CRIMINAL APPEAL 2 of 2003 on 31 October 2001

JUDGMENT

Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to, as ‘AO’),[in][ Calendar]Case No.2 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases,Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Special Judge’), filed[this][ Criminal]Appeal challenging the Judgment dated 28.02.2007, whereunderand whereby he was convicted of the offences punishable[under]Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention[of]Corruption Act,1988(for brevity'the PC Act,1988’)andwassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period[of][ two](02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousandonly),in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six(06) months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PCAct,1988andwasalsosentencedtoundergorigorousimprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to suffer simpleimprisonmentforaperiodof six(06)monthsfor theoffencepunishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of thePC Act, 1988. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed torun concurrently.

2. Sumandsubstanceofthechargesagainsttheaccused officeris that,he, being a public servant, employedasaccused officeris that,he, being a public servant, employedas SRK,JCrl A No.438 of 2007

Branch Manager,Life Insurance Corporationof India(for brevityLIC’),CityBranch-3, SeethammadharaBranch, Visakhapatnam,and being anEnquiry Officer to enquire about the death[of][ one]G.Siva Kiran, son of P.W1,for settlement of the claimof BhimaKiran Policy bearing No.840227396,is alleged to have[demanded][ a]bribeamountofRs.10,000/-fromP.W1on30.10.2001andaccepted illegal gratification on 31.10.2001 for doing[the][ official][ act]of settlingthe death claimof P.WI’s son, thereby[the]accusedofficer committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read \A/ith 13 (2) of the PC Act.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the AO workedas Branch Manager in LIC of India, CB-III Branch, Seethammapetabranch, Visakhapatnam during 2001 and his duties, being[a][ Branch]Manager,includeoverallsupervisionofbranch,conductinginvestigations on early claims, etc.as Branch Manager in LIC of India, CB-III Branch, Seethammapetabranch, Visakhapatnam during 2001 and his duties, being[a][ Branch]Manager,includeoverallsupervisionofbranch,conductinginvestigations on early claims, etc.

(b) P.W1is resident of Chengalraopeta, Visakhapatnam,worked as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Syndicate Bank and took voluntaryretirement. P.W1, while working at Pedapavani branch of SyndicateBank,PrakasamDistrict,tookBhimaKiranPolicybearingNo.840227396 during April, 1996 in the name of his[son][ viz.][ G.Siva]Kiran, from LICofIndia,KavaliBranch,NelloreDistrict,for an SRKJCriA.No 438 of 2007assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; that subsequently during 1998-99, P.W1wastransferredto Visakhapatnamandlater,duringJanuary, 2001, took voluntary retirement from the bank;that on15.04.2001 during evening hours, son of P.W1 was shifted to theApollo Hospital due to suddenillnessi.e.paininstomachandchest, and after examining him, the hospital authority[declared][ that]the son of P.W1 was brought dead and issued certificate to thateffect; that P.W1 informed to the LIC Office, Kavali during last weekof April, 2001 about his son’s death and requested[for][ settlement][ of]claim of Bhima Kiran Policy stood in his name.

(c) On 25.10.2001during evening hours, AO visited thehouse of P.W1 and gave a small chit with his official address andphone numbers to the wife of P.W1 and informed her to instructP.W1 to come to his office; that after arrival of P.W1, he met AO,who informed him that he was appointed as Enquiry Officertoenquire about the death of his son viz. G.Siva Kiran, and he had tomake enquiry in his localityin the said connection andtold thatP.W1 had to satisfy in order to get the claim.house of P.W1 and gave a small chit with his official address andphone numbers to the wife of P.W1 and informed her to instructP.W1 to come to his office; that after arrival of P.W1, he met AO,who informed him that he was appointed as Enquiry Officertoenquire about the death of his son viz. G.Siva Kiran, and he had tomake enquiry in his localityin the said connection andtold thatP.W1 had to satisfy in order to get the claim.

(d) On 30.10.2001 at about 3.30 p.m. AO visited the houseof P.W1 and demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe to give afavourable report; that AO dictated that one draft letter to be takenof P.W1 and demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe to give afavourable report; that AO dictated that one draft letter to be taken SRK, JCri.A.No.438 of 2007

from two friends,neighbours of P.W1, who tookhis[son]totheApollo Hospital along with P.W1on 15.04.2001;that[AO]askedP.W1 to bring two similar letters as dictated by him[after][ getting]signed by L.W10/T.Srinivasa Rao and L.W11/KothurthiSrinivasaRao, who accompanied P.W1 to the hospital on 15.04.2001[and][ the]bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.2001 at about[8.30][ a.m.][ and]further gavehis visiting card, containing the residential[address]particulars asPot No.301,IIIFloor,Sri Santha Complex,DoorNo.48-8-20, Srinagar, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-16;[that][ AO]threatened P.W1thatif he doesnot pay thebribe amountofRs. 10,000/-, AO would send the bad report by 31.10.2001[noon][ and]P.W1 would not get the LIC claim amount.

(e) P.W1, having not interested to pay the bribe amount[to]the AO,lodgedEx.P6-reporttotheSP,OBI,VisakhapatnamagainstAO.P.W6InspectorofPolice,CBI,Visakhapatnamregistered the report as a casein RC.29(A)2001-CBI,[VSP]on30.10.2001. EX.P24 is the FIR.

(f) P.W6securedthepresenceoftwoindependentwitnesses andensuredpreparation of firstmediatorsreportbyincorporating the events. Ex.PIIis first Mediators[Report.][ P.W6]along with others proceeded to Srinagar area, where[P.W6][ laid][ a]

SRK, JCr1.A.No.438 of 2007

trap on 31.10.2001 against the AO and caught him red-handed[at]his Flat No.301,III Floor,Sri Santha Complex, Door No.48-8-20,Srinagar, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, when AO demanded[and]acceptedthebribeamountofRs. 10,000/-fromP.W1inthepresence of P.W2, Assistant Manager,Indian Bank, Madras,fordoing official favour.

(g) During the trap proceedings, P.W6 conducted colourtest to the hands of AO and the test yielded positive result; thatP.W6 compared the serial numbers of the M.01-Currency[Notes]withthatofthenumbersalreadyrecordedinthepre-trapproceedings and, found that they were tallied; that[P.W6][ seized][ the]above currency notes; that the entire proceedings were[drafted][ at]the residential house of AO. Ex.P12is second Mediators Report,dated 31.10.2001.

(h) L.W14-D.K.Sukla, Executive Director, Personal, LIC[of]India,CentralOffice,Mumbai-21issued sanction on 22.07.2002under Section 19 (1) (c) of the PC Act, 1988 for prosecution[of the]AO.Ex.P1istheSanctionOrder,dated22.07.2002.Afterconductinginvestigation andreceipt of Ex.P1-SanctionOrder,acharge sheet was filed for the offences punishable[under][ Sections][ 7]and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,India,CentralOffice,Mumbai-21issued sanction on 22.07.2002under Section 19 (1) (c) of the PC Act, 1988 for prosecution[of the]AO.Ex.P1istheSanctionOrder,dated22.07.2002.Afterconductinginvestigation andreceipt of Ex.P1-SanctionOrder,acharge sheet was filed for the offences punishable[under][ Sections][ 7]and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988against the appellant/AccusedOfficer.Hence,the ChargeSheet.

4. The learned Special Judge took cognizanceof theoffencesunder Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PCAct, 1988 against the appellant herein/AO. After furnishing[copies][ of]documents, charges for the aforesaid offences were[framed][ against]the appellant herein/AO, and read over and explainedto himinTelugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.offencesunder Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PCAct, 1988 against the appellant herein/AO. After furnishing[copies][ of]documents, charges for the aforesaid offences were[framed][ against]the appellant herein/AO, and read over and explainedto himinTelugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22, P22A to P26 and[MOs.1][ to][ 6.]to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22, P22A to P26 and[MOs.1][ to][ 6.]

6. After closureof the prosecutionside evidence, theappellant/AO was examined under Section 313 CrPC, explained[the]incriminating circumstances appearing against him in[the][ evidence]of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same. Nonewasexamined and no exhibit was marked. The appellant herein/AO[filed]written statement and stated as follows:appellant/AO was examined under Section 313 CrPC, explained[the]incriminating circumstances appearing against him in[the][ evidence]of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same. Nonewasexamined and no exhibit was marked. The appellant herein/AO[filed]written statement and stated as follows:

“The accused officer accepted Rs. 10,000/- from P.W1towards premium amount for Jeevan Suraksha Policy.Thecalculation sheet pertainingto Jeevan Suraksha Policywasalso seized from Ex. PI 4-long envelope by P. WO."

