CRLA/1773/2005 of The State of A.P., Vs T.Kabir Das Goud, on 31 December 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

MONDAY THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

PRESENTHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773 OF 2005

Between:

The State,Represented by the Inspector of Police,Anti-Corruption Bureau,Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. … Appellant V/s.T. Kabir Das Goud,Formerly Asst. Engineer,Mandal Praja Parishad,Qutubullapur Mandal,Ranga Reddy district. … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B. Thimma Reddy Standing Counsel for ACB Cases Counsel for the Respondent : Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy The Court made the following : [Judgment follows]HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773 OF 2005J U D G M E N T:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Anti-CorruptionBureau against the judgment dated 08-09-2005 passed by theSpecial Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, videGovt.Memo.No. 624/Vig.I/2003-6, dated 08-09-2005 in CC.No. 11of 2005 whereby and whereunder the respondent-accusedofficer T. Kabir Das Goud was acquitted of the chargesunder section 7 and 13 (1) (d) (I) (II) read with section 13 (2) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard Sri B. Thimma Reddy, the learned standingcounsel for ACB and Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, the learnedcounsel for the respondent-accused officer.

3. The brief facts of the case according to the prosecutionare the following :

PW-1 was a contractor and he executed the work of layingroad from Miyapur PWD Road to Bowrampalli village. The respondent T.Kabir Das Goud was the Assistant Engineer, whowas supervising the work regarding the measurement andpreparing the first part final bill. The first part final bill was paid toPW-1 on 11-11-1993. It is said that while preparing thesaid bill, the respondent demanded an amount of Rs.3232=00being 10% of the final bill amount of Rs.32,320/- from PW-1. PW-1, who was not willing to pay the amount of bribe demandedby the respondent, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau andlaid a report against the respondent. On the strength of the saidreport, a case in Crime No.12/ACB-HR/1993 was registered on22-11-1993 and was investigated into. In the course ofinvestigation, a trap was laid on 22-11-1993 at 03:45p.m., in the course of which, the respondent allegedly acceptedthe tainted amount of Rs.3232/- from PW-1 in the presence ofPW-2 accompanying witness and consequently trapped by theraiding party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,Anti-Corruption Bureau. The chemical test conducted on thefingers of the respondent and the inner lining of his pant pocketyielded positive result and the tainted amount was recoveredfrom the respondent as he picked up from his pant pocket and produced before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, when he was asked about the tainted amount.

4. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of therespondent examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-18besides MOs 1 to 8. On behalf of the defence, DW-1 wasexamined and Ex.D-1 was marked.

5. Before the trial court, PW-1 the defacto complainantand PW-2 the accompanying witness did not support theprosecution version. The only thing remained to be consideredbefore the trial court was that the alleged recovery of taintedamount of Rs.3232/- and the chemical test yielding positiveresult. The learned trial Court, however, as the main witnessesdid not support the prosecution story and also considering theother circumstances acquitted the respondent of the chargesunder section 7 and 13 (1) (d) (I) (II) read with section 13 (2) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. The point for consideration therefore in this appeal iswhether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order ofacquittal recorded by the learned trial court.

7. PW-1 in his evidence stated before the trial court that

on the advise of one of his colleague, Mr. Prakash Reddycontractor he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodgeda complaint against the respondent so that the Anti-CorruptionBureau would get the final bill done. He approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 16-11-1993 and met the DeputySuperintendent of Police and as the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice and told him that the MDO and respondent were stating tohim that funds were not available for the final bill and when theDeputy Superintendent of Police asked him to give a complaintagainst the respondent, he gave a complaint. Thus, he gaveexplanation in his evidence in the chief examination itself as towhy he gave a complaint against the respondent.

8. As regards the trap also, he did not support theprosecution version. He stated in his evidence that after enteringinto the office of the respondent, he found the respondent at histable then he kept the tainted currency amount in his shirt pocketand caught his hand, pleaded to some how arrange funds for thefinal bill. Immediately thereafter according to him the Anti-Corruption Bureau officials came in and asked him to go out ofthe room of the respondent. PW-2 the accompanying witness also did not state that the respondent received the tainted amountfrom PW-1. His version is also to the effect that PW-1 thrustedthe currency notes into the shirt pocket of the respondent andcaught hold of his hand and pleaded for getting the funds for thefinal bill. According to him, soon after he went outside and gavepre-arranged signal and the raiding party rushed in. Thus, thesetwo principal witnesses for the prosecution did not support theprosecution story in any respect.9. PW-3 one of the mediators, who was working asAssistant Executive Engineer in the Office of CECDO Hyderabadstated in his evidence that on the date of alleged report lodged byPW-1, the bill was paid to PW-1 for the entire work he executedand for the remaining work permission had to be obtained fromthe Executive Engineer. Thus, according to this witness on thecrucial date, no official favour was pending with the respondent. PW-3 one of the mediators stated in his evidence in the chiefexamination that in the first instance money was recovered fromthe respondent and then the chemical test was conducted on hisfingers. Though it was sought to be explained by the prosecutionin the re-examination, the fact remains that in the chief examination that he stated after the recovery was made thechemical test was conducted. Therefore, the chemical testyielding positive in the instant case is of no avail for theprosecution. PWs 3, 4 and 8 stated in their evidence that therespondent spontaneously offered the explanation to the effectthat he did not receive any amount from PW-1 but PW-2 thrustedthe tainted amount into his shirt pocket.

10. Considering all these facts, the learned trial courtarrived at the conclusion that the prosecution in this case failedto establish the guilt of the respondent and consequentlyacquitted him of the charges under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) (I)(II) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988. In an appeal against acquittal, theappellate court will interfere only when the findings of thetrial court are perverse or not based on evidence. Merelybecause a different view is possible, the appellate courtis not supposed to upset the finding of acquittal recordedby the trial court. Since in the instant case, the order ofacquittal recorded is based on the evidence on record and the decision of the learned trial court being supported by valid reasons it does not call for any interference in the present appeal.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the acquittal fails and thesame is dismissed.

_____________________

JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO.

31/12/2012I s L

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773 OF 2005

CIRCULATION No. 96Date:31/12/2012Court Master: I s LComputer No.43