Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 525 (TS)

Haridas Narsimha Raju v. State Of Telangana

2025-04-30

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to him as per the judgment dated 13.11.2017 in CC No.19 of 2015 by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Sri Polali Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent/CBI. 3. CC No.19 of 2015 is a case registered against the appellant basing on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant Sri T.Siva Prasad (PW1) alleging that the appellant being the public servant i.e. Senior Accountant in the office of Auditor General at Hyderabad, while discharging duties as such, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/- and accepted Rs.25,000/- as first instalment on 20.04.2015 to settle the issue of family pension and other pensionary benefits of his (PW1) mother late Smt.M.Lalitha, who worked as a Medical Primary Health Assistant at the office of District Medical and Health Officer, Nalgonda and died on 10.09.2006, and was caught-hold red handed by the CBI while accepting such illegal gratification by the accused/appellant. 4. The record goes to show that the family pension papers of the deceased employee late M.Lalitha were corresponded between the offices of DM&HO and AG (A&E) seeking for clarifications on the aspect of survivorship of her legal heirs in view of mutual separation of the deceased with her husband T.Devender and for submission of required documents and after considerable delay, vide letter No.PAG(A&E)/AP/P15/II/L-163/FP57/2008-07/423, 424 dated 16.04.2013, a communication was sent to the District Medical and Health Officer, Nalgonda requesting for the descriptive rolls of Sri T.Shiva Prasad/son of the deceased for release of pensionary benefits. After such correspondence, the file was pending with the office of Accountant General. On 13.04.2015 T.Siva Prasad (PW1) along with PW12 met H.Narsimha Raju/the appellant/accused, who was dealing with the said file, and upon his instructions PW1 met the appellant at AG’s Office after office hours on the same day. During the said visit, in the parking area of AG’s Office the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/- for processing the file and asked PW1 to arrange the same and meet him after one week and if PW1 fails to fulfil the said demand, the pension file would be misplaced. During the said visit, in the parking area of AG’s Office the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/- for processing the file and asked PW1 to arrange the same and meet him after one week and if PW1 fails to fulfil the said demand, the pension file would be misplaced. PW1, with the help of his friend Sandeep Kumar/PW12 recorded the telephonic conversation with the appellant regarding the demand of illegal gratification through his mobile phone. 5. Record further goes to show that on 20.04.2015 PW1 contacted the appellant over phone and expressed his inability to gather such huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and hence, the appellant asked PW1 to give Rs.25,000/- as first instalment. PW1, reluctant to pay such illegal gratification, lodged a written complaint dated 20.04.2015 with DIG, CBI, Hyderabad furnishing a compact disk containing the voice recording of the conversation that took place between PW1 and the appellant on 13.04.2015. 6. Upon receipt of such complaint, a case in RC 09(A)/2015-HYD was registered on 20.04.2015 for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 by PW3 the trap laying officer against the appellant. After securing independent witnesses, explaining them the contents of the complaint, playing the compact disk containing the conversation between PW1 and the appellant to the mediators, completion of other required formalities like preparation of first mediators report, securing the intending bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from PW1, noting down the serial numbers of the said currency notes, applying phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, demonstrating the process of sodium carbonate test to the mediators and PW1 and instructing PW1 to hand over the intending bribe amount to the appellant only upon his demand and further instructing them to give a pre-arranged signal upon demand and acceptance of the said bribe amount by the appellant, PW3 proceeded to lay trap against the appellant. 7. Further, on 20.04.2015 PW1 and PW2/Venkata Ramana reached the office of appellant at 03.00 P.M. and waited near the parking area as per the instructions of the appellant and thereafter the appellant came and all of them went to Tara Bakery, opposite to AG’s Office and after having cool drinks and biscuits, they came out and at about 03.20 P.M. near Metro Rail Bhavan the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from PW1 in the presence of PW2. The appellant took the same with his right hand, shifted it to his left hand and kept in his left side trouser pocket. Upon receipt of the bribe amount by the appellant, PW2 gave pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with his handkerchief and upon watching the same, the other members of the trap team, who positioned in the vicinity, rushed to the spot and stopped the appellant. 