SRK,JCri-ANo438 of 2007

7. The learned Special Judge convicted theappellantherein/AO of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d)read with13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 in terms of Section 248 (2) CrPC andsentenced him, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the presentCriminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein/AO.herein/AO of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d)read with13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 in terms of Section 248 (2) CrPC andsentenced him, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the presentCriminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein/AO.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant herein/AOwouldcontend that the amount paid by P.W1 to the appellant herein/AOon the date of the incident, is the premium amount payable towardsthe policy of Jeevan Suraksha Life Insurance andit is the burden ofthe prosecution to prove that the appellant herein/AOdemandedthe bribe amount from P.W1 and theamount which was paid byP.W1 on the date of the incident, is the gratification accepted by theappellant herein/AO to do official favour. Though theprosecutionexamined P.Ws.2 and 3, their evidence does not corroborate theevidence of P.W1 and theremainingprosecution witnessesi.e.P.W4 is the wife of P.W1, she is interested witness and P.Ws.5 and6, are the Investigating Officers, who conducted investigation in thecase. Therefore, the evidence of P.W1is not wholly reliable andtrustworthy to convict the appellant herein/AO, but these aspectshave not been considered by the learned Special Judgeinrightperspective, and as such, prayed for acquittal of the appellant/AO.contend that the amount paid by P.W1 to the appellant herein/AOon the date of the incident, is the premium amount payable towardsthe policy of Jeevan Suraksha Life Insurance andit is the burden ofthe prosecution to prove that the appellant herein/AOdemandedthe bribe amount from P.W1 and theamount which was paid byP.W1 on the date of the incident, is the gratification accepted by theappellant herein/AO to do official favour. Though theprosecutionexamined P.Ws.2 and 3, their evidence does not corroborate theevidence of P.W1 and theremainingprosecution witnessesi.e.P.W4 is the wife of P.W1, she is interested witness and P.Ws.5 and6, are the Investigating Officers, who conducted investigation in thecase. Therefore, the evidence of P.W1is not wholly reliable andtrustworthy to convict the appellant herein/AO, but these aspectshave not been considered by the learned Special Judgeinrightperspective, and as such, prayed for acquittal of the appellant/AO.

SRK, JCrtA.No438 of 2007

SRK, JCrtA.No438 of 2007

9. SriP.S.P.SureshKumar,learnedSpecialPublicProsecutor for CBI wouldcontendthat the evidenceof P.W1isconsistent and cogent with regard to demand made by the appellantherein/AO and on the date of the trap, the appellant[herein/AO][ was]caughtred-handedwhile acceptingtheillegalgratificationfromP.W1to do the official favour. The evidence of P.W2 whois theAssistant Manager of Indian Bank, who accompanied P.W1[on][ the]date of trap and his evidence is cogent, consistent[and][ corroborates]the evidence of P.W1. He further contended that on a perusal of thechief examination of P.Ws.1 and 2,it is quite evident[that][ there]is ademandmadebytheappellant/AOandtaintedamountwasrecovered from the appellant/AO and as such, the demand[and]acceptance are established beyond reasonable doubt.[The][ entire]evidence of prosecution witnesses goes to show that[there]is nonecessity for P.W1to subscribe for Jeevan Suraksh[Policy][ as][ he]hadno interest or capacityto take the saidpolicy.HefurthersubmitsthatthelearnedSpecialJudge,uponconsideringtheevidence on recordinright perspective, found the[appellant/AO]guilty of the offences, with which, he was charged[and][ accordingly,]rightly convicted and sentenced him, and there are[no][ grounds][ to]interfere with the impugned judgment.Prosecutor for CBI wouldcontendthat the evidenceof P.W1isconsistent and cogent with regard to demand made by the appellantherein/AO and on the date of the trap, the appellant[herein/AO][ was]caughtred-handedwhile acceptingtheillegalgratificationfromP.W1to do the official favour. The evidence of P.W2 whois theAssistant Manager of Indian Bank, who accompanied P.W1[on][ the]date of trap and his evidence is cogent, consistent[and][ corroborates]the evidence of P.W1. He further contended that on a perusal of thechief examination of P.Ws.1 and 2,it is quite evident[that][ there]is ademandmadebytheappellant/AOandtaintedamountwasrecovered from the appellant/AO and as such, the demand[and]acceptance are established beyond reasonable doubt.[The][ entire]evidence of prosecution witnesses goes to show that[there]is nonecessity for P.W1to subscribe for Jeevan Suraksh[Policy][ as][ he]hadno interest or capacityto take the saidpolicy.HefurthersubmitsthatthelearnedSpecialJudge,uponconsideringtheevidence on recordinright perspective, found the[appellant/AO]guilty of the offences, with which, he was charged[and][ accordingly,]rightly convicted and sentenced him, and there are[no][ grounds][ to]interfere with the impugned judgment.

10. Now the point for consideration is-

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case againstthe appellant/AO for the charges leveled against himi.e.Sections7,13(1)(d) read with13(2) of thePreventionofCorruptionAct,1988,beyondreasonable doubt, and whether the Judgment of thetrial Court is legal, correct and proper?

11. In order to attract an offence under Section 7 of the PCAct, 1988, the necessary ingredients to be established[are][ that][ the]appellant herein/AOis a public servant and that he accepted orobtainedgratificationotherthanlegalremunerationandthegratification was to do an official favour. Under Section 13 (1) (d) ofthe PC Act, 1988,if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means orby otherwise abusinghisposition as public servant,obtainsforhimself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniaryadvantage, heis guilty of criminal misconduct punishable[under]Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988.Act, 1988, the necessary ingredients to be established[are][ that][ the]appellant herein/AOis a public servant and that he accepted orobtainedgratificationotherthanlegalremunerationandthegratification was to do an official favour. Under Section 13 (1) (d) ofthe PC Act, 1988,if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means orby otherwise abusinghisposition as public servant,obtainsforhimself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniaryadvantage, heis guilty of criminal misconduct punishable[under]Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988.

12. Theappellantherein/AOwasworkingasBranchManager,LifeInsuranceCorporationofIndia,CityBranch-3,Seethammadhara Branch, Visakhapatnam, at the relevant point oftime of theincident. Thereis no dispute that he wasapublicservant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988.Manager,LifeInsuranceCorporationofIndia,CityBranch-3,Seethammadhara Branch, Visakhapatnam, at the relevant point oftime of theincident. Thereis no dispute that he wasapublicservant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988.

SRK, JCrl A No 43a of 2007

13. P.W1, who set the criminal law into motion by lodgingEx.P6-report, deposedinhis chief-examinationthathissonviz.G.Siva Kiran took Bhima Kiran Policy bearing No.340227396[for][ an]amount of Rs.1.00 lakh, from LIC of India, Kavali Branch, during themonth of April,1996;that on 15.04.2001during evening hours.when G.SivaKiran was brought to the hospital due to paininstomach and chest, the Doctors of Apollo Hospital declared[him][ as]brought dead.Ex.P6-report, deposedinhis chief-examinationthathissonviz.G.Siva Kiran took Bhima Kiran Policy bearing No.340227396[for][ an]amount of Rs.1.00 lakh, from LIC of India, Kavali Branch, during themonth of April,1996;that on 15.04.2001during evening hours.when G.SivaKiran was brought to the hospital due to paininstomach and chest, the Doctors of Apollo Hospital declared[him][ as]brought dead.

14. P.W4, wife of P.W1 deposed during her examination inchief that her sonviz. Siva Kiran died during the year 2001 andsubsequent to his demise, P.W1 submitted the claim papers to theLie of India, Kavali branch.chief that her sonviz. Siva Kiran died during the year 2001 andsubsequent to his demise, P.W1 submitted the claim papers to theLie of India, Kavali branch.

15. A perusalof the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 goes toshow that during the life time of their sonviz. Siva[Kiran,][ he][ took]Bhima KiranPolicy from the LIC of India,Kavali Branchfor anamount of Rs.1.00 lakh in the month of April, 1996.[Their][ evidence]further discloses that on 15.04.2001their sonviz. Siva Kiran wasshiftedto Apollo Hospital as he wassuffering from paintohisstomach and chest, and by the time their son was shifted[to][ the]hospital,theDoctorsof ApolloHospitaldeclaredthathewasbrought dead.show that during the life time of their sonviz. Siva[Kiran,][ he][ took]Bhima KiranPolicy from the LIC of India,Kavali Branchfor anamount of Rs.1.00 lakh in the month of April, 1996.[Their][ evidence]further discloses that on 15.04.2001their sonviz. Siva Kiran wasshiftedto Apollo Hospital as he wassuffering from paintohisstomach and chest, and by the time their son was shifted[to][ the]hospital,theDoctorsof ApolloHospitaldeclaredthathewasbrought dead.

