Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 919
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
State rep. by Dy. Supdt. of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam
Versus
K. Raghuram
Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2006
Decided on : 01-09-2014
For the Appellant: M.B. Thimma Reddy, Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB.
For the Respondent:D. Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate.
When witness resiled from his earlier evidence in chief examination and deposed facts in cross suicidal to prosecution case, he must be declared hostile.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)—Illegal gratification—Appeal against acquittal—Special P.P. should have either declared the witness as hostile and cross-examined him or in light of Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act sought permission of Court to cross-examine him or re-examine him and clarified controversy shrouded around amount as bribe or licence fee---Since that was not done, facts spoken in cross-examination remained uncontroverted and are liable to be taken into consideration—Facts already narrated and other following facts spoken in cross-examination paved way for strengthening defence plea—Trial Court on proper appreciation of facts and evidence has rightly acquitted AO holding that prosecution failed to bring home charges levelled against him under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act—No irregularity, illegality or perversity in its appreciation of evidence and findings.
Result—Appeal dismissed.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.02.2005 in C.C.No.62 of 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam acquitting the Accused Officer (AO) of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act) the ACB preferred the instant Criminal Appeal.
2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
a) AOKandregula Raghuram worked as Agricultural Officer (Technical) in the office of Joint Director (Agriculture), