CRIMINAL APPEAL 18 of2001 on 21 September 2006

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State againstthe Judgment dated 21.09.2006 passed in Calendar Case No. 18 of2001by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE[and][ ACB]Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to, as ‘thelearned Additional Special Judge’) against the respondent/Accuse[d]Officer No. 1 (A0.1).

2. Originally the Calendar Case No. 18 of 2001 was triedagainst AO.I/Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur and[Accused]OfficerNo.2(A0.2)A/illageAdministrativeOfficer,Kandukur,holdingadditionalchargeofVillageAdministrativeOffice,AnanthapurRuralMandalandDistrictfrom03.11.1998to30.07.1999 before the learned Additional Special Judge.against AO.I/Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur and[Accused]OfficerNo.2(A0.2)A/illageAdministrativeOfficer,Kandukur,holdingadditionalchargeofVillageAdministrativeOffice,AnanthapurRuralMandalandDistrictfrom03.11.1998to30.07.1999 before the learned Additional Special Judge.

3. Sum and substance of the charges against AO Nos.1and 2 is that, A0.1, being a Public Servant, employed[as][ Mandal]Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur Mandal and District,[demanded][ a]sum of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1, R/o.Ananthapuram, towards illegalgratificationother thanlegalremunerationtoissuepassbookpertaining tor/a acresof landof his motherviz.B.Chinnammasituated in Survey No.32/4 of Ananthapuram Rural Mandal[and][ that]A0.2, being a Public Servant, working as Village Administrativeand 2 is that, A0.1, being a Public Servant, employed[as][ Mandal]Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur Mandal and District,[demanded][ a]sum of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1, R/o.Ananthapuram, towards illegalgratificationother thanlegalremunerationtoissuepassbookpertaining tor/a acresof landof his motherviz.B.Chinnammasituated in Survey No.32/4 of Ananthapuram Rural Mandal[and][ that]A0.2, being a Public Servant, working as Village Administrative Officer,Kandukur,holdingadditionalchargeofVillageAdministrativeOffice,AnanthapurRuralMandalandDistrict,accepted the tainted money of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1[on][ 27.07.1999]within the premises of MRO Office on the instructions[of][ A0.1]fordoing such official favour, thereby AO Nos.1 and 2[committed][ the]offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read[with][ 13][ (2)][ of]the PC Act, 1988.

4. VideJudgment,dated21.09.2006thelearnedAdditional Special Judge convicted AO.2 of the offences[punishable]under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) ofthe PC Act, 1988 in terms of Section 248 (2) of the[Code][ of][ Criminal]Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) and sentenced[him][ to][ undergo]rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year[and][ imposed]fine for a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only),[in][ default,]to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three [(03)][ months]for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC[Act,][ 1988;]AO.2 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment[for][ a]period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-[(Rupees][ one]thousandonly),indefault,tosuffer simple imprisonmentforaperiodof three(03) monthsfor the offencepunishableunderSection 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act,[1988.][ Both][ the]Additional Special Judge convicted AO.2 of the offences[punishable]under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) ofthe PC Act, 1988 in terms of Section 248 (2) of the[Code][ of][ Criminal]Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) and sentenced[him][ to][ undergo]rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year[and][ imposed]fine for a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only),[in][ default,]to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three [(03)][ months]for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC[Act,][ 1988;]AO.2 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment[for][ a]period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-[(Rupees][ one]thousandonly),indefault,tosuffer simple imprisonmentforaperiodof three(03) monthsfor the offencepunishableunderSection 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act,[1988.][ Both][ the]

sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.[The]learned Additional Special Judge acquitted A0.1of[the][ offences]punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d)readwithSection 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988in terms of Section[248](1)CrPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal of A0.1, the State[preferred][ the]present Criminal Appeal.

5. Case of the prosecution,inbrief,is that A0.1 wasworking as Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur and[A0.2][ was]workingasVillageAdministrativeOfficer,Kandukur,holdingadditional charge of Village Administrative Office, Ananthapur[ Rural]Mandal andDistrict from 03.11.1998to 30.07.1999;P.W1wasworking as Junior Assistant in KMG High School, Ananthapuram;that his father viz. B.Kistappa died in the year 1995;[that][ his][ father]viz.B.Kistappaandhisgrandfatherviz.BullePeddadiahgotAc.3.00 centsof joint landedpropertyin AnanthapuramRuralMandal bearing Survey No.32/4. One B.Chinnamma, whois themother of P.W1, got 114 acres of land out of Ac.3.00[cents][ towards]her share; that B.Chinnamma took the assistance of[her][ son,][ P.W1]to get the pattadar pass book for her 114 acres of[land;][ that][ two]months prior to the date of complaint, P.W1 filled up[ the][ claim] formfor Pattadar Pass Book on his mother’s name and submitted[the]working as Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur and[A0.2][ was]workingasVillageAdministrativeOfficer,Kandukur,holdingadditional charge of Village Administrative Office, Ananthapur[ Rural]Mandal andDistrict from 03.11.1998to 30.07.1999;P.W1wasworking as Junior Assistant in KMG High School, Ananthapuram;that his father viz. B.Kistappa died in the year 1995;[that][ his][ father]viz.B.Kistappaandhisgrandfatherviz.BullePeddadiahgotAc.3.00 centsof joint landedpropertyin AnanthapuramRuralMandal bearing Survey No.32/4. One B.Chinnamma, whois themother of P.W1, got 114 acres of land out of Ac.3.00[cents][ towards]her share; that B.Chinnamma took the assistance of[her][ son,][ P.W1]to get the pattadar pass book for her 114 acres of[land;][ that][ two]months prior to the date of complaint, P.W1 filled up[ the][ claim] formfor Pattadar Pass Book on his mother’s name and submitted[the]

same to P.W3, the Office Superintendent, in the absence of theMandal Revenue Officer; that P.W3 made an endorsement on theclaim form application and gave it to P.W1, to hand over the sameto A0.2; that accordingly, on the same day during evening hours,P.W1 handed over the claim application to A0.2: that A0.2 askedP.W1 to meet him after one week.

(b) P.W1 met A0.2 after one week and later, number oftimes, but he did not get his work done; that on 26.07.1999 at about4.00 p.m. when P.W1 went to meet A0.2, A0.1 was present[at] thattime along with A0.2; that when P.W1 asked A0.2 about hispassbook,A0.1demandedasumofRs.2,000/-towardsillegalgratification for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book; that A0.2 alsodemanded the bribe of Rs.2,000/-; that when P.W1 expressed[his]inability, A0.1 reduced the amount to Rs. 1,500/- and informed thatunless Rs. 1,500/- is paid, the work would not be done; that P.W1was asked to come to A0.2’s house on 27.09.1999 at 10.00 a.m.with bribe amount.times, but he did not get his work done; that on 26.07.1999 at about4.00 p.m. when P.W1 went to meet A0.2, A0.1 was present[at] thattime along with A0.2; that when P.W1 asked A0.2 about hispassbook,A0.1demandedasumofRs.2,000/-towardsillegalgratification for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book; that A0.2 alsodemanded the bribe of Rs.2,000/-; that when P.W1 expressed[his]inability, A0.1 reduced the amount to Rs. 1,500/- and informed thatunless Rs. 1,500/- is paid, the work would not be done; that P.W1was asked to come to A0.2’s house on 27.09.1999 at 10.00 a.m.with bribe amount.

(c) As P.W1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, heapproachedP.W6-DeputySuperintendentofPolice,ACB,Ananthapuram on 26.07.1999 at 6.00 p.m. and presented[written]report. Ex.P1 is the report of P.W1.It was registeredas a caseinapproachedP.W6-DeputySuperintendentofPolice,ACB,Ananthapuram on 26.07.1999 at 6.00 p.m. and presented[written]report. Ex.P1 is the report of P.W1.It was registeredas a casein SRK,JCrl.A.No.I393 of2007

CrimeNo.8/ACB-ATP/99fortheoffencespunishableunderSections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988.Ex.P.16 is the original FIR.

(d) On 27.07.1999 at 8.30a.m. in the office of P.W6, withthe assistance of P.W2-Assistant ExecutiveEngineer, Roads andBuildings,NH-Section, AnanthapuramandL.W4-RamachandraRao, Superintendent, Office of the ExecutiveEngineer, Roads andBuildings, NH-Division, Ananthapuram,P W6 got prepared pre-trapproceedings. Ex.P3 is the Pre-trap Proceedings, dated 27.07.1999at 8.30 a.m.(e)On 27.07.1999, P.W1 met AOs. 1 and 2 at VAO’s homewithin the compound of MRO's Office. A0.1 inquired P.W1as toWhether he brought the demandedamount or not and when P.W1answered affirmatively, A0.1 asked P.W1 to handover the same toA0.2; that then A0.2 went inside the VAOHome and collected thetainted amount of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1and put the same in his leftside shirt pocket. On giving the prearranged signalP.W6 along withhis personnel raided the VAOs house, disclosed his identity andconducted post trap proceedings. When the right hand fingers ofA0.2 and his shirt pocket were subjected to Sodium CarbonateSolution test, they proved positive. The tainted amountwas recoveredfrom AO.2andotherrelevant records from the MROOffice, Ananthapuram Rural Mandal were seized under[the][ cover][ of]Post-Trap Proceedings. Ex.P8 is the Post Trap Proceedings.

(f) After completion of investigation and after the receipt[of]Exs.P14 and P15, Sanction Orders, P.W7, Inspector of Police, ACBAnanthapuram filed Charge Sheet.

6. The learned Additional Special Judge took cognizanceof the case against AOs.1 and 2 for the offences under[Sections][ 7]and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988.of the case against AOs.1 and 2 for the offences under[Sections][ 7]and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988.

7. AOs.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 CrPCafterfurnishingcopiesofthedocuments.Theydeniedtheaccusations. Charges for the offences under Sections[7][ and][ 13][ (1)](d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 were framed[against][ them,]and when the charges were read over and explained to[them,]inTelugu, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

8. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1to 7 andgot markedExs.P1toPI6,besides casepropertiesM.Os.1 to 8. After closure of the prosecution side[evidence,][ AOs.1]and2 were examinedunder Section 313 CrPCtoexplaintheincriminating circumstances appearing against them[in][ the][ evidence]to 7 andgot markedExs.P1toPI6,besides casepropertiesM.Os.1 to 8. After closure of the prosecution side[evidence,][ AOs.1]and2 were examinedunder Section 313 CrPCtoexplaintheincriminating circumstances appearing against them[in][ the][ evidence]

of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same andfiledtheirrespective written statements.

9. In the written statement filed by A0.1,it is stated[that]P.W1is an unscrupulous person, involved the Officers,[who][ do][ not]yieldtohis needs;that A0.1isnotatall concernedwiththeissuance of Pattadar Pass Book, as ROR Scheme was withdrawnw.e.f. 31.12.1997; that A0.1 did not attend the office at all and hehadnooccasiontomeetP.W1eitheron26.07.1999oron27.07.1999; that P.W1 had no authorization letter from his motherto pursue and obtain the Pattadar Pass Book; that the[share]ofB.Chinnamma in Ac.3.00 cents of land covered in Survey[No.32/4]was not ascertained and demarcated; that no tainted amount wasrecovered from the possession of A0.1 and he has nothing[to][ do]with the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe from[P.W1.]P.W1is an unscrupulous person, involved the Officers,[who][ do][ not]yieldtohis needs;that A0.1isnotatall concernedwiththeissuance of Pattadar Pass Book, as ROR Scheme was withdrawnw.e.f. 31.12.1997; that A0.1 did not attend the office at all and hehadnooccasiontomeetP.W1eitheron26.07.1999oron27.07.1999; that P.W1 had no authorization letter from his motherto pursue and obtain the Pattadar Pass Book; that the[share]ofB.Chinnamma in Ac.3.00 cents of land covered in Survey[No.32/4]was not ascertained and demarcated; that no tainted amount wasrecovered from the possession of A0.1 and he has nothing[to][ do]with the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe from[P.W1.]

10. On behalf of defence, they got examined DWs.1 to 7and got marked Exs.1 to 11 documents.and got marked Exs.1 to 11 documents.

11. Consideringtheevidenceonrecord,thelearnedAdditionalSpecialJudgefoundAO.2guiltyoftheoffencespunishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of thePC Act, 1988 and imposed sentence as aforesaid. Aggrieved by theconviction, AO.2 preferred appeal vide Criminal Appeal[No.][ 1323][ of]AdditionalSpecialJudgefoundAO.2guiltyoftheoffencespunishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of thePC Act, 1988 and imposed sentence as aforesaid. Aggrieved by theconviction, AO.2 preferred appeal vide Criminal Appeal[No.][ 1323][ of]

2006 on the file of this Court. However, during the pendency of theCriminalAppeal,on08.03.2021,thelearnedcounselfortheappellant/AO.2 represented that the appellant/AO.2[was]nomoreandhepassedawaytwoyearspriortothedateofhisrepresentation. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.1323[of][ 2006]was dismissed as abated on 08.03.2021.

12. The learned Additional Special Judge vide Judgment,dated 21.09.2006, found A0.1 not guilty of the offences[with][ which]he was charged and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging[the]same, the State preferred present Criminal Appeal.dated 21.09.2006, found A0.1 not guilty of the offences[with][ which]he was charged and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging[the]same, the State preferred present Criminal Appeal.

13. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State/ appellantcontended that there is no dispute with regard to the[fact that][ the]respondent/AO. 1 wds working as Mandal RevenueInspectorinMRO Office, Ananthapuram at the relevant point of time[of][ the]incident and he was a public servant under Section 2 (c) of the Act,1988.Itisthecontentionof thelearnedPublicProsecutor thatbasing on the evidence on record, the learned Additional SpecialJudgeconvictedthe AccusedOfficerNo.2,butonthesameevidence on record, the learned Additional Special Judge acquittedthe respondent/AO. 1, which is quite contra. The entire[evidence][ of]P.W1 proves the demand made by the respondent/AO. 1 prior andcontended that there is no dispute with regard to the[fact that][ the]respondent/AO. 1 wds working as Mandal RevenueInspectorinMRO Office, Ananthapuram at the relevant point of time[of][ the]incident and he was a public servant under Section 2 (c) of the Act,1988.Itisthecontentionof thelearnedPublicProsecutor thatbasing on the evidence on record, the learned Additional SpecialJudgeconvictedthe AccusedOfficerNo.2,butonthesameevidence on record, the learned Additional Special Judge acquittedthe respondent/AO. 1, which is quite contra. The entire[evidence][ of]P.W1 proves the demand made by the respondent/AO. 1 prior and also on the dateof the incident. The evidence of P.W3,OfficeSuperintendent,wouldestablishthatthereisnonecessitytorespondent/ A0.1to attend the office and he used to[attend the]inquiries directly from his residence, whereas, the[evidence][ of][ P.W1]proves the presence of respondent/AO. 1 on the date of trap alongwith AO.2 at VAO’s home, which is situated within the compound ofMROOffice, therefore, the evidenceof P.W3 coupledwiththeevidence of P.W1it can be presumed that on the date of trap, therespondent/A0.1 was present along with AO.2 and he[demanded]P.W1 as to whether he brought the bribe amount and[directed][ AO.2]to receive the same from P.W1. Mere not containing the signatureof A0.1intheattendanceregisterisnotagroundtotherespondent/AO. 1entitlinghimforacquittal.Itishisfurthersubmission that subsequent to demand made by the respondent/A0.1, P.W1handed over the amount to AO.2, who received[the]same withhisright hand andkeptinhis shirt pocket[and]theSodium Carbonate test conducted to the right hand fingers[of][ AO.2]and his shirt pocket, resulted positive; that the evidence adduced bythe prosecution clearly established the guilt of the respondent/AO. 1for the offences alleged against him, but the learned[Additional]Special Judge did not consider these aspectsin right perspective and erredin acquitting the respondent/AO. 1 of the[offences][ with]whichhe wascharged.Hence,itisprayedtosetasidetheimpugned judgment- and convict and sentence the respondent/A0.1.

14. Ontheotherhand,learnedcounselfortherespondent/AO. 1 contended that there is no corroboration[to][ the]evidence of P.W1muchless the evidence of all the prosecutionwitnessesandtheirevidencedoesnotconnecttherespondent/AO. 1 with the offences alleged; that there[is][ no][ legal]evidence to prove either demand or acceptance of the[bribe][ amount]by the respondent/AO. 1; that the prosecution failed[to][ establish][ the]allegeddemandor acceptanceofillegalgratificationbytherespondent/AO. 1, which are necessary ingredients for[the][ offences]under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of[the][ PC][ Act,]1988; that there, is no recovery of tainted currency[notes][ from][ the]possession of the respondent/AO. 1, which goes to show[that][ the]respondent/AO. 1 was falsely implicatedinto the case;thatthelearned Additional Special Judge considered these aspects[in][ right]perspective and rightly acquitted him and there are[no][ compelling][ or]substantialreasonstointerferewiththe judgmentofacquittal SRK, JCrLA.No.1393 of2007

passed by the learned Additional Special Judge and hence, heprays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.

15. Now the point for consideration is-

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home theguiltoftherespondent/AO. 1fortheoffencesunder Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) ofthe PC Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt or not,and whether the impugned judgment calls for anyinterference by this Court?

16. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. Thereis a presumption available under law that an accused is presumedto be innocent unless contraryis proved. That presumptionofinnocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passedby the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal,though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, atthe same time,it would be slow in interfering with the order ofacquittal because there is a presumption under law that accused ispresumedto be innocent unless contraryis proved andthatpresumptionisfurther strengthenedby the order of acquittal.Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court willnot ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Courthas given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground[to] interfereis a presumption available under law that an accused is presumedto be innocent unless contraryis proved. That presumptionofinnocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passedby the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal,though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, atthe same time,it would be slow in interfering with the order ofacquittal because there is a presumption under law that accused ispresumedto be innocent unless contraryis proved andthatpresumptionisfurther strengthenedby the order of acquittal.Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court willnot ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Courthas given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground[to] interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible[evidence][ has][ not]been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence[has][ been]looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular[finding,][ then]also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere[with][ the]same.

17. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision[in]Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab\ whereinit is held is held heldas follows: (paragraph No.8)Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab\ whereinit is held is held heldas follows: (paragraph No.8)

it is held is held held

“The question as regards the correct principles to[be]applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittalofa person has engaged the attention of this Court fromthe very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlierones, the Court hasinlaying down such principlesemphasized the necessity of interference with an orderofacquittalbeingbasedonlyon‘compellingandsubstantial reasons’ and has expressed the view thatunless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Courtshould not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide[Suraj]Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193; (AIR 1952 SC52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418;(AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, ‘compellingreasons’embarrassedsomeof theHighCourtsinexercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittalsand difficulties occasionally arose as to what this[Court]had, meant by the words ‘compelling reasons’. In latertheCourthasoftenavoidedemphasisonyears._‘compelling reasons’ but nonetheless adheredto theview expressed earlier that before interfering in appealwith an order of acquittal a Court must examine not[only]questions of law and fact in all their aspects but[must]also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accusedandshould interfere only if satisfied, after such examinationthat the conclusion reached by the lower court that theguiltofthepersonhasnotbeenprovedisunreasonable.”

18. The first charge framed against the respondent/ A0.1is that he, working as Mandal Revenue Inspector. AnanthapuramMandal and A0.2,workingasVillage AdministrativeOfficer.Kandukur Mandal, holding additional charge of AnanthapuramRuralMandal, on 26.07.1999at about 4.00p.m.,demandedRs.2,000/- from P.W1 towards illegal gratification other than legalremuneration to issue pass book pertaining to 114 acres of land ofhis mother situatedin Survey No.32/4 of AnanthapuramRuralMandal andlater reduced the demandto Rs. 1,500/-andinpursuance of the said demand, on 27.07.1999, within the premisesof MRO Office, A0.1 dehianded and A0.2 accepted the taintedmoneyofRs. 1,500/- fromP.W1ontheinstructionsoftherespondent/AO. 1 and thereby committed an offence punishableunder Section 7 of the PC Act. 1988. The second charge[is][ that][ the]respondent/ A0.1 and AO.2, by means of corrupt or illegal[means]or by otherwise abusing their position as public servants, obtainedfor themselves pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 1,500/-from P.W1 on 27.07.1999 and thereby committed an offence underis that he, working as Mandal Revenue Inspector. AnanthapuramMandal and A0.2,workingasVillage AdministrativeOfficer.Kandukur Mandal, holding additional charge of AnanthapuramRuralMandal, on 26.07.1999at about 4.00p.m.,demandedRs.2,000/- from P.W1 towards illegal gratification other than legalremuneration to issue pass book pertaining to 114 acres of land ofhis mother situatedin Survey No.32/4 of AnanthapuramRuralMandal andlater reduced the demandto Rs. 1,500/-andinpursuance of the said demand, on 27.07.1999, within the premisesof MRO Office, A0.1 dehianded and A0.2 accepted the taintedmoneyofRs. 1,500/- fromP.W1ontheinstructionsoftherespondent/AO. 1 and thereby committed an offence punishableunder Section 7 of the PC Act. 1988. The second charge[is][ that][ the]respondent/ A0.1 and AO.2, by means of corrupt or illegal[means]or by otherwise abusing their position as public servants, obtainedfor themselves pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 1,500/-from P.W1 on 27.07.1999 and thereby committed an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 punishable under[ 13](2) of the PC Act, 1988.

19. In order to attract an offence under Section 7 of thePC Act, 1988, the necessary ingredients to be established[are][ that]the respondent/AO. 1is 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 abusinghis position as public servant,[obtains]forhimself 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.

20. Therespondent/AO. 1wasworkingasMandalRevenue Inspector, Ananthapuram Mandal at the relevant[point][ of]timeof theincident. Thereis no dispute that he was apublicservant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the[PC][ Act,][ 1988.]EX.P14 is the Order issued by the Government according[sanction]toprosecutetherespondent/AO. 1.TheevidenceofP.W5substantiates the same.

21. Coming to evidence, P.W.1, who set the criminal lawinto motion by lodging Ex.PI-report, deposed that in[the][ month][ of]May, 1999, he went to the MRO Office, Ananthapuram[with][ claim]forms of his mother for getting Pattadar Pass Book;[that][ he][ handed]over the claim form to P.W3, Office Superintendent: that P.W3 puthis initial and endorsed on it referring to AO.2 and gave to P.W1 tohand over the claim forms to AO.2; that on the same day evening.P.W1 met AO.2 at VAO’s house, Ananthapuram and handed[over]those claim forms.into motion by lodging Ex.PI-report, deposed that in[the][ month][ of]May, 1999, he went to the MRO Office, Ananthapuram[with][ claim]forms of his mother for getting Pattadar Pass Book;[that][ he][ handed]over the claim form to P.W3, Office Superintendent: that P.W3 puthis initial and endorsed on it referring to AO.2 and gave to P.W1 tohand over the claim forms to AO.2; that on the same day evening.P.W1 met AO.2 at VAO’s house, Ananthapuram and handed[over]those claim forms.

22. Itis thefurtherevidenceof P.W1that A0.2afterperusing the claim forms, asked P.WI to meet him after[a week;]that thereafter, P.WI met AO.2 for five to six times within a periodof two months;that on 26.07.1999,P.WIwent to meet[A0.2]situated in the MRO Office premises at 4.00 p.m., where[he][ found]A0.1 and AO.2 talking at the gate of VAO’s home.It is the specificevidence of P.WIthat when he told AO.2 that he was roamingaround him for two months for Pattadar Pass Book, A0.1[interfered]and demanded him to pay a bribe of Rs.2,000/- to get[his][ work]done.It is also the evidence of P.WI that when he expressed hisinability to pay that much amount, A0.1 reduced the[bribe][ amount]at Rs.1,500/- to get his work done.

23. In this regard,it is pertinent to refer the evidence ofP.W3, who worked as Office Superintendent in the Office of MRO,Ananthapuram at the relevant point of time. P.W3 deposed[that][ he]used to look after the entire official workin the absence of theMandal Revenue Officer; that A0.1, being the Mandal RevenueInspector, is the Executive Staff and they sign in the attendanceregister as and when they return to the office and they did not signin the attendance register, everyday. It is the specific evidence ofP.W3 that A0.1 attended the office duties from 17.07.1999to27.07.1999 and on 27.07.1999, A0.1came to the office duringevening hours; that at about 12.00 noon on 27.07.1999, the ACBOfficials came to the MRO Office and when he went to the place oftrap, he found A0.2 was present; that the DSP of ACB enquiredwith regard to the Mandal Revenue Officer and A0.1, for whichP.W3 informed that A0.1 did not come to office.P.W3, who worked as Office Superintendent in the Office of MRO,Ananthapuram at the relevant point of time. P.W3 deposed[that][ he]used to look after the entire official workin the absence of theMandal Revenue Officer; that A0.1, being the Mandal RevenueInspector, is the Executive Staff and they sign in the attendanceregister as and when they return to the office and they did not signin the attendance register, everyday. It is the specific evidence ofP.W3 that A0.1 attended the office duties from 17.07.1999to27.07.1999 and on 27.07.1999, A0.1came to the office duringevening hours; that at about 12.00 noon on 27.07.1999, the ACBOfficials came to the MRO Office and when he went to the place oftrap, he found A0.2 was present; that the DSP of ACB enquiredwith regard to the Mandal Revenue Officer and A0.1, for whichP.W3 informed that A0.1 did not come to office.

24. A perusal of the evidence of P.W3 goes to show thatthe prosecution declared P.W3 hostile, as he did not support thecase of prosecution. Though, the evidence of P.W3 cannot beconsidered, his evidence to certain extent i.e. presence of A0.2 atthe place of trap on 27.07.1999 and non-presence of A0.1at thesame time, can be taken into consideration, for the reason that, histhe prosecution declared P.W3 hostile, as he did not support thecase of prosecution. Though, the evidence of P.W3 cannot beconsidered, his evidence to certain extent i.e. presence of A0.2 atthe place of trap on 27.07.1999 and non-presence of A0.1at thesame time, can be taken into consideration, for the reason that, his evidence corroborates to the extent of P.W1 visiting[the][ office][ of]MRO, Ananthapuram, submitting claim forms for getting[Pattadar]Pass Book in favour of his mother and handing over[the][ same][ to]P.W1after making endorsement by P.W3 on the claim forms, forgetting initial of AO.2.

25. Itisthecontentionoflearnedcounselfortherespondent/AO. 1 that A0.1 was not present on the date of trap andhe,beinganExecutiveStaff,workingasMandalRevenueInspector, was on field and such contentionis supported by theevidence of defence evidence and also the evidence of P.W3 tocertain extent.

26. A perusal of Ex.P4-Attendance Register got exhibitedthrough the evidence of P.W3 goes to show that A0.1 presencewasnotmarkedfrom19.07.1999to27.07.1999.Aspertheevidence of P.W3, A0.1is the Mandal Revenue Inspector[and][ he]comesunderthecategoryofExecutiveStaffanditisnotcompulsory for Executive Staff to signin the attendance registereveryday.In the cross-examination made by the learned SpecialPublic Prosecutor P.W3 concededthat on 27.07.1999at about5.00 p.m., A0.1 came to the office and P.W3 informed[A0.1]tothrough the evidence of P.W3 goes to show that A0.1 presencewasnotmarkedfrom19.07.1999to27.07.1999.Aspertheevidence of P.W3, A0.1is the Mandal Revenue Inspector[and][ he]comesunderthecategoryofExecutiveStaffanditisnotcompulsory for Executive Staff to signin the attendance registereveryday.In the cross-examination made by the learned SpecialPublic Prosecutor P.W3 concededthat on 27.07.1999at about5.00 p.m., A0.1 came to the office and P.W3 informed[A0.1]to attend the ACB Office as instructed by the DSP, ACB. As per theevidence of P.W1, on 27.07.1999 he went to the MRO[Office][ at]about 9.40 a.m., to give the demanded bribe amount[to][ AOs.1][ and]2 andthat A0.1askedP.W1asto whetherhebroughtthedemandedbribe amount and whenP.W1repliedaffirmativelyA0.1 asked AO.2 to receive the amount and so saying[he][ went]inside the MRO Office. P.W3, Office Superintendent, he deposedthat on 27.07.1999, A0.1 came to office during evening[hours][ and]he denied the suggestion of prosecution that A0.1 came[to][ office]on 27.07.1999 at about 10.00 a.m.If the evidence of P.W1is takeninto consideration for a while that A0.1 was present[in][ the][ office]during morning hours on the date of trap, the custody[of][ A0.1]might had been taken by the ACB Officials soon after trap itselfand they did not inquire P.W3 about AO. 1 on the date of trap.

27. In this regard, a perusal of evidence of P.W6, DSP,ACB,Ananthapuramgoesto showthat he deposedthaton27.07.1999,i.e. on the date of trap, he inquired P.W3[about][ the]presence of A0.1 and on perusal of ExP4-Attendance Register,itwas found that A0.1 presence was not marked from 19.07.1999[to]27.07.1999. P.W6 in his cross-examination deposed that[he][ did][ not]instruct any of his staff members to catch hold A0.1[and][ search][ for]ACB,Ananthapuramgoesto showthat he deposedthaton27.07.1999,i.e. on the date of trap, he inquired P.W3[about][ the]presence of A0.1 and on perusal of ExP4-Attendance Register,itwas found that A0.1 presence was not marked from 19.07.1999[to]27.07.1999. P.W6 in his cross-examination deposed that[he][ did][ not]instruct any of his staff members to catch hold A0.1[and][ search][ for]

SRK,JCrt.A.No.l393 of2007

SRK,JCrt.A.No.l393 of2007

him in the MRO Office and he conceded that before the arrival ofP.W3, Office Superintendent, he did not instruct any[of][ his][ staff]members to search for A0.1. As per the evidence of P.W1, on thedate of trap, when he went to the office, he found[that][ AOs.1][ and 2]were talking with each other at the VAO’s home and as per theevidenceofP.W1,afterconfirmingthatP.W1broughtthedemandedbribe amount of Rs.1,500/-, A0.1 wassaidtohaveasked AO.2 to receive the amount from P.W1 and so saying[he]went inside the MRO Office. Admittedly, a perusal of[evidence][ of]P.W3 coupled with the evidence of P.W6, A0.1 was not presenteither at the place of trap or at the office of MRO.[Neither][ P.W3][ nor]P.W6 found A0.1 on the date of trap during morning[hours.]Itisduring eveninghours, when A0.1cameto theoffice,he wasinstructed by P.W3 to attend the ACB Office.

28. Apparently,Exs.XIto XIIdocuments got exhibitedthrough D.Ws.1to 5 and a perusal of those documents coupledwith the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 goes to show that[A0.1 went][ to]the house of D.W2 on 26.07.1999 at about 4.00 p.m.to makeinquiry for issuance of Permanent Caste Certificatein favourofD.W2 andhissistersviz.M.Sunitha andinthatregard,A0.1recorded the statement of D.W3 on 26.07.1999 from about 3.00through D.Ws.1to 5 and a perusal of those documents coupledwith the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 goes to show that[A0.1 went][ to]the house of D.W2 on 26.07.1999 at about 4.00 p.m.to makeinquiry for issuance of Permanent Caste Certificatein favourofD.W2 andhissistersviz.M.Sunitha andinthatregard,A0.1recorded the statement of D.W3 on 26.07.1999 from about 3.00

p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Further, a perusal of evidence of[D.W4,][ who]made an application before the MRO, Ananthapuram seeking[for]financial assistance under National Family Benefit[Scheme,][ goes]to show that A0.1 came to her house on 27.07.1999 at[about][ 9.00]a.m. to make inquiry on her application made under[Ex.X8][ and][ her]statement was also recorded on 27.07.1999 by A0.1 and[he][ was]present at her house till 10.00 a.m. The evidence of[D.Ws.1]to 4coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.XI to X11[proves][ that]A0.1 was on field duty on 26.07.1999 and 27.07.1999at therespective houses of D.Ws.1to 5 and as per the evidenceofD.W4, A0.1 was present in her house on the date of[trap][ i.e.][ on]27.07.1999till 10.00 a.m, which is supported by the[evidence][ of]D.W5, whose statement was recorded by A0.1, on the[date][ of][ trap,]at the house of D.W4. Even, the presence of A0.1 on[26.07.1999]at about 4.00 p.m. was spoken in the evidence of D.Ws.1[and][ 2.]When such is the evidence spoken by D.Ws.1 to 5, the[evidence][ of]P.W1 with regard to demand of A0.1 on 26.07.1999 at[about][ 4.00]p.m. and presence of A0.1 on 27.07.1999 at about 10.00[a.m.][ at]the VAO’s home, is highly improbable and not believable.

29. Admittedly,it is not the case of prosecution that[there]is official favour pending on the part of A0.1 as on[the][ date][ of][ trap.]is official favour pending on the part of A0.1 as on[the][ date][ of][ trap.]

The relevant evidencein regard to sanctioning of Pattadar[Pass]Bookinfavourof abeneficiary,is P.W4, whois theMandalRevenue Officer, Ananthapuram at the relevant point[of][ time.][ His]evidence is to the effect that the Mandal Revenue Inspectors[were]entrusted with the responsibility of conducting field enquiries of alltypes, assignment files, land issues, certificates etc., and issuing ofPattadar Pass Books and makingenquiries and other protocolduties and with regard to Pattadar Pass Books, its issuing authorityis the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Inspectorand Village Administrative Officer are the Enquiry[authorities][ and]after enquiry, basing on their reports, the MRO wouldissue thePattadar PassBooks.Inthecross-examinationof P.W4,itiselicited that A0.1is sincere, hardworking and honest[and][ there]was no complaint against him.

30. ExcepttheevidenceofP.W1,thereisnoaccompanying witness to corroborate the evidence of[P.W1]thatA0.1 demanded the bribe amount of Rs. 1,500/- for getting[the]work done by AO.2, whichis pending withhim.In thecross-examinationof P.W1,itis evident that he neither orally norinwritten gave any complaint to P.W3 or to the MRO stating[that]AO.2 was delaying his work and also that AOs.1 and[2][ demanded]

the bribe amount for getting the work done. P.W1 concedes[that]A0.1did not receive any amount from him when he said[that][ he]brought the bribe amount on the date of trap.

31. A perusal of the evidence of P.W1 goes to show thatP.W1 being a Junior Assistant in Municipal Office, Ananthapuram,not even aware as to who was the authority for issuing[Pattadar]Pass Bookin favour of beneficiary, as he admittedin his cross-examination that he does not know who is the competent authorityto issue Pattadar Pass Book. His evidence further discloses that hedid not inquire P.W3 as to what was the procedure toobtainPattadar Pass Book and its sanctioning authority. When[such][ is][ the]case, demanding of bribe amount by A0.1to P.W1for gettingPattadar Pass Book in favour of his mother is not believable,[for]the reason that, A0.1, being a Mandal Revenue Inspector,[who]was an Executive Staff, his nature of duty was to conduct inquiryand submit report to the Mandal Revenue Officer with regard toentitlement of getting Pattadar Pass Book by a beneficiary[and]basing on thereport,the Mandal Revenue Officeris[the]finalauthority, who got power to sanction Pattadar Pass Book[ in] favourof a beneficiary. Therefore, when there is no official favour pendingon the part of A0.1, demanding bribe amount of Rs. 1,500/- fromP.W1 being a Junior Assistant in Municipal Office, Ananthapuram,not even aware as to who was the authority for issuing[Pattadar]Pass Bookin favour of beneficiary, as he admittedin his cross-examination that he does not know who is the competent authorityto issue Pattadar Pass Book. His evidence further discloses that hedid not inquire P.W3 as to what was the procedure toobtainPattadar Pass Book and its sanctioning authority. When[such][ is][ the]case, demanding of bribe amount by A0.1to P.W1for gettingPattadar Pass Book in favour of his mother is not believable,[for]the reason that, A0.1, being a Mandal Revenue Inspector,[who]was an Executive Staff, his nature of duty was to conduct inquiryand submit report to the Mandal Revenue Officer with regard toentitlement of getting Pattadar Pass Book by a beneficiary[and]basing on thereport,the Mandal Revenue Officeris[the]finalauthority, who got power to sanction Pattadar Pass Book[ in] favourof a beneficiary. Therefore, when there is no official favour pendingon the part of A0.1, demanding bribe amount of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1is not believable. The evidence of other witnesses doesnotincriminate anything as against the respondent/AO. 1as regardsthe alleged demand for doing official favour and acceptanceofillegalgratificationotherthanlegalremunerationbytherespondent/AO. 1.

32. InN.VIjaykumar’scase(supra),theHon’bleSupreme Court held thus:Supreme Court held thus:

“It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannotprove the charge of the prosecution against the accused.Reference can be made to the judgments of this CourtinC.M.Girish BabuV. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779) and in B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55.Inthe aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering[the]case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1988itis reiterated that to provethecharge,it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that theaccused voluntarily accepted money knowingit to be[bribe.]Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification andmerepossession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient toconstitute such offence. In the said judgmentsit is also heldthat even the presumption under Section 20 of the Actcanbe drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegalgratificationis proved.It is also fairly well settled[that]initialpresumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence getsdoubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.

The relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgmentB. Jayaraj (supra) read as under:

“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 isconcerned,itisasettledpositioninlawthatdemand of illegal gratification is sine qua non toconstitute the said offence and mere recovery ofcurrency notes cannot constitute the offence underSection 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonabledoubt that the accused voluntarily acceptedthemoney knowing it to be a bribe. The above positionhas been succinctly laid down in several judgmentsof this Court. By way of illustration, referencemaybe made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State ofA.P., [(2010) 15 see 1): (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89]and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [(2009) 3 SCC 779;(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1].

8. In the present case, the complainant didnot support the prosecution case insofar as demandby the accused is concerned. The prosecution hasnot examined any other witnesspresent at the timewhen the money was allegedly handed over to theaccused by the complainant, to prove that thesamewas pursuant to any demand made by the accused.When the complainant himself had disowned whathe had statedin theinitial complaint (Ext. P-11)before LW 9, and thereis no other evidence toprove that the accused had made any demand, theevidence of PW1 and the contents of Ext. P11cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusionthatthe abovematerialfurnishesproofofthe in demand allegedly made by the accused. We are,therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial[court]as well as the High Court was not correct in holdingthe demand alleged to be made by the accused asproved. The only other material availableis therecovery of the tainted currency notes from thepossession of the accused. In fact such possessionisadmittedbytheaccusedhimself.Merepossession and recovery of the currency notes fromthe accused without proof of demand will not bringhome the offence under Section 7. The above alsowillbe conclusiveinsofar astheoffence underSections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in theabsenceofanyproofofdemandforillegalgratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means[or]abuse of position as a public servant to obtain anyvaluable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot beheld to be established.

9. Insofar as the presumption permissible tobe drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned,such presumption can only bein respect of theoffence under Section 7 and not the offences underSections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event,itisonlyonproofofacceptanceofillegalgratification that presumption can be drawn underSection 20 of the Act that suchgratification wasreceived for doing or forbearing to do any officialact. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification canfollow only if there is proof of demand. As the sameis lacking in the present case the primary facts on -II

thebasisof whichthelegalpresumptionunderSection 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.”

The above said view taken by this Court fully supportsthecaseoftheappellant.Inviewof thecontradictionsnoticedbyus abovein the depositionsof key witnessesexamined on behalf of the prosecution, we are of the[view]that the demand for and acceptance of bribe amount[and][ cell]phone by the appellant,is not proved beyond reasonabledoubt.Havingregardtosuchevidenceonrecordtheacquittal recorded by the trial court is a “possible[view” as]such the judgment of the High Courtisfit to be set[aside.]BeforerecordingconvictionundertheprovisionsofPrevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost[care]in scanning the evidence. Once conviction is recorded[under]provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,it casts[a][ social]stigmaonthepersoninthesocietyapartfromseriousconsequences on the service rendered. At the same time[it][ is]also to be noted that whether the view taken by the[trial][ court]isapossible viewornot,therecannotbe anydefiniteproposition and each case has to be judged onits ownmerits, having regard to evidence on record."

33. In the appeal on hand, even there is no recovery fromthepossessionofrespondent/AO. 1andthereisnoSodiumCarbonateSolutiontestconducted,asnotaintedamount[was]recovered from the possession of A0.1. Thus,it can be safely heldthat the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable[doubt]

SRK,JCrl.A.No. 1393 of2007

that respondent/AO. 1 demanded any bribe amount from[P.W1]oraccepted the same as bribe on the date of trap. The prosecutionmiserably failed to prove; the guilt of the respondent/AO.[1]for thecharges levelled against him beyond all reasonable[doubt.]

34. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of thecase, the judgment passed by the learned Additional Special Judgeis in accordance with law and there is no ambiguity[in][ the][ same.][ As]such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with[the][ well][ reasoned]judgment passed by the learned Additional Special Judge.

35. Intheresult,theCriminalAppealfails anditis.accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment dated[21.09.2006]passed in Calendar Case No. 18 of 2001 by the learned[Additional]SpecialJudgefor SPEand ACBCases,CityCivilCourtatHyderabad.accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment dated[21.09.2006]passed in Calendar Case No. 18 of 2001 by the learned[Additional]SpecialJudgefor SPEand ACBCases,CityCivilCourtatHyderabad.

Asa sequelthereto,themiscellaneouspetitions,if anypending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHYJOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To.

1. The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases Vijayawada, (withrecords)records)

2. The Station House Officer, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapur Range,Ananthapur.Ananthapur.

3. One CC toSRI. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P.[For] ACBAdvocate [OPUC]Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to SRI. M B THIMMA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

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

6. THREE CD COPIES

PR

TAC

HIGH COURTDATED:29/04/2025

JUDGMENT

CRLA NO. 1393 OF 2007

DISMISSING THEAPPEAL

mI19 JUK m^^, Current Secnon ^spatcW^^ "