8. PW3 introduced himself and his other team members to the appellant and enquired the appellant whether he had just then demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from PW1 for processing his family pension file due to which the appellant became pale and started shivering and pleaded to forgive him. PW3 with the help of another mediator Mr.Chandra Bose recovered the tainted currency notes from the left side pocket of trousers of the accused, PW3 conducted sodium carbonate test to both the hands of appellant and also the left side pocket of his trousers, which resulted in positive and accordingly, transferred the said washes into fresh bottles, sealed them by obtaining the signatures of witnesses. The bribe amount was recovered from the possession of appellant and upon tallying their serial numbers with the numbers already mentioned in first mediators report, they both tallied. PW3 effected arrest of the appellant at 04.00 P.M., after observing all legal formalities. PW3 also seized the family pension file of late M.Lalitha from the office cubicle of the appellant. The said pension file shows that the appellant made a requisition to collect the said file from Record Section. Subsequently, PW3 played the compact disk containing the conversation of appellant and PW1 to all the staff members of appellant, who confirmed that the said voice is of the appellant. PW3 also collected call data information pertaining to the phone numbers of both the appellant and PW1. Upon completion of investigation and obtaining sanction to prosecute the appellant, PW3 laid charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The trial Court took cognizance and assigned number to the said calendar case. 9. Upon completion of investigation and obtaining sanction to prosecute the appellant, PW3 laid charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The trial Court took cognizance and assigned number to the said calendar case. 9. After completion of the procedural aspects and upon completion of trial, basing on the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 13, DW1 and documentary evidence in the form of Exs.P1 to P32 and MOs.1 to 7, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and further, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act directing the substantive sentences imposed against the accused/appellant to run concurrently and setting off the terms of imprisonment, if any, suffered by the appellant under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 10. Aggrieved by the said findings, the appellant/accused preferred the present criminal appeal mainly contending that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence available on record in a proper perspective, erroneously has found the appellant guilty only basing on the presumptions and assumptions. Further, the trial Court without considering the aspect of pendency of the pension papers of deceased mother of PW1 with the office of AG for many years i.e. even prior to the appellant’s assuming the present seat for one reason or the other, has erroneously found the appellant guilty. Further, the trial Court also failed in not considering the aspect of non-availability of Ex.P7 file upto 20.04.2015 and it was also not with the seat of the appellant, which was searched during Ex.P4 proceedings by PW3. The trial Court also failed to consider the fact that the appellant ever made phone call to PW1 but on the other hand, PW1 had repeatedly made phone calls to the appellant right from 13.04.2015 to 20.04.2015 and pressurized the appellant for completion of his work. The trial Court also failed to consider the fact that the appellant ever made phone call to PW1 but on the other hand, PW1 had repeatedly made phone calls to the appellant right from 13.04.2015 to 20.04.2015 and pressurized the appellant for completion of his work. PW1 with ulterior motives to somehow get the pension papers processed had foisted the appellant in the present case by using the CBI as a tool. Admittedly PW2 was at a feet away distance from the appellant and PW1 when the appellant demanded and accepted the intended bribe amount from PW1 and that in view of flowing traffic and resultant noise, PW2 could not hear their conversion and hence, there is no other witness to prove the alleged demand made by the appellant or the things transpired while they were returning from Tara Bakery. PW12, who is stated to be a friend of PW1 and was present on 13.04.2015 when PW1 went to meet the appellant, was a planted witness by IO at a later stage since there is no whisper regarding his presence either in Ex.P1 complaint, Ex.P2 proceedings or even while deposing evidence in the Court. The trial Court failed to consider the plea of the appellant that the tainted currency notes were thrust by PW1 into the hands of appellant in the midst of the road before he was caught by PW3. The version of PW1 that he lost his mobile phone after the trap was laid cannot be believed since he did not initiate any steps for recovery of the main and crucial object of the case through which the conversation between PW1 and the appellant was recorded and transferred into a compact disk. Admission of the witnesses viz. PWs.4, 8, 9 and 12, who deposed regarding transformation of voice recording contained in the compact disk into writing that they could not identify the difference between the original voice and mimic voice and that there was lot of noise during the recorded conversation was not taken into consideration by the trial Court. The compact disk was not scientifically examined and the mobile phone, through which the conversation between PW1 and the appellant was recorded, was not seized by the TLO or IO. Stating thus, it is requested by the appellant to set aside the impugned judgment. 