16. With regard to demand made by theappellant/accusedofficer, it is the evidence of P.WIthat the appellant herein/AO gaveEx.P3-Slip, containing hisname, phone number and address, toP.W4, wife of P.W1, informing that hewas the Enquiry Officer withregard to the claim madei*appellant/accusedofficer, it is the evidence of P.WIthat the appellant herein/AO gaveEx.P3-Slip, containing hisname, phone number and address, toP.W4, wife of P.W1, informing that hewas the Enquiry Officer withregard to the claim madei*in pursuance of death of her son.Hefurther deposedthaton 25.10.2001at 5.30P-m.he mettheappellant/AO in his chamberswherein, P.WI was informed that inorder to get favourable report, theappellant/AO has to be satisfied.Again, on 29.10.2001at7.00 P-m. the appellant/AO demandedP.WI over phone call thathe was coming on 30.10.2001 at 3.30P-m. and asked him to get ready the funds ready as demandedearlier.Itistheversionof P.WIthaton30.10.2001theappellant/AO directly came to his houseand justified his demand bystating that it is their practice to take25% to 30% of claimamount toget favourable report.further deposedthaton 25.10.2001at 5.30P-m.he mettheappellant/AO in his chamberswherein, P.WI was informed that inorder to get favourable report, theappellant/AO has to be satisfied.Again, on 29.10.2001at7.00 P-m. the appellant/AO demandedP.WI over phone call thathe was coming on 30.10.2001 at 3.30P-m. and asked him to get ready the funds ready as demandedearlier.Itistheversionof P.WIthaton30.10.2001theappellant/AO directly came to his houseand justified his demand bystating that it is their practice to take25% to 30% of claimamount toget favourable report.

17. In this regard, approaching P.WI by the appellant/ AO,the evidence of P,W4 is that on 25.10.2001 at about 3.00 or 3.30P-m. the appellant/AO went to theirhouse and gave his addressparticulars, telephone numbers ofhis office and residenceto herand asked her to aigive the same to P.WI and contact him.It is her appellant/ AO,the evidence of P,W4 is that on 25.10.2001 at about 3.00 or 3.30P-m. the appellant/AO went to theirhouse and gave his addressparticulars, telephone numbers ofhis office and residenceto herand asked her to aigive the same to P.WI and contact him.It is her SRK, JCrt.A.NoASB of 2007

further evidence that again on 30.10.2021at about 3.30 p.m. theappellant/AO came to their house and had conversation with P.W1.

18. Though, the evidence of P.W4, wife of P.W1 does notdisclose about the demand made by the appellant/AO,[her][ evidence]would disclose the series of incidents that occurred subsequent tothe death of their son i.e. subsequent to submitting the claim papersin the LIC Office, Kavali Branch, the appellant/AO approached thehouse of P.W1 and furnishedhis address particulars along withtelephonenumbers.TheevidenceofP.W4coupledwiththeevidence of P.W1 with regard to approach of the appellant/AO[for]second time would goes to show that the appellant/AO[went][ to][ the]house of P.W1 on 30.10.2001 at 3.30 p.m. and demanded[P.W1]toget the funds ready.disclose about the demand made by the appellant/AO,[her][ evidence]would disclose the series of incidents that occurred subsequent tothe death of their son i.e. subsequent to submitting the claim papersin the LIC Office, Kavali Branch, the appellant/AO approached thehouse of P.W1 and furnishedhis address particulars along withtelephonenumbers.TheevidenceofP.W4coupledwiththeevidence of P.W1 with regard to approach of the appellant/AO[for]second time would goes to show that the appellant/AO[went][ to][ the]house of P.W1 on 30.10.2001 at 3.30 p.m. and demanded[P.W1]toget the funds ready.

19. Asper the evidenceof P.W1,theappellant/AOisworking as Branch Manager, LIC of India, Seethampeta Branch,Visakhatpatnam and he was the Enquiry Officer for causing inquiryof the death claim made by P.W1in respect of the LIC policy takenby his sonviz. Siva Kiran duringhislife time andthat was theofficial favour pending on the side of the appellant/AO[and][ in][ order]to get favourable claim report, the appellant/AO demanded[P.W1][ on]25.01.2001 at about 5.30 p.m.,in the chambers of appellant/AO[at]working as Branch Manager, LIC of India, Seethampeta Branch,Visakhatpatnam and he was the Enquiry Officer for causing inquiryof the death claim made by P.W1in respect of the LIC policy takenby his sonviz. Siva Kiran duringhislife time andthat was theofficial favour pending on the side of the appellant/AO[and][ in][ order]to get favourable claim report, the appellant/AO demanded[P.W1][ on]25.01.2001 at about 5.30 p.m.,in the chambers of appellant/AO[at]

first instance, on 29.10.2001at 7.00 p.m. over phoneat secondinstance and on 30.10.2001at about 3.30 p.m. at[third]instance.Theevidenceof P.W1further goesto showthat thoughtheappellant/AO stated thatit is their practice to take[25%][ to][ 30%][ of]the claim amount, the appellant/AO finally agreed to[take][ a][ sum][ of]Rs. 10,000/- for the official favour to be done.

20. In regard to demand made by the appellant/AO on thedate of raid,i.e.on 31.10.2001, the evidence of P.W1isto theeffect that on 31.10.2001at about 8.40 a.m. he along[with][ P.W2]went to the houseof theappellant herein/AO,situatedatFlatNo.301,SriSanthaComplex,Sreenagar,Dwarakanagar,Visakhapatnam, and knocked the door; that both P.W1[and][ P.W2]went inside the house of the appellant herein/AO andsat on thediwaan cot; that P.W1 handed over Exs.PS and P9-statements[of]his friends towards known reference to the appellant herein/AO;that the appellant herein/AO opened one long envelope[and][ took]out some papers, read over the contents to show as[to][ how][ he]prepared the report; that the appellant herein/AO told[him][ that][ ‘esa]date of raid,i.e.on 31.10.2001, the evidence of P.W1isto theeffect that on 31.10.2001at about 8.40 a.m. he along[with][ P.W2]went to the houseof theappellant herein/AO,situatedatFlatNo.301,SriSanthaComplex,Sreenagar,Dwarakanagar,Visakhapatnam, and knocked the door; that both P.W1[and][ P.W2]went inside the house of the appellant herein/AO andsat on thediwaan cot; that P.W1 handed over Exs.PS and P9-statements[of]his friends towards known reference to the appellant herein/AO;that the appellant herein/AO opened one long envelope[and][ took]out some papers, read over the contents to show as[to][ how][ he]prepared the report; that the appellant herein/AO told[him][ that][ ‘esa]

escooSfooo*^’, then, P.W1replied

SRK,JCr1.A.No.438 of 2007

thathearrangedasappellant/AOwished;thattheappellantherein/AO asked ‘arrangeand then P.W1 replied that h:)dadc7>’; that the appellant/AO asked P.W1to hand over the same by stretching his right[hand][ towards]P.W1; that P.W1 took over the tainted amount of Rs. 10,000/- fromhis left side pocket with his right hand and handed[over][ the][ same][ to]the appellant/AO and kept the tainted currency notesin the saidenvelope where all the papers were kept.

21. P.W2 accompanied P.W1onthe dateof trap.Hisevidence is to the effect that on 31.10.2001 he accompanied[P.W1]tothehouseofappellant/AOsituatedatDwarakanagarVisakhapatnam. He along with P.W1 were asked to come[and]sitinside the house of the appellant/AO and the appellant/AO[sat][ on]the diwaan cot. With regard to demand made by the appellant/AO,itis the evidence of P.W2 that the appellant/AO brought Ex.PI 4-longcover containingclaim papers andafter takingout[those]claimpapers, he uttered thatesdhoa doodSesoaoSfooo^^,evidence is to the effect that on 31.10.2001 he accompanied[P.W1]tothehouseofappellant/AOsituatedatDwarakanagarVisakhapatnam. He along with P.W1 were asked to come[and]sitinside the house of the appellant/AO and the appellant/AO[sat][ on]the diwaan cot. With regard to demand made by the appellant/AO,itis the evidence of P.W2 that the appellant/AO brought Ex.PI 4-longcover containingclaim papers andafter takingout[those]claimpapers, he uttered thatesdhoa doodSesoaoSfooo^^, SRK, JCrt.A No.438 of2007

