CRIMINAL APPEAL 20 of 2000 on 28 April 1999

JUDGMENT

Sole Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the AO’) inCalendar Case No.20 of 2000 on the file of the learned SpecialJudge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (for short[‘the][ learned]Special Judge’), filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the Judgmentdated 01.09.2006, whereunder and whereby the AO was[convicted]of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read withSection 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (forshort ‘the PC Act, 1988’) in terms of Section 248 (2)[of][ the][ Code][ of]the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) and[sentenced][ to]undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06)[months][ and]to pay a fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only), in default, tosuffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01)[month]for theoffence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act; the[AO][ was]further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period ofone (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees[three][ hundred]only),in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two(02) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) readwith Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988.It was[directed][ that][ both]the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

2. Sumandsubstanceofthechargesagainsttheaccused officer is that, on 27.11.1999, the accused officer, being apublic servant, employed as Office Superintendent in the Office ofthe Mandal Revenue Officer, Chapadu Mandal, Cuddapah District,demanded P.W1, to pay gratification of Rs.1,000/-, which was otherthan legal remuneration, as a reward for issuing pattadar pass bookinhisfavour,forthelandinanextentof Ac.3.00centsatJudgekottala, purchased by him from one Katika Abdul Haq under aRegistered Sale Deed, dated 28.04.1999 and reduced the same toRs.500/- and accepted the said sum on 29.11.1999 at 4.35 p.m. athisofficetowardsillegalgratificationandobtainedpecuniaryadvantage without any public interest and abused his position assuchpublic servant, thereby committed the offences punishableunder Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PCAct, 1988.accused officer is that, on 27.11.1999, the accused officer, being apublic servant, employed as Office Superintendent in the Office ofthe Mandal Revenue Officer, Chapadu Mandal, Cuddapah District,demanded P.W1, to pay gratification of Rs.1,000/-, which was otherthan legal remuneration, as a reward for issuing pattadar pass bookinhisfavour,forthelandinanextentof Ac.3.00centsatJudgekottala, purchased by him from one Katika Abdul Haq under aRegistered Sale Deed, dated 28.04.1999 and reduced the same toRs.500/- and accepted the said sum on 29.11.1999 at 4.35 p.m. athisofficetowardsillegalgratificationandobtainedpecuniaryadvantage without any public interest and abused his position assuchpublic servant, thereby committed the offences punishableunder Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PCAct, 1988.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accusedofficer worked as Office Superintendent in the office[of][ the][ Mandal]' RevenueOfficer,ChapaduMandal,CuddapahDistrictfrom04.09.1998 to 01.12.1999.officer worked as Office Superintendent in the office[of][ the][ Mandal]' RevenueOfficer,ChapaduMandal,CuddapahDistrictfrom04.09.1998 to 01.12.1999.

(b) P.W1is resident of Siddareddypalli village, ChapaduMandal, Cuddapah District; that he purchased Ac.3.00[cents][ of][ land]Mandal, Cuddapah District; that he purchased Ac.3.00[cents][ of][ land]

at Jadgekottala from L.W4/Katika Abdul Haq on 28.04.1999 and gotregistered the same in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur;that P.W1, in order to obtain the pattadar pass book in his name,applied for pattadar pass book before the Mandal Revenue Officer,Chapadu on 22.05.1999.

(c) That the Mandal RevenueOfficer, Chapaduissuedorders to issue pattadar pass book to P.W1 and the[same][ was]forwarded to the AO, who was dealing with the concerned seat; thatthe AO assigned number to the file as Ref.C/20/ROR/99;[that][ in][ the]month of June, 1999, when P.W1 approached the Mandal[Revenue]Officer, he was instructed to meet the AO; that when P.W1 met theAO, P.W1 was informed that he was busy with election[work][ and]asked him to meet in the end of October, 1999; that[on][ 27.11.1999]P.W1 approached the AO at his office and requested[him][ to][ issue]pattadar pass book in his favour, for which, the AO[demanded][ P.W1]to pay Rs.1,000/- towards bribe amount; that when P.W1 pleadedthat he cannot afford that much amount, the AO asked P.W1 to payat least Rs.500/- as bribe to issue pattadar pass book;[that][ the][ AO]demanded P.W1to pay the bribe amount on 29.11.1999intheafternoon hours at his office.orders to issue pattadar pass book to P.W1 and the[same][ was]forwarded to the AO, who was dealing with the concerned seat; thatthe AO assigned number to the file as Ref.C/20/ROR/99;[that][ in][ the]month of June, 1999, when P.W1 approached the Mandal[Revenue]Officer, he was instructed to meet the AO; that when P.W1 met theAO, P.W1 was informed that he was busy with election[work][ and]asked him to meet in the end of October, 1999; that[on][ 27.11.1999]P.W1 approached the AO at his office and requested[him][ to][ issue]pattadar pass book in his favour, for which, the AO[demanded][ P.W1]to pay Rs.1,000/- towards bribe amount; that when P.W1 pleadedthat he cannot afford that much amount, the AO asked P.W1 to payat least Rs.500/- as bribe to issue pattadar pass book;[that][ the][ AO]demanded P.W1to pay the bribe amount on 29.11.1999intheafternoon hours at his office.

(d) UnwHIingto pay the bribe amount to the AO, P.W1approached P.W5, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,[Tirupati]Range, who was on camp at Cuddapah on 28.11.1999 and gaveEx.P3(A)-report, who in turn, basing on the strength of Ex.P3(A)-report, registered a casein Crime No.10/RCT-TCD/99.[Ex.P16]isthe FIR; that P.W5 got prepared Ex.P8-Pre-trap Proceedings[in][ the]presence of P.W2,Assistant Hydro Geologist, AndhraPradeshGroundWaterDepartment,CuddapahandL.W3/B.Chalapathi,TypistintheofficeoftheDeputyDirector,GroundWaterDepartment, Cuddapah.

(e) On 29.11.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. P.W1 approachedthe AO at his office; that the AO asked P.W1 as to[whether][ he][ came]withtheproposedbribeamount,forwhich,P.W1answeredaffirmatively; that the AO asked P.W1 to wait outside[till][ he][ called][ in]andat about 4.35p.m.the AOcalledP.W1, demandedandaccepted Rs.500/- from P.W1; that the AO received the[pattadar]pass book stands in the name of L.W4/Katika Abdul Haq[and][ asked]' P.W1 to come on the next day to take the pattadar pass book; thaton giving prearranged signal by P.W1, P.W5, DSP, ACB,[Tirupati]along with his staff and mediators rushed into the[office][ room][ of][ the]Mandal Revenue Officer and found the AO sittingin[a][ chair;][ that]

P.W5 on introducing himself to the AO, the AO took out the taintedcurrency notes from his pant back pocket and threw away on thefloor at the south-east corner of the room; that the chemical testconductedtobothhands fingers provedpositive.P.W5inthepresence of P.W2 and L.W.S/B.Chalapathi, mediators,[seized][ the]tainted currency notes, compared the serial numbers availableinEx.P8-Pre-trap Proceedings and found tallied. P.W5 seized the filebearing No.C/20/ROR/99 relating to P.W1, which was produced bythe AO and pattadar pass book stands in the name of L.W4/KatikaAbdul Haq under the cover of Ex.P11-Post-Trap Proceedings.

(f) After completionofinvestigation andonreceiptofEx.P15-prosecution sanction proceedings dated 16.08.2010, chargesheet wasfiledagainsttheaccusedofficerfor theaforesaidoffences.Ex.P15-prosecution sanction proceedings dated 16.08.2010, chargesheet wasfiledagainsttheaccusedofficerfor theaforesaidoffences.

4. On appearance of the accused officer, copies of case'documents were furnished to him as required under[ 207]CrPC and, thereafter, charges under Sections 7 and 13 (2) readwith 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 were framed against[the][ accused]officer and the contents of the said charges were read[over][ and]explained to himin Telugu,for which he pleaded not guilty andclaimed to be tried.'documents were furnished to him as required under[ 207]CrPC and, thereafter, charges under Sections 7 and 13 (2) readwith 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 were framed against[the][ accused]officer and the contents of the said charges were read[over][ and]explained to himin Telugu,for which he pleaded not guilty andclaimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to PI 7 and MOs 1 to 8.to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to PI 7 and MOs 1 to 8.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accusedofficer was examinedunder Section313 CrPC,explainingtheincriminatingmaterialfoundagainsthimintheevidenceofprosecutionwitnesses,for whichhedenied.D.W1,PanchayatSecretary, Chapadu was examined on behalf of defence.officer was examinedunder Section313 CrPC,explainingtheincriminatingmaterialfoundagainsthimintheevidenceofprosecutionwitnesses,for whichhedenied.D.W1,PanchayatSecretary, Chapadu was examined on behalf of defence.

7. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entireoralanddocumentaryevidenceonrecord,foundtheaccusedofficer guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and convicted him of the said chargesand sentenced him as aforesaid. Against the said conviction[and]sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by theaccused officer.oralanddocumentaryevidenceonrecord,foundtheaccusedofficer guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and convicted him of the said chargesand sentenced him as aforesaid. Against the said conviction[and]sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by theaccused officer.

8. Learned counselfor the appellant submits that theentire prosecution case rests on the solitary testimony[of][ P.W1.]Accordingtothelearnedcounsel,P.W1didnotsupporttheprosecution case and he was treated hostile by the prosecution. Hefurther emphasized that P.W1 completely resiled fromhis earlierversion while deposing before the Court and he did not deposeentire prosecution case rests on the solitary testimony[of][ P.W1.]Accordingtothelearnedcounsel,P.W1didnotsupporttheprosecution case and he was treated hostile by the prosecution. Hefurther emphasized that P.W1 completely resiled fromhis earlierversion while deposing before the Court and he did not depose about either the demand or acceptance of bribe by the[accused]officer, as alleged by the prosecution. He furthersubmitsthatnothing has been elicited in his cross-examination by the learnedSpecial Public Prosecutor to connect the accused officer with theoffences alleged and there is no legal evidence. Learned[counsel]furthersubmittedthattheaccusedofficer,beingtheOfficeSuperintendent in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Office, has noauthority to process thefile of grantingpattadar pass booktoP.W1. Learned counsel further contended that the tainted currencynotes werenot recovered from the possession of the[accused]officer andit was recovered from the place whereit was thrown bythe accused officer and when the reason for throwing the currencynotes instantly explained by the accused officer to the trap party,itprobablises the version of the accused officer. The learned SpecialJudge without considering the legal evidence in a right perspectiveerredin convicting the accused officer, hence the[conviction][ and]sentence recorded against the accused officer are liable[to][ be][ set]aside.

9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutorappearing on behalf of the respondent/State, submits that merelybecause a witness was treated hostile, his entire evidence[would]appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, submits that merelybecause a witness was treated hostile, his entire evidence[would]

not efface from the record. He further submitted that the evidenceof P.W1, coupled with seizure of the tainted amount[from][ the][ office]room of the accused officer andresult of the chemical testi.e.inSodium Carbonate solution test, the left and right hand fingers andinner liningof the pant pocket of the accused officer turning intopink colour, can bebasisfor convictingthe appellant/accusedofficer. According to him, the said evidence is sufficient enough toconvict the accused officerin the present case and[the][ learned]Special Judge has rightly convicted the accused officer,[which][ calls]for no interference by this Court.

10. Heard.Perused the record.

11. Nowthepointfordeterminationiswhethertheprosecution proved its case against the appellant/accused[officer][ for]the offences punishable under Sections 7 and13(2)readwithSection 13 (1)(d) readof the PC Act, 1988 beyond[reasonable]doubt,andwhetherthejudgmentofthetrialCourtneedsinterference of this Court?prosecution proved its case against the appellant/accused[officer][ for]the offences punishable under Sections 7 and13(2)readwithSection 13 (1)(d) readof the PC Act, 1988 beyond[reasonable]doubt,andwhetherthejudgmentofthetrialCourtneedsinterference of this Court?

12. 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 orobtainedgratificationotherthanlegalremunerationandthe SRK,JCrI. Appeal No. 1168 of 2006gratification 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 abusing his position as public servant,obtainsforhimself or for any other person any valuable thingor pecuniaryadvantage, heis guilty of criminal misconduct punishableunderSection 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988.

13. Theappellantherein/AOwasworkingasOfficeSuperintendentintheofficeof theMandalRevenueOfficer,ChapaduMandal,CuddapahDistrictfrom04.09.1998to01.12.1999, at the relevant point of time of the incident. There is nodispute that he was a public servant within the meaning[of][ Section][ 2](c) of the PC Act, 1988.Superintendentintheofficeof theMandalRevenueOfficer,ChapaduMandal,CuddapahDistrictfrom04.09.1998to01.12.1999, at the relevant point of time of the incident. There is nodispute that he was a public servant within the meaning[of][ Section][ 2](c) of the PC Act, 1988.

14. A perusal of prosecution evidence, P.W1, who set thecriminal law into motion, deposed in his evidence that five prior todateof hisevidence,he purchased Ac.3.00centsoflandatJadgekottala village from L.W4/Katika Abdul Haq forasumofRs.47,000/- under a Registered Sale Deed. P.W1 further deposedthat he applied for pattadar pass book for the said Ac.3.00 cents oflandbyfilinganapplicationintheMandalRevenueOffice,Chapadu: that sometime thereafter, he obtained the Sale Deed andwent to the MRO Office along with one Pitchaiah, VAO.criminal law into motion, deposed in his evidence that five prior todateof hisevidence,he purchased Ac.3.00centsoflandatJadgekottala village from L.W4/Katika Abdul Haq forasumofRs.47,000/- under a Registered Sale Deed. P.W1 further deposedthat he applied for pattadar pass book for the said Ac.3.00 cents oflandbyfilinganapplicationintheMandalRevenueOffice,Chapadu: that sometime thereafter, he obtained the Sale Deed andwent to the MRO Office along with one Pitchaiah, VAO.

15. Itis the further evidence of P.W1 that one Pitchaiah,VAO took him to the MRO Office, obtained his signatures[on][ the]application and claim form and handed over the same[to][ the][ MRO]andhe wastoldto comelater;that when P.W1met thesaidPitchaiah, VAO, he was informed that the MRO directed the AO[ to]attend the said work. He further deposed that he followed Pitchaiah,VAO to Cuddapah to see as to whether his work was done[or][ not.]Itisthespecific evidenceof P.W1thathe doesnot knowthedesignation and occupation of the AO and he never met[him and]that the AO never demanded him for bribe. He further deposed thathe along with Pitchaiah, VAO went to Cuddapah and there,[P.W1]was asked to wait under a tree and the said Pitchaiah went into theACBOffice;that the saidPitchaiah came out witha report andobtainedthesignatureofP.W1onEx.PSA-report.Hefurtherdeposed that he handed over Ex.PSA-report to the DSP[and][ came]out and after sometime, Pitchaiah, who met the DSP[came][ out][ and]asked P.W1 to bring Rs.500/- on the next day.

16. P.W1 further deposed that on the next day when hewaswaitingoutside,Pitchaiahwentintothe ACBOfficeandthereafter, when he entered into the office, Pitchaiah[asked][ him][ to]hand over Rs.500/- to the DSP.It is the specific evidence[of][ P.W1]waswaitingoutside,Pitchaiahwentintothe ACBOfficeandthereafter, when he entered into the office, Pitchaiah[asked][ him][ to]hand over Rs.500/- to the DSP.It is the specific evidence[of][ P.W1]

SRKJCrI. Appeal No.1168 of 2006

that one day prior to their going to the ACB Office,Pitchaiahshowed the AO stating that he was the Superintendent and he hadto pay the money to the AO. He specifically deposed that he doesnot know the purpose for which the amount had to be paid to theAO. P.W1 further deposed that he handed over Ex.P4-pass book ofhis vendor, L.W4/Katika Abdul Haq, to the AO and in turn, the AOtold P.W1 that he would issue pass book in his name on the nextday and asked him to come on the next day; that when P.W1offered to pay the money to the AO, he asked P.W1 to handoverthe money to an Attender, but no Attender was present; that whenthe AO was standing, P.W1 thrusted the money in his back pocketandthe AO threw away the money on the table andinthemeanwhile, the DSP and other raid party members entered into theroom of the AO and P.W1 went away. It is the specific[evidence][ of]P.W1 that he was not called inside the office of the AO afterwardsand he was not examined by the DSP and his statement was notrecorded. P.W1further deposed that ten days thereafter[he]wastaken by Pitchaiah to Cuddapah, ACB Office, there, a proforma wasgiven him and he was asked to give the statement as noted in theproforma before the Court or else a case would be filed against him; that he gave statement before the Magistrate under[ 164]CrPC.

17. With the permission of the Court, P.W1 was declaredhostile and he was cross-examined by the learned Special[Public]Prosecutor.EventhoughP.W1wascross-examinedbytheprosecution, except putting suggestions, which have[been][ denied]by P.W1,nothing has beenelicitedinhis cross-examinationtoconnect the accused with the offences alleged.hostile and he was cross-examined by the learned Special[Public]Prosecutor.EventhoughP.W1wascross-examinedbytheprosecution, except putting suggestions, which have[been][ denied]by P.W1,nothing has beenelicitedinhis cross-examinationtoconnect the accused with the offences alleged.

18. In the cross-examinationof P.W1conducted by thelearned defence counsel, he deposed that he gave his[statement][ to]the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC as tutored by[the][ ACB]Officials and the contents therein are not correct. He concedes thatthe AO refused to receive the tainted currency notes[when][ offered]by him and threw away the same with his both hands[and][ P.W1]was informed to pay the same to the concerned clerk[if][ he wants][ to]do so, and thereby, the AO stood up and was keepingEx.P4-pattadar pass book in the almarah, and at that time, P.W1 kept thetainted currency notes in his pant pocket; that the[AO][ took][ out the]sameinhis presence and threw away the same. P.W1furtherconcedes that upon the request made by P.W1, the AO[received]Ex.P4-pattadar pass book as nobody was present in the[office][ and]learned defence counsel, he deposed that he gave his[statement][ to]the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC as tutored by[the][ ACB]Officials and the contents therein are not correct. He concedes thatthe AO refused to receive the tainted currency notes[when][ offered]by him and threw away the same with his both hands[and][ P.W1]was informed to pay the same to the concerned clerk[if][ he wants][ to]do so, and thereby, the AO stood up and was keepingEx.P4-pattadar pass book in the almarah, and at that time, P.W1 kept thetainted currency notes in his pant pocket; that the[AO][ took][ out the]sameinhis presence and threw away the same. P.W1furtherconcedes that upon the request made by P.W1, the AO[received]Ex.P4-pattadar pass book as nobody was present in the[office][ and]

while receiving Ex.P4-pattadar pass book, the AO was saying thatthe VAO and the MRO are the concerned to issue pass[book][ to]P.W1 and that he was not the concerned person; that[he][ never][ met]the AO and the AO never demanded for bribe and he never paid thebribe amount to him.It is the specific evidence of[P.W1][ that][ he][ did]not meet the AO prior to the trap. He concedes that[he][ offered]Rs.500/- tainted money to the AO towards donation of[Pulse-Polio]programme, as the Clerk workingin his office requested[him][ for]donation.

19. Indisputably,P.W1turnedhostiletothecaseofprosecution. A bare perusal of the evidence of P.W1 goes to showthatitis full of inconsistencies and discrepancies. At one stage,P.W1deposedthathedoesnotknowthedesignationandoccupation of the AO and he never met him and one day prior to hisgoing to the ACB Office, Pitchaiah, VAO showed the AO stating thathe is the Superintendent, and P.W1 had to pay the money[to][ him]and at later stage, he deposed that he handed over Ex.P4-passbook of his vendor L.W4/Katika Abdul Haq to the AO[and][ when][ he]offered to pay bribe to the AO, he asked P.W1to hand[over][ the]same to an Attender and when no Attender was present nearby,P.W1 tried to thrust the money in the back pocket of the AO. P.WI,prosecution. A bare perusal of the evidence of P.W1 goes to showthatitis full of inconsistencies and discrepancies. At one stage,P.W1deposedthathedoesnotknowthedesignationandoccupation of the AO and he never met him and one day prior to hisgoing to the ACB Office, Pitchaiah, VAO showed the AO stating thathe is the Superintendent, and P.W1 had to pay the money[to][ him]and at later stage, he deposed that he handed over Ex.P4-passbook of his vendor L.W4/Katika Abdul Haq to the AO[and][ when][ he]offered to pay bribe to the AO, he asked P.W1to hand[over][ the]same to an Attender and when no Attender was present nearby,P.W1 tried to thrust the money in the back pocket of the AO. P.WI, duringhiscross-examinationbythelearneddefencecounsel,surprisingly deposed that he offered Rs.500/- tainted money to theAO towards donationfor PulsePolio programme,as theClerkworking in the office requested for the said donation. Indeed, theevidence of P.W1 does not disclose the dates as to when he madeapplication in the MRO Office seeking for issuance of pattadar passbook,whentheAOdemandedforbribeamount,whenheapproached the ACB Official and when he met the AO to give thebribe amount. Furthermore, the prosecution didnot[examine][ the]said Pitchaiah, as he was said to have obtained the signature ofP.W1 on Ex.PS-A report filed against the accused officer.[Therefore]the evidence of P.W1, whois declared as hostile to[the][ case]ofprosecution, cannot be a basis to find the accused officer guilty ofthe charges.

20. Comingto the evidence of P.W2,heis one of themediators. His evidence is to the effect of conducting[Exs.P8][ and]P11, Pre-trap and Post-trap proceedings. As per the[evidence][ of]' P.W2, along with P.W1, 2"^^ mediator, one Inspector[and Constable]proceeded to the office of the MRO on the date of trap.[In][ the][ cross-]examination of P.W2, he deposed that after the AO throwing[away]mediators. His evidence is to the effect of conducting[Exs.P8][ and]P11, Pre-trap and Post-trap proceedings. As per the[evidence][ of]' P.W2, along with P.W1, 2"^^ mediator, one Inspector[and Constable]proceeded to the office of the MRO on the date of trap.[In][ the][ cross-]examination of P.W2, he deposed that after the AO throwing[away]

SRK,JCri. Appeal No. 1168 of 2006

the currency notes, he started drafting Ex.P11-Mediators Reportand the DSP did not introduce them as mediator in this case.

21. P.WS, who worked as Junior Assistant in the office ofthe MRO, Chapadu Mandal at the relevant point of time, deposed inhis evidence that while he was working in Thonduru Mandal, hewastransferred to Chapadu Mandal and joinedin the saidoffice on01.11.1999 and he was allotted with ‘C’ seat and prior to that, thesaid seat was kept vacant. According to P.WS, normally[one][ clerk]wouldbeplacedadditional chargeof the‘C’seat andintheabsence of such arrangement, upon the instruction of MRO, theSuperintendent would attend the seat and in the absence of specificentrustment of the said seat to anyone, one key of the said almyrahof the seat would be available with the Superintendent[and][ the]another keyis with the MRO. He further deposed that[he][ took]charge from the AO on 04.12.1999 and asked the MRO to arrangethe handing over the charge of ‘C’ seat.the MRO, Chapadu Mandal at the relevant point of time, deposed inhis evidence that while he was working in Thonduru Mandal, hewastransferred to Chapadu Mandal and joinedin the saidoffice on01.11.1999 and he was allotted with ‘C’ seat and prior to that, thesaid seat was kept vacant. According to P.WS, normally[one][ clerk]wouldbeplacedadditional chargeof the‘C’seat andintheabsence of such arrangement, upon the instruction of MRO, theSuperintendent would attend the seat and in the absence of specificentrustment of the said seat to anyone, one key of the said almyrahof the seat would be available with the Superintendent[and][ the]another keyis with the MRO. He further deposed that[he][ took]charge from the AO on 04.12.1999 and asked the MRO to arrangethe handing over the charge of ‘C’ seat.

22. P.WS further deposed in his chief-examination that[‘C’]seat consists of (1) Natural Calamities; (2) National Family BenefitScheme;(S) Apadbandhu;(4)Births andDeaths;and,(5)AllCertificates. According to him, when application is filed for pattadarpass book,it would go to the Superintendent, first[and][ then][ referred]seat consists of (1) Natural Calamities; (2) National Family BenefitScheme;(S) Apadbandhu;(4)Births andDeaths;and,(5)AllCertificates. According to him, when application is filed for pattadarpass book,it would go to the Superintendent, first[and][ then][ referred]

SRK,JCrI. Appeal No.1168 of 2006to ‘C’ seat and after process it would be sent to the[MRO][ and][ the]MRO,in turn, would send the same to the Revenue Inspector.[He]further deposedthathe wasnot examinedbythepoliceinconnection with the case. Apparently, P.W3 was declared[as][ hostile]and nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination.

23. P.W3,inhiscross-examinationconductedbythelearneddefencecounsel,deposedthatonehastomakeanapplication to the MRO for getting a pattadar pass[book][ and]titledeed, andthe MRO would forward the sameto the concernedRevenue Inspector and after making an inquiry with[the][ VAO][ and]after perusing the adangal and other records, the Rl would preparethe pass book and hand over the same to the MRO and after fillingup l-A and l-B Registers and affixing photographs of the applicant inthe registers and in the pass books, two sets of pass[books][ and][ title]deeds would be prepared and one set would be delivered[to][ the]party and the 2"*^ set would be sent to the RDO concerned.[He]specifically deposed that the Superintendent, Junior[Assistant][ of][ the]' MRO Office have no connection with regard to issuance of pattadarpass book.learneddefencecounsel,deposedthatonehastomakeanapplication to the MRO for getting a pattadar pass[book][ and]titledeed, andthe MRO would forward the sameto the concernedRevenue Inspector and after making an inquiry with[the][ VAO][ and]after perusing the adangal and other records, the Rl would preparethe pass book and hand over the same to the MRO and after fillingup l-A and l-B Registers and affixing photographs of the applicant inthe registers and in the pass books, two sets of pass[books][ and][ title]deeds would be prepared and one set would be delivered[to][ the]party and the 2"*^ set would be sent to the RDO concerned.[He]specifically deposed that the Superintendent, Junior[Assistant][ of][ the]' MRO Office have no connection with regard to issuance of pattadarpass book.