11. The compact disk was not scientifically examined and the mobile phone, through which the conversation between PW1 and the appellant was recorded, was not seized by the TLO or IO. Stating thus, it is requested by the appellant to set aside the impugned judgment. 11. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for CBI/ respondent vehemently opposed the present criminal appeal mainly contending that when the prosecution proved that the accused received money as gratification a presumption can be raised under Section 20 of the Act and that since the prosecution proved that the appellant received MO1 cash as gratification to do official favour of processing pension file, the appellant, with whom the pension file was pending, did not rebut the presumption in any manner. Further, the trial Court, after meticulously examining the entire material available on record and observing the settled proposition of law had correctly found the appellant guilty and in that view of the matter, interference of this Court to set aside the well considered findings of the trial Court is not warranted. 12. This Court perused the material available on record. The prosecution, in support of its case, apart from examining the de-facto complainant as PW1, examined PWs.2 to 13 and got exhibited documents Ex.P1 to P32 and material objects MOs.1 to 7. On the other hand, the appellant/accused examined one Sri B.Venkata Subbaiah as DW1 but no documents were marked. 13. As seen from the record, from the inception the appellant is persistently denying the case of the prosecution contending that the tainted currency notes/MO1 were thrust into his hands by PW1 and that he ever demanded or accepted any bribe from PW1 and that the pension file of the mother of PW1 was not with him prior to 13.04.2015 and when PW1 met him then only he called for the said file from the record room and that the said file was pending for want of descriptive rolls from the District Medical and Health Office, Nalgonda since the year 2013 and the said aspect was admitted by PWs.4 and 8. Further, the last note on the said file was made on 02.04.2013 and that the appellant assumed the present seat in the month of December, 2013 and hence, he cannot be blamed for the delay occurred in processing the pension papers of PW1 as he did not handle the same since his assuming the seat. PW1 though pleaded inability to secure the money to fulfil the alleged demand of the appellant, he could secure the tainted amount but he did not explain the source of his securing such an amount. The CBI without conducting proper enquiry, in a hasty manner, laid the trap and falsely implicated the appellant in the present case. Entire pre-trap proceedings appear to be far from truth in view of the unbelievable versions glaring on record and also the inconsistent versions deposed by the witnesses concerned. Investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law and the investigating officer should be fair and conscious to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and Code of Criminal Procedure does not recommend private investigation and such private investigation cannot be presented by public prosecutor in any criminal trial. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove that money was taken voluntarily as bribe, mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt and the complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any interested witness and in a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant that the appellant demanded for bribe either on 13.04.2015 or on 20.04.2015 to process the pension file and he voluntarily received MO1 cash from PW1. 14. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and his evidence is nothing but reiteration of the contents of complaint lodged by him under Ex.P1. PW2 is a mediator to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and accompanied PW1 while he went to hand over the tainted currency to the appellant. 14. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and his evidence is nothing but reiteration of the contents of complaint lodged by him under Ex.P1. PW2 is a mediator to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and accompanied PW1 while he went to hand over the tainted currency to the appellant. During cross-examination PW2 admitted that he was at a feet distance from PW1 and the appellant and while returning from Tara Bakery, there was lot of noise due to the traffic and hence, he could not hear the demand of the appellant for handing over the tainted currency notes. PW3 is the trap laying officer. PW4 worked as Senior Accounts Officer in AG Office, Hyderabad and she identified the voice of the appellant contained in the compact disk and she deposed that the appellant worked in P-15 Section which dealt with the pension files including the pension file of late M.Lalitha. PW5 worked as Nodal Officer of Reliance Communications, Hyderabad and provided call data record Ex.P16 according to which from 01.04.2015 to 20.04.2015 incoming calls were made by PW1 (7702332672) to the phone of appellant (9391007282). There were no outgoing calls from the phone of accused to PW1. PW11, who worked as Nodal Officer, Airtel, Hyderabad furnished Ex.P31 call data records pertaining to mobile phone number 7702332672 of PW1 and he too deposed in the same line as deposed by PW5. PW6 worked as Deputy Accountant General in AG Office, Hyderabad