and to which, P.W1 stated to him as

•^6 and in turn, the appellant/AO asked P.W1 as ‘esocoeS ^6_^cC2bod’.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant/AOwould contendthat the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- given to the appellant/AOistowards premium amount for JeevanSuraksha Insurance Policy tobe subscribed by P.W1 and in that regard the date of birthandother particulars were collected by the appellant/AO from P.W1andthe amount thatwas given to the appellant/AO is not bribe allegedto have been demanded by the appellant/AO forsettlement of claimof P.W1.that the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- given to the appellant/AOistowards premium amount for JeevanSuraksha Insurance Policy tobe subscribed by P.W1 and in that regard the date of birthandother particulars were collected by the appellant/AO from P.W1andthe amount thatwas given to the appellant/AO is not bribe allegedto have been demanded by the appellant/AO forsettlement of claimof P.W1.

23. If thecontentionof the appellant/AOis takenintoconsideration, indisputably, there is nothing on record to disbelievethe version of P,Ws,1 and 2. Indeed, it is not P.W1 who approachedthe appellant/AO,it is the appellant/AO, who went to the house ofP.W1 and during his absencehe gave Ex.PS-VIsting Card to thewife of P.W1 i.e. P.W4. Even asper the evidence of P.W2, who isaccompanied witnesson the date of trap, deposed on the samelines as deposed by P.W1 that theappellant/AO showed Ex.P14-long envelope containing claimpapers of P.W1,read over the contents of the report to show that he prepared a favourable reportto P.W1 and asked P.W1thatif the demanded amount is handedover to him, the entire work would be done favourably.

24. Evenifitis assumed for a moment that the amount ofRs. 10,000/-isacceptedbytheappellant/AOtowardsJeevanSurakshaPolicytobesubscribedbyP.W1,aperusaloftheevidence of P.W1 goes to show that as on the date of trap i.e. on31.01.2001, P.W1 was having four policies which include[Jeevan]SurakshaPolicytakenatKandukurubranch,LICofIndiaPrakashamDistrictvide No.840288055, dated 28.02.1997 upto28.02.2006.WhenP.W1hadalreadysubscribedtoJeevanSuraksha Policy way back in the year 1997, again subscribing[for]the same policy on 31.10.2001 i.e. six months after[the][ death][ of][ his]son, as contended by the appellant/accused, appearstobenotbelievable. Furthermore, Exs.P13, P14 and PI5 contains[small][ and]long envelope along with bunch of claim papers.It[contains][ neither]application pertaining to Jeevan Suraksha Policy nor[date][ of][ birth]and other particulars of P.W1. Though Ex.P26 is relating[to][ ready]reckoner for New Jeevan Akshay and Jeevan Suraksha[Policy][ for]Lie of India, such applications were not filled with[the][ name]ofP.W1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W1 coupled with[the][ evidence]

^SRK, JCr1.A.No.438 of 2007of P.W2 clearly establishes that theappellant/AO, being the EnquiryOfficer toiinquire into the cause of death claimmade by P.WIinrespect of his son viz. Siva Kiranwas pending before him and to dosuchofficial favour to P.WIthe appellant/AO demandedanamount Of Rs.10,000/-towards illegal gratificationand accepted thesaid sum towards bribe on 31.10.2001.

25. Apparently, on the date of the incident and oriprior to that,accused officer made a demand of bribeamount and the version ofP.W1 is consistent in his chief-examinationand as well in thecross-examination. His evidence hasnot been shattered duringcross-examination by the defenceiin connection with demand of money,It is pertinent to mention here thatno suggestion was made to P.WIby the defence to the extent thatno demand has been made by theaccused officer.In the absence of thatand when the version givenby P.WI is consistent, thesame cannot be brushed aside.prior to that,accused officer made a demand of bribeamount and the version ofP.W1 is consistent in his chief-examinationand as well in thecross-examination. His evidence hasnot been shattered duringcross-examination by the defenceiin connection with demand of money,It is pertinent to mention here thatno suggestion was made to P.WIby the defence to the extent thatno demand has been made by theaccused officer.In the absence of thatand when the version givenby P.WI is consistent, thesame cannot be brushed aside.

26. Even soonafter thepre-arrangedsignal made byP.WI, the trap laying partyreached the house of the appellant/AOand conducted SodiumCarbonatesolutiontest onbothhandfingers of the accused officer,which proved positive. The wife of theaccused officer produced taintedamount wrappedin small usedbrown envelope, whichwas available on the folded wooden cot andpre-arrangedsignal made byP.WI, the trap laying partyreached the house of the appellant/AOand conducted SodiumCarbonatesolutiontest onbothhandfingers of the accused officer,which proved positive. The wife of theaccused officer produced taintedamount wrappedin small usedbrown envelope, whichwas available on the folded wooden cot and

SRK, JCrt A NO-438 of 2007the chemical test conducted on the upper portion of wooden foldingcotalsoprovedpositive.Inviewofthesame,theaforesaidcontentions submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant haveno legs to stand.

27. In view of the aforesaid reasons,I am of the consideredopinion that the learned Special Judge, on proper appreciation[of]the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and taking[ all]the above aspects into consideration, has rightly found[the][ accused]officer guilty of the charges leveled against him and,[accordingly,]convictedfor theaforesaidcharges andIseenoreasonstointerfere with the same.opinion that the learned Special Judge, on proper appreciation[of]the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and taking[ all]the above aspects into consideration, has rightly found[the][ accused]officer guilty of the charges leveled against him and,[accordingly,]convictedfor theaforesaidcharges andIseenoreasonstointerfere with the same.

28. Withregardto quantumof sentence,thelearnedSpecial Judge sentencedthe appellant/AOto undergorigorousimprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to[pay][ a][ fine][ of]Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only),in default,[to][ suffer][ simple]imprisonmentfor aperiodofsix(06) monthsfor theoffencepunishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and[was]alsosentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period[of][ two](02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees[two][ thousand]only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for[a][ period][ of][ six](06) months for the offence punishable under Section[13][ (1)](d)Special Judge sentencedthe appellant/AOto undergorigorousimprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to[pay][ a][ fine][ of]Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only),in default,[to][ suffer][ simple]imprisonmentfor aperiodofsix(06) monthsfor theoffencepunishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and[was]alsosentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period[of][ two](02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees[two][ thousand]only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for[a][ period][ of][ six](06) months for the offence punishable under Section[13][ (1)](d)

SRK,JCdA.No.438 of 2007

read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. As on the dateofoffence, the appellant/AO was aged about 44 years and as on[ the]date of his examination under Section 313 CrPC i.e. on 09.02.2007,by the learned Special Judge, he was aged about 48 years. Thepresent Criminal Appeal was filed in the year 2007 and as on thedate, the appellant/AO is aged about 66 years. Considerable timehas elapsed. Therefore, considering the age factor of the appellant/AO, which is a mitigating circumstance, this Court is inclined to takea lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence of imprisonmentimposed by the learned Special Judge.

29. Accordingly,theCriminalAppealisdismissedconfirming the conviction recorded in Judgment dated 28.02.2007[ in]Calendar Case No.2 of 2003 by the learned Special Judge[for][ CBI]Cases, Visakhapatnam.confirming the conviction recorded in Judgment dated 28.02.2007[ in]Calendar Case No.2 of 2003 by the learned Special Judge[for][ CBI]Cases, Visakhapatnam.

However,the sentenceof imprisonment imposedby thelearnedSpecial Judgeismodified,andthe appellant/accusedofficer shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01)year,whileconfirmingthefine amountaswellasthedefaultsentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for the[offence]punishableunderSection7ofthePCAct,1988.Theappellant/accused officeris further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one (01) year, while confirming the[fine][ amount][ as]well as the default sentence imposed by the learned Special Judgefor the offencepunishableunder Section13(1)(d)readwithSection 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. Both the sentences[shall][ run]concurrently.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions,if any, pending[in][ this]Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

Sd/- K TATA RAODEPUTY REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnamdistrict (with records)

2. The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special PoliceEstablishment, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam districtEstablishment, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam district

3. One CC toSri. A Hariprasad Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to Sri. PSP Suresh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor forCBI Advocate [OPUC]CBI Advocate [OPUC]

5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section. High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravathi The Section Officer, Criminal Section. High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravathi

6. Three CD Copies

Stu

vna

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/03/2025

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.438 of 2007

ofr=O2 6 JUN 202560^. Current Section ^ y>^gCSPATCWgi^

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

<