24. Though P.W3 was declared as hostile to the case ofprosecution,a bare perusal of his evidence would disclosethatprosecution,a bare perusal of his evidence would disclosethat

Whenanapplicationisfiledforpattadarpassbook,theSuperintendent, would, at first attends and then refers to‘C’ seatand after process,it would be sent to the MRO and the MRO,inturn, would send the same to the Revenue Inspector. He furtherdeposed that he was not examined by the ACB Police in connectionof this case.

25. At the request of learned Special Public Prosecutor,P.W3 was declared as hostile and nothing could be elicitedin hiscross-examination.Inthecross-examinationconductedbythelearned defence counsel, P.W3 deposed that a person,[who][ intends]to get a pattadar pas book and title deed pass book,[has][ to][ make][ an]application to the MRO and the MRO forwards the sameto theconcerned Revenue Inspector andafter making inquiry[with]theVAO and after perusing the adangal and other records,[he would]prepare the pass book and handover the sameto the MRO.According to him, the Superintendent, Junior Assistant of the MROOffice has no connection when an application is presented[to][ issue]pattadar pass book and title deed.P.W3 was declared as hostile and nothing could be elicitedin hiscross-examination.Inthecross-examinationconductedbythelearned defence counsel, P.W3 deposed that a person,[who][ intends]to get a pattadar pas book and title deed pass book,[has][ to][ make][ an]application to the MRO and the MRO forwards the sameto theconcerned Revenue Inspector andafter making inquiry[with]theVAO and after perusing the adangal and other records,[he would]prepare the pass book and handover the sameto the MRO.According to him, the Superintendent, Junior Assistant of the MROOffice has no connection when an application is presented[to][ issue]pattadar pass book and title deed.

26. A perusal of the evidence of P.W3 goes to show thatthe MRO has got authority to issue pattadar pass book basing onthe inquiry conducted by the Revenue Inspector with the VAO andthe MRO has got authority to issue pattadar pass book basing onthe inquiry conducted by the Revenue Inspector with the VAO and the AO, being the Superintendent has no authority to issue pattadarpass book.

27. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and3 does not incriminateanything against the accusedofficer with regard to the chargesframed against him.anything against the accusedofficer with regard to the chargesframed against him.

28. The evidence of P.W4 is with regard to sanction orderto prosecute the case against the accused officer.to prosecute the case against the accused officer.

29. P.W5, worked as DeputySuperintendentof PoliceACB, Tirupati Range at the relevant point of time, deposed aboutregistration of Ex.P16-FIR based on Ex.P3-A, report, preparation ofpre-trap proceedings, conducting of trap, seizure of tainted currencynotes and conducting chemical test to both hand fingers[and][ inner]linings of the pant backside pocket and preparation of post-trapproceedings. He also deposed about conducting of investigationand seizure of material objects. In the cross-examination[of][ P.W5]to the question with regard to the amount not recovered[from][ the]person of the accused officer, he deposed that the[accused][ officer]stated that he received the amount and threw on the floor and at hisinstancetheamountwasrecoveredfromthefloor.Hefurtherdeposed that he introduced himself to the accused officer[and][ after]ACB, Tirupati Range at the relevant point of time, deposed aboutregistration of Ex.P16-FIR based on Ex.P3-A, report, preparation ofpre-trap proceedings, conducting of trap, seizure of tainted currencynotes and conducting chemical test to both hand fingers[and][ inner]linings of the pant backside pocket and preparation of post-trapproceedings. He also deposed about conducting of investigationand seizure of material objects. In the cross-examination[of][ P.W5]to the question with regard to the amount not recovered[from][ the]person of the accused officer, he deposed that the[accused][ officer]stated that he received the amount and threw on the floor and at hisinstancetheamountwasrecoveredfromthefloor.Hefurtherdeposed that he introduced himself to the accused officer[and][ after]

that only, the accused officer picked out the currency[notes][ from][ his]pocket and threw away the same on the floor. According to him, oneM.V.S.Swamy, H.C.No.823 and L.W3/B.Chalapathi accompaniedP.W1.

30. P.W6, who workedasInspector, ACB,Cuddapah,deposedthatheassistedP.W5inpre-trapandpost-trapproceedings and during investigation, he examined L.W4/K.AbdulHaq and recordedhis statement. He further deposedthataftercompletion of investigation and on receipt of sanction order, he filedcharge sheet.deposedthatheassistedP.W5inpre-trapandpost-trapproceedings and during investigation, he examined L.W4/K.AbdulHaq and recordedhis statement. He further deposedthataftercompletion of investigation and on receipt of sanction order, he filedcharge sheet.

31. In the cross-examination, P.W6 concedes thatpriorpattadar pass book and title deed pass book have to[be][ submitted]along with the application for mutation or for preparation[of][ new]pattadar pass books or title deed. He further conceded in his cross-examination that on perusing the adangal and cultivation account,.whichareavailablewiththe VAO,theapplicationhastobeprocessed.pattadar pass book and title deed pass book have to[be][ submitted]along with the application for mutation or for preparation[of][ new]pattadar pass books or title deed. He further conceded in his cross-examination that on perusing the adangal and cultivation account,.whichareavailablewiththe VAO,theapplicationhastobeprocessed.

32. From the evidence of P.W6, Investigating Officer,itisclear that to issue pattadar pass book in favour of an applicant,ithas to be processed on perusing the adangal, cultivation account.clear that to issue pattadar pass book in favour of an applicant,ithas to be processed on perusing the adangal, cultivation account.

which are available with the VAO and further, the previous pattadarpass book and title deed stands in the name of the[vendor][ have][ to]be submitted along with the application. Therefore,it can be safelyconcluded that the accused officer being the Superintendent[in][ the]office of the Mandal Revenue Office, is not the competent person toissuepattadarpassbook.Itisthe MRO,onforwardingtheapplication to the concerned Revenue Inspector, whoin turn aftermaking inquiry with the VAO, prepares pass book and[hand][ over]the same to the MRO.

33. To prove the alleged demand by accused officer, theprosecution examined P.W1.He did not support the prosecutionversion as regards the demand and acceptance by the[accused]officer. A perusalof the evidence of P.W1,itis clear[that]heresiled from his earlier version.He is the decoy witness.In viewofthesaidreason,prosecutiondeclaredhimhostile.Theevidence of other witnesses does not incriminate anythingasagainst the accused officer as regards the alleged[demand][ for]doingofficial favour and acceptance of illegal gratification[other]than legal remuneration by the accused officer.prosecution examined P.W1.He did not support the prosecutionversion as regards the demand and acceptance by the[accused]officer. A perusalof the evidence of P.W1,itis clear[that]heresiled from his earlier version.He is the decoy witness.In viewofthesaidreason,prosecutiondeclaredhimhostile.Theevidence of other witnesses does not incriminate anythingasagainst the accused officer as regards the alleged[demand][ for]doingofficial favour and acceptance of illegal gratification[other]than legal remuneration by the accused officer.

34. To attract the aforesaid offences,it is essential thatthere should be a demand and acceptance of the bribe by theAccused Officer. As on the date of alleged incident,it is essentialthat there should be a demandor acceptanceof thebribeamount. There is no accompanying witness to show that there[ is]a demand by the accused officer.there should be a demand and acceptance of the bribe by theAccused Officer. As on the date of alleged incident,it is essentialthat there should be a demandor acceptanceof thebribeamount. There is no accompanying witness to show that there[ is]a demand by the accused officer.

35. As per the defense theory, the accused officer gotexamined D.W1, Village Secretary, Chapadu, who deposed[in][ his]evidence that an application has to be presented to[the][ MRO][ for]issuance of pattadar pass book andtitle deed and the MROforwards the same to the Revenue Inspector, who in[turn][ would]cometothevillageandmakeinquiryandascertaintheparticulars from the VAO and the VAO andRl would preparepass book and title deeds and send the same to the MRO for hissignatures and after signatures, he would deliver the pass bookand title deeds to the VAO for its delivery to the concerned partyafter obtaining signature in No. 17 Register. According to him, theJunior AssistantortheSuperintendenthasnoauthoritytoprocess the file.In the cross-examination, D.W1 deposedthatafter presentation of the application by the land owner[to][ the]examined D.W1, Village Secretary, Chapadu, who deposed[in][ his]evidence that an application has to be presented to[the][ MRO][ for]issuance of pattadar pass book andtitle deed and the MROforwards the same to the Revenue Inspector, who in[turn][ would]cometothevillageandmakeinquiryandascertaintheparticulars from the VAO and the VAO andRl would preparepass book and title deeds and send the same to the MRO for hissignatures and after signatures, he would deliver the pass bookand title deeds to the VAO for its delivery to the concerned partyafter obtaining signature in No. 17 Register. According to him, theJunior AssistantortheSuperintendenthasnoauthoritytoprocess the file.In the cross-examination, D.W1 deposedthatafter presentation of the application by the land owner[to][ the]

MRO, number would be assigned to the said application[and][ he]does not know as to whether the Office Superintendent[would]assign number to the application.

36. LearnedSpecialPublicProsecutorsubmitsthatthough P.W1did not support the case of prosecution,[demand]and acceptance of illegalgratification can also be proved bycircumstantialevidenceintheabsenceofdirectoralanddocumentary evidence, and that from the circumstances[of][ the]presentcasewhererecoveryoftaintedcurrencyfromthepossession of the accused is established, coupled with[the][ other]evidence, the prosecution is able to establish its case beyond allreasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence;[that][ the]evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established the guiltof the accused officer for the offences alleged against[him,][ and]the learned Special Judge considered these aspectsinrightperspective, accordingly convicted and sentenced the[accused]officer of the offences with which he was charged,[and][ hence, he]prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.though P.W1did not support the case of prosecution,[demand]and acceptance of illegalgratification can also be proved bycircumstantialevidenceintheabsenceofdirectoralanddocumentary evidence, and that from the circumstances[of][ the]presentcasewhererecoveryoftaintedcurrencyfromthepossession of the accused is established, coupled with[the][ other]evidence, the prosecution is able to establish its case beyond allreasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence;[that][ the]evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established the guiltof the accused officer for the offences alleged against[him,][ and]the learned Special Judge considered these aspectsinrightperspective, accordingly convicted and sentenced the[accused]officer of the offences with which he was charged,[and][ hence, he]prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.

37. Insupport of hiscontention,thelearnedSpecialPublic Prosecutorappearing for ACB relied on a decision[of][ the]

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government[of]

NOT ofDelhi)\ wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 88)

it88. Whatemergesfromtheaforesaiddiscussionissummarised as under:summarised as under:

88.1. (a)Proofofdemandandacceptanceofillegalgratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by theprosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guiltoftheaccusedpublicservantunderSections7and13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,[the]prosecutionhastofirstprovethedemandofillegalgratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter[of]factThisfactinissue can be proved either bydirectevidence which can bein the nature of oral evidenceordocumentary evidence.

88.3. (c) Further,thefactIn issue,namely,the proof[of]demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can[also][ be]proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of[direct]oral and documentary evidence.

88.4. (d)In order to prove the fact in issue,namely,thedemand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the publicservant, the following aspects have to be borne in[mind:](i) If there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver[without][ there]being any demand from the public servant and the lattersimply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification,it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the[Act.]Insuch a case, there need not be a prior demand by the publicservant,

(ii) Ontheotherhand. Ifthepublicservant makesademand andthebribe-giveracceptsthedemandandtenders the demanded gratification which in turn is[received]by the public servant,it is a case of obtainment.In the caseof obtainment,theprior demandfor illegalgratificationemanates from the public servant. This is an offence[under]Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (Ii) of the Act.

(Hi) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribegiver and the demand by the public servant respectivelyhave to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue.Inother words,mere acceptanceor receipt of anillegalgratification without anything more would not makeit anoffence under Section 7 or Sections13(1)(d)(i) and(ii),respectively of the Act.Therefore, under Section 7 of theAct, in order to bring home the offence, there must be anoffer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is acceptedby the public servant whichwould makeIt anoffence.Similarly,aprior demand bythepublicservant whenaccepted by the bribe-giver and In turn there is a paymentmade which is received by the public servant, would be anoffence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (Ii) ofthe Act.88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the[demand]and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification maybe made by a court of law by way of an inference only[when]the foundational facts have been proved by relevant[oral]and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereofOn the basis of the material on record, the court has[the]discretion to raise a presumption of fact while consideringwhether thefactof demand has been proved bytheprosecutionor not.Of course,a presumptionof factissubject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence[of]rebuttal presumption stands.

88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”,[or][ has]died or is unavailabletolet in his evidence duringtrial,demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting[in][ the]evidenceof anyotherwitnesswhocanagainletinevidence, either orally or by documentary evidence[or][ the]prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.Thetrial does not abate nor doesit result in an order ofacquittal of the accused public servant.

88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned,[on][ the]proof of the facts in Issue, Section 20 mandates the[court][ to]raise a presumption that the illegal gratification[was][ for the]purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the saidSection. The said presumption has to be raised by the[court]as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of[course,]the said presumption Is also subject to rebuttal. Section[20]does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of[the][ Act.]

SRK,JCri. Appeal No.1168 of 2006

88.8. (h) Weclarifythat the presumptionin law underSection 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption[of][ fact]referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the formeris a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionaryin nature. ”

38. A perusal of the decision relied on by the learnedSpecial Public Prosecutor in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Governmentof NOT of Delhi) (1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court categoricallyheld that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratificationby a public servant, as a fact in issue by the prosecution,[is][ a][ sine]qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused publicservant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d)(i) and(ii) of the Act.It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex[Court][ that][ the]prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratificationand the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact.In the caseon hand, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to establishthe demand of illegal gratification by the accused[officer.][ There][ is]noaccompanyingwitnessalongwithP.W1.Evenifthecircumstances deposed by the other prosecution witnessesareaccepted as true, they cannot establish beyond reasonable[doubt]that the accused officer demanded bribe from P.W1 for issuanceof pattadar pass book. In fact, as stated supra, from[the][ evidence]Special Public Prosecutor in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Governmentof NOT of Delhi) (1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court categoricallyheld that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratificationby a public servant, as a fact in issue by the prosecution,[is][ a][ sine]qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused publicservant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d)(i) and(ii) of the Act.It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex[Court][ that][ the]prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratificationand the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact.In the caseon hand, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to establishthe demand of illegal gratification by the accused[officer.][ There][ is]noaccompanyingwitnessalongwithP.W1.Evenifthecircumstances deposed by the other prosecution witnessesareaccepted as true, they cannot establish beyond reasonable[doubt]that the accused officer demanded bribe from P.W1 for issuanceof pattadar pass book. In fact, as stated supra, from[the][ evidence]

SRK, JCrI. Appeal No.1168of2006

of P.W3 and D.W1,it is clear thatit is the responsibility[of][ the]Mandal Revenue Officer to issue pattadar pass book[and][ under]no circumstances, the accusedofficer, whois Superintendenthas got authority to issue pattadar pass book to P.W1.[Therefore]it is evident that the accused officer is not competent[to][ do][ official]favour to P,W1.

39. Thereisnoevidencetoprovethedemandoracceptanceofthetaintedcurrency,bythe accusedofficer.Further, evenif recovery of tainted money from the[accused]officer is accepted, mere recovery of money by itself may not besufficientto show that the money wasreceived as anillegalgratification by the accused officer from P.W1 for doing an officialfavour. The prosecution failed to prove the demand,[and]in theabsence of evidence to show that the money was paid as illegalgratification, mere recovery of money,is not sufficient[to][ convict]the accused officer of the offences punishable under[Sections][ 7]^ or 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988.acceptanceofthetaintedcurrency,bythe accusedofficer.Further, evenif recovery of tainted money from the[accused]officer is accepted, mere recovery of money by itself may not besufficientto show that the money wasreceived as anillegalgratification by the accused officer from P.W1 for doing an officialfavour. The prosecution failed to prove the demand,[and]in theabsence of evidence to show that the money was paid as illegalgratification, mere recovery of money,is not sufficient[to][ convict]the accused officer of the offences punishable under[Sections][ 7]^ or 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988.

40. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector ofmerePoliceand Anr.^theHon’ble Apex Courtheldthat,merePoliceand Anr.^theHon’ble Apex Courtheldthat, ^(2015) 10 see 152

SRK,JCrI. Appeal No,1168 of 2006possession andrecovery of currency notes from an accusedofficer without proof of demand would not establish[ 7 as]well as Section 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the PC Act,[1988.]It has beenpropounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegalgratification,the useof corruptorillegal meansor abuseofposition asapublicservanttoobtainany valuablethingorpecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof ofdemand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentialityand of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections[7][ and]13 of the Act.Dealing with the same, the Court observedasunder; "The proof of demand of illegal gratification,thus,isthegravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii)of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the chargetherefore,wouldfail.Mereacceptanceofanyamountallegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery[thereo,f][ de]hors the proof of demand,ipsofacto, would thus not[be]sufficient to bring home the charge under these two[sections]of the Act.

As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove[the][ demand]for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery[of][ the]amount fromthepersonaccusedof theoffenceunder Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his convictionthereunder."

41. The said principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble ApexCourtinMukhtiar Singh(since deceased)throughhis LegalRepresentative v. State of Punjab^, as under:-CourtinMukhtiar Singh(since deceased)throughhis LegalRepresentative v. State of Punjab^, as under:- "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification,thus,Is thegravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)[and](ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the chargetherefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedlyby way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof,[de][ hors][ the]proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient[to]bring home the charge under these two sections of the[Act.][ As]a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the[demand][ for]illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery[of][ the]amountfromthepersonaccusedoftheoffenceunderSections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his convictionthereunder."

42. In C.M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh efc./theHon’ble Apex Court held as under;Hon’ble Apex Court held as under; “In support of the submission reliance has been placed[on][ a]decision of this Court in the case of Panalal Damodar[Rathi][ u.]

Stateof Maharashtra(1987)Suppl.SCO266andourattention has been drawn to the following paragraph[of the]judgment:

“26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution[case][ is]shaken to a great extent.The question as to the handing[over]of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accusedshould be considered along with other material circumstancesone of which Is the question whether any demand was[at][ all]made by the appellant for the bribe.When it is found[that][ no]such demand was made by the accused and the prosecutionhas given a false story in that regard, the court will[view][ the]allegation of payment of the bribe to and recovery[of][ the][ same]from the accused with suspicion. ”

In Sura] Mai v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCO 725[this]Court tooktheview that(at SCCp.727, para2) mererecovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstancesunder which it is paid is not sufficient to convict[the][ accused]when the substantive evidence in the case Is not reliable.Themererecovery byitself cannot provethechargeoftheprosecution againstthe accused,intheabsenceof[any]evidenceto prove payment of bribe or to show thattheaccused voluntarily accepted the money knowingit to[be]bribe.