and issued sanction/Ex.P17 to prosecute the accused/appellant. PW7 worked as scientific officer in Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad and after chemical analysis, confirmed phenolphthalein, sodium and carbonate ions in the washes produced by CBI pertaining to the present case. PW8 worked as Assistant Accounts Officer, AG Office, Hyderabad, she identified the voice of the appellant contained in the compact disk and deposed that the appellant worked in P-15 Section and that PW8 handled Ex.P7 pension file of late M.Lalitha and after making a note on 01.04.2013 and submitting file to Senior Accounts Officer for sanction of pension and subsequently descriptive rolls of PW1 were called from DM & HO, Nalgonda and thereafter file was sent to old record section. PW9 worked as Assistant Accounts Officer, AG Office, he identified the voice of appellant contained in the compact disk and deposed that he assisted the CBI officials in searching the table of the appellant and preparation of search list under Ex.P8 and seizure of Ex.P7. PW10 worked as Senior Assistant in Medical and Health Department and deposed with regard to Exs.P19 to P27 pertaining to pension file of late M.Lalitha and also about the correspondence between the AG Office and DN & HO office, Bhongiri and during his cross-examination it was elicited that vide Ex.P26 the descriptive rolls were submitted to AG Office on 17.05.2013. PW12 is said to be a friend of PW1 and accompanied PW1 to the office of appellant and he deposed that in his presence the appellant demanded PW1 for illegal gratification. However, during cross- examination, learned counsel for the accused put suggestions that he is a planted witness as his name was nowhere mentioned by PW1 and to gain some credence to the case of PW1, his friend/PW12 was planted by the investigating officer. PW13 worked as Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad and investigated into the matter and laid charge-sheet. However, during cross-examination learned counsel for the accused tried to whittle down his evidence by putting suggestions that he did not conduct the investigation in proper lines and foisted the present case against the accused and he failed to give a proper reason for non-seizure of the mobile phone through which the conversation between the appellant and PW1 was made. 15. In support of his case the appellant examined one Mr.B.Venkata Subbaiah as DW1. Initially he was cited as a witness by the prosecution however, since he did not support the case of prosecution he was given-up by the prosecution. He deposed that he knows the accused as he went to AG office regarding pension papers and on 20.04.2015 he went to the Accountant General office on the request of the accused over phone to have a tea. DW1 was present in the AG office while Ex.P4 proceedings were going on and he signed on it. However, he pleaded ignorance regarding the contents of Ex.P4 proceedings. DW1 was present in the AG office while Ex.P4 proceedings were going on and he signed on it. However, he pleaded ignorance regarding the contents of Ex.P4 proceedings. DW1 admitted that he did not hear the conversation between the appellant and PW1 but he deposed regarding catching-hold of appellant by CBI and conducting sodium carbonate solution test, resulting in the said test in positive and taking the appellant to the AG office by the CBI people, conducting sodium carbonate solution test to the trousers of the appellant. 16. Though the appellant vehemently contended that the tainted currency was thrust into his hands by PW1, he did not give cogent and plausible explanation for receiving the said amount with his right hand, shifting the same to his left hand and keeping the said amount into his trousers’ left side pocket. The appellant did not deny recovery of MO1 from his left side pocket of trousers. There is discrepancy between the evidence of DW1 and version of appellant with regard to arrival of DW1 to the office of AG since DW1 stated that he was called by appellant over phone but the version of appellant is that DW1 met him while he was going to canteen for having snacks and tea. Further, Ex.P16 call data record does not show any outgoing call from the phone of the appellant to DW1 on that particular day. 17. While the facts stood thus, so far as the findings of the trial Court are concerned, there is no answer offered by the appellant/accused with regard to recovery of tainted currency from his left side pocket of trousers. Further, when the evidence on record and the fact of yielding positive result of hand washes and pants pocket wash are considered, the version of the appellant that the tainted currency was thrust into his hands appears to be far from truth since he took the same with his right hand and shifted the same into his left hand and kept the same in his left side pocket of his trousers. Generally when such an act was done, there must be some resistance but record shows that there was no such resistance from the appellant. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. Generally when such an act was done, there must be some resistance but record shows that there was no such resistance from the appellant. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. No convincing evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the factum of demand of bribe by the appellant. The Trap Laying Officer did not make any effort to get the factum of demand of bribe verified by means of any independent or tangible evidence oversee and overhear the events as they unfolded during the course of the transaction of demand and acceptance of the bribe. Admittedly, neither the mediators nor any other witness associated in the trap proceedings heard the conversation which took place between the accused and PW1. It was the complainant (PW-1) who voluntarily took his friend, PW-12 to the accused and with his help he could able to record the conversation made over phone. As per the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, this itself is a clear attempt by the complainant (PW-1) in connivance with the TLO (PW3) to create evidence through a partisan witness acting and hence, the prosecution is guilty of deliberately associating an interested witness so as to fortify the alleged transaction of demand and acceptance of bribe. 19. It is well settled proposition of law that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral or documentary. The said fact is very much fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka Vs.Chandrasha , [Crl.A.No.2646 of 2024] . When the above factual matrix are applied to the case on hand, though PW2 stated that he could not hear the conversation between the accused and the de-facto complainant, it is not disputed by the accused with regard to recovery of tainted currency notes from his possession and yielding positive result of phenolphthalein test conducted on his person and apparels. Further, the record shows no resistance on the part of the accused while the de- facto complainant handing over the tainted currency. Further, the record shows no resistance on the part of the accused while the de- facto complainant handing over the tainted currency. In-fact, he, upon receipt of the same with his right hand, shifted the same to his left hand and kept in his left side trouser pocket. Further, the voice of the accused converted into a compact disk was identified by his colleagues and PW1 as that of the accused. Loss of cell phone, through which the demand made by the accused was recorded, cannot weaken the prosecution case with regard to the demand of bribe since the same was deposed by PW1, corroborated PW12. Further, evidence of PW10 official witness, corroborating the contents of Ex.P26, shows that from 17.05.2013 the pension file of the deceased was pending with the AG Office without any process. Admittedly, the concerned file was kept pending with the office where the accused worked from December, 2013 and he is the concerned officer to process the same and place before the sanctioning authority. Further, contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the call data records show no outgoing call from the accused to PW1 and hence, the accused demanding illegal gratification is a false allegation has no force as it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused by making phone call demanded PW1 an illegal gratification. Though the learned counsel for the accused doubted the presence of PW12 while demanding the illegal gratification, he failed to prove the same by way of cross-examining PW12. 20. When the above facts are scrutinized, the findings of the trial Court that the prosecution has established its case that the accused demanded and accepted an illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration for processing Ex.P7 file and in that process, he was caught red-handed while accepting and demanding the same from PW1 in the presence of mediators and other trap members cannot be found fault with and hence, the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Further, the grounds urged herein are all raised before the trial Court by way of defence and they have already been answered by the trial Court in a right manner. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the present criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 21. Further, the grounds urged herein are all raised before the trial Court by way of defence and they have already been answered by the trial Court in a right manner. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the present criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 21. However, so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is concerned, as the incident occurred in the year 2015 and since then the appellant might have suffered mental agony by roaming around the Courts and also suffering physical incarceration, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in favour of the appellant basing on the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in VK Verma Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation , [(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 485] , Raj Kumar Alias Raju Yadav Alias Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar , [(2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 589] and Ravinder Vs. State of MP , [(2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 590] by reducing the period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the period of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court against the appellant for all the counts is reduced to that of the period which he had already undergone while upholding the fine amount. Except the above modification with regard to the sentence of imprisonment, this criminal appeal stands dismissed in all other aspects. 22. In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed. 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand dismissed.