. A2 innocently handled the bribe amount at the instance of A1, which was passed on by P.W.1 to him, when A1 directed to collect the amount. A2 took the amount and placed in his pocket. 18. A2 was convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted: “12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Sections 7 or 11 . – Whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequences of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extent to five years and shall also be liable to fine.” 19. Abetment is an act involving knowledge and mensrea. Abetment is not defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 107 of IPC defines what constitutes abetment. Section 108 of IPC defines who is an abettor. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence. Abetment can be gathered from (1) Instigation of any person to commit an offence. (2) engaging with one or more persons to commit such offence. (3) intentionally aiding or by any act or illegal omission being involved in the commission of such offence. 20. None of the above ingredients are satisfied in the present case. On the date of trap, when A2 was sitting in front of A1, A2 handled the bribe amount as directed by A1. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that merely accepting the amount would amount to either instigating A1 or engaging with him or aiding the act of accepting bribe. For the said reasons, no case under Section 12 of the Act is made out for abetment against A2. 21. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2007 is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, the concerned Court is directed to cause appearance of A1 and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. 22. For the said reasons, no case under Section 12 of the Act is made out for abetment against A2. 21. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2007 is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, the concerned Court is directed to cause appearance of A1 and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. 22. Criminal Appeal No.735 of 2007 is allowed setting aside the conviction of A2 in C.C.No.19 of 2003 dated 04.06.2007. Since A2 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.