Another decision on which reliance is placed Is the[decision][ of]this court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. DyaneshwarLaxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 in whichit[has]been held as:

“16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification[is][ a sine]qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions[of]the Act.For arriving at the conclusion as to whether[all][ the]ingredientsof anoffenceviz.demand,acceptanceandrecovery of the amount of illegalgratification havebeensatisfied or not,the court must take into considerationthefactsandcircumstancesbroughtontherecordintheirentirety. ”

43. In State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lai Verma^, theHon’ble Supreme Court held that, mere receipt of the amount bythe accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of anyevidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the[amount]as illegal gratification’.It is appropriate to incorporate paragraphNo.7 of the said judgment, which reads thus;Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, mere receipt of the amount bythe accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of anyevidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the[amount]as illegal gratification’.It is appropriate to incorporate paragraphNo.7 of the said judgment, which reads thus; "7. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of Illegalgratification Is sine qua non for constituting an offence[under]the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not[sufficient]to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the caseis not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment ofbribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily[as]abribe. Merereceipt of the amount by the accusedisnotsufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence[with]regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal ^2013(3) MLJ (Crl) 565

gratification.Hence,the burdenrests onthe accusedtodisplace the statutory presumption raised under Section[20][ of]the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either[direct][ or]circumstantial,to establish with reasonable probability,thatthe money was accepted by him, other than as a motive[or]reward asreferredtoin Section7 of the1988Act.Whileinvoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the[court][ is]required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, ifany, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilityand not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonabledoubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explainhow the amount in question was found in his possession,[the]foundational facts must be established by the prosecution.Thecomplainantisaninterestedandpartisanwitnessconcerned with the success of the trap and his evidence[must]be tested in the same way as that of any other interestedwitness. In a proper case, the court may look for independentcorroboration before convicting the accused person."

44. InB.Jayaraj\/s.StateofAndhraPradeshin CrI.A.No.696 of 2014 dated 28.03.2014, the Hon’ble Apex Courtheld at paragraphs 8 and 9 thus:

“8. In the present case,the complainant did not support[the]prosecution casein so far as demand by the accusedisconcerned.The prosecution has not examined any otherwitness, present at the time when the money was allegedlyhanded over to the accused by the complainant, to prove[that]

the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused.When the complainant himself had disowned what he hadstated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, andthereis no other evidenceto provethat the accused hadmade any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents ofExt P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion thatthe above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedlymade by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold thatthe learnedtrial court as well as the High Court wasnotcorrect in holding the demand alleged to be made by[the]accused as proved. The only other material available[is][ the]recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession[of]the accused.Infact such possessionis admitted bytheaccusedhimselfMerepossessionandrecoveryofthecurrency notes from the accused without proof of demand[will]not bring home the offence under Section7. The above[also]will beconclusiveinsofarastheoffenceunderSections13(1){d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proofof demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegalmeans or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain anyvaluable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held[to][ be]established.

9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn[under]Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumptioncanonly be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and[not][ the]offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(1) and (ii) of the Act. In anyevent,it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratificationthat presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the[Act]that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing[to]

do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratificationcan follow only if there is proof of demand. As the[same]islacking in the present case the primary facts on the[basis][ of]which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be[drawn]are wholly absent. ”

45. From the judgments referred to above,it is clear thatthe Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that,in order toprove a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, 1988, theprosecution has to establish by proper proof, the demand[and]acceptance of illegal gratification. The Hon’ble Apex[Court][ held]thattillthatisaccomplished,the accusedofficershouldbeconsideredtobeinnocent.Theproofof demandofillegalgratification, thus,is the gravamen of offence under[Sections][ 7]and 13(1)(d)(i) and(ii) of 1998 Act and in the absence[thereof.]unmistakably the charge, therefore, would fail. The Hon’ble ApexCourt went ontoholdthat mere acceptanceof any amountallegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery[thereof,][ de]hors proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be[sufficient][ to]bring home the charge under aforesaid two sections.the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that,in order toprove a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, 1988, theprosecution has to establish by proper proof, the demand[and]acceptance of illegal gratification. The Hon’ble Apex[Court][ held]thattillthatisaccomplished,the accusedofficershouldbeconsideredtobeinnocent.Theproofof demandofillegalgratification, thus,is the gravamen of offence under[Sections][ 7]and 13(1)(d)(i) and(ii) of 1998 Act and in the absence[thereof.]unmistakably the charge, therefore, would fail. The Hon’ble ApexCourt went ontoholdthat mere acceptanceof any amountallegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery[thereof,][ de]hors proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be[sufficient][ to]bring home the charge under aforesaid two sections.

46. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled propositionof law,it is unsafe to place an implicit reliance[on][ the][ evidence]

SRK,JCrI, Appeal No. 1168 of 2006

adduced by the prosecution for convicting the accusedofficer.There is no legal evidence to find the accused officer guilty of thecharges under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of thePC Act, 1988 leveled against him.

47. In view of the foregoing discussion,this Court nohesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish[its][ case]against the accused officer for the offences under[Sections][ 7][ and]13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988, beyondreasonable doubt, either by direct or by circumstantial evidence.and the accused officer is entitled to acquittal. The[trial][ Court][ did]not consider these aspectsin right perspectivein passing theimpugned judgment.hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish[its][ case]against the accused officer for the offences under[Sections][ 7][ and]13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988, beyondreasonable doubt, either by direct or by circumstantial evidence.and the accused officer is entitled to acquittal. The[trial][ Court][ did]not consider these aspectsin right perspectivein passing theimpugned judgment.

Conclusion

48. In the result, the Criminal Appealis allowed, settingasidetheconvictionandsentencerecordedagainsttheappellant/accused officer in the Judgment dated 01.09.2006inCalendar Case No.20 of 2000 on the file of the learned Special'Judge for S.P.E & A.C.B. Cases, Nellore. The appellant/accusedofficerisfoundnotguiltyof theoffencespunishableunderSections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention[of]Corruption Act, 1988 andis accordingly acquittedof[the]said 36SRK,JCrI. Appeal No.1168 of 2006

offences.Fine amounts,if any, paid by the appellant/accusedofficer shall be refunded to him.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions,if any, pendingin this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO

JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

To.

1. The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases: Nellore, SPSR NelloreDistrict, (with records)District, (with records)

2. The Inspector of Police, ACB Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

3. One CC to Sri. N Premraj Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravati [OUT]Amaravati [OUT]

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

6. THREE CD COPIES

SAM

TAC

r

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/03/2025

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1168of2006

’/<Sm.4 03 0 JUN 2025os^^^SPATCV^

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

V,