Back
2006(9) Supreme 818
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
V. Venkata Subbarao - Appellant
versus
State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 970 of 2000
Decided on 12-12-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Ramesh and Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P. Vinay Kumar and CH. Leela Sarveswar (for Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy) Advocates.
Held : The complaint was made to the Inspector of Police after a period of fifteen days from the date of original demand. The purported role played by the appellant, when the demand was made by the MRO, was said to be a mere intervention resulting in reduction of the amount of demand from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-, which could not be substantiated. It is not the case of the prosecution that he demanded any sum for himself. If the casurina growth had already been cut and lifted by P.W.3, the question of any demand being persisted would not arise. The deliberate and planned manner in which the trap is said to have been made; the purported demand made by the MRO and the role played by the appellant, betrays all comprehensions.(Paras 12 to 14)
We fail to understand as to why in post trap panchnama – Exhibit P.7, the words that the money was found to be in a bed room corner and the cash had been picked up by A.O. and handed over to the Inspector, had to be interpolated. (Para 21)
It is a mystery as to why no offer was made to the M.R.O. directly or why the raiding party did not visit his house? The prosecution witnesses even did not know in which village the M.R.O., Surveyor and Revenue Inspector had their respective residences. A short intervention made by the appellant was purported to be in relation to the quantum of amount. The offer, therefore, should have been made to the M.R.O. directly. He was named in the complaint, but along with him and the appellant, two others were also named. Why no action had been taken as against three other persons, is not known. Why M.R.O., who had made a demand, on whose behalf the appellant had accepted the amount, had escaped prosecution has not been explained. (Para 22)
Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise.(Para 24)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. - Appellant herein was working as a Surveyor in the Mandal Revenue Office. He was a military personnel.
2. Admittedly, a demand was made by a Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) of P. Bhemavaram village of Butchayyupate Mandalam in Vishakhapatnam District for allowing P.W.3 (M. Subrahmanya Raju) to cut and remove casurina trees. P.W.2-Amaraneni Ammarao sold the land in question to P.W.3. He made a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau alleging that he had purchased 4 acres of land with casurina growth and the same was being objected by the MRO on the premise that a part thereof belonged to the Government.
3. The MRO, allegedly, wanted determination of the said question and restrained him from lifting any casurina growth. He met the said MRO on the next day informing him that no part of the Government land was mixed up with his land. Allegedly, a demand for a sum of Rs.5,000/- was made from him by the MRO. While the talks were going on, the appellant, allegedly, intervened and asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. When he again met the MRO, he was informed that he would not be permitted to remove the casurina trees until the demanded amount was paid. On the basis of the said complaint dated 11.12.1988, a purported pre-trap proceedings started at 3 p.m. on 12.12.1988. The trap party consisting of 8 persons, allegedly, started for the village of which Appellant was a resident. They reached the village in the evening. The informant did not know the location of the residential house of the appellant. According to P.W.2, an unknown person had led them thereto. The said person examined himself as D.W.1 being Yannamsetti Appalanaidu and not by the prosecution. Offer of the said sum of Rs. 2,000/- was, allegedly, made to the appellant by way of gratification, which he allegedly accepted. He is said to have been caught red handed.
4. Apart from usual pleas, the appellant categorically took the plea of false implication stating that he had animosity with the local M.L.A. Shri Yeeri Naidu and one Shri Rama Murthy, the Surpanch of P. Bhimavaram village. Admittedly, son of the appellant was working as an assistant to Shri Yeeri Naidu. The said Shri Ram Murthy nurtured grudge against the appellant for not granting D-Form pattas to him and his family members. The raid was conducted at the instance of Shri Ram Murthy.
5. The learned Special Judge analysed the evidences brought on record by the prosecution in great details. In his judgment, the learned Trial Judge considered the matter from various angles, viz., (i) peculiar facts of the case; (ii) nature and conduct of P.W.2-the complainant (who was held to be wholly untrustworthy); (iii) the manner in which trap proceedings were undertaken by the Anti Corruption Bureau and which were, thus, held to be not reliable as it was brought on records that Shri Ram Murthy also indirectly participated in the said trap proceedings and, in particular, P.W.2 was brought by him to the village; (iv) Although, the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that the appellant, upon acceptance of the tainted amount, counted the same with both of his hands, only fingers of one of his hand turned pink; (v) the trap party came in and asked the A.O. to produce the amount, which he denied to have accepted; and allegedly, at that time three more people entered the house and stated that the amount was available in one of the rooms; (vi) In Exhibit P.7 post trap panchanama, the words from bed room corner, the cash has been picked up by A.O. and handed over to the Inspector, has been interpolated; and (vii) there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, vis-`-vis, their statements before the Investigating Officer.
6. On an appeal made by the respondent, the High Court, however, allowed the criminal appeal, principally relying on the provisions of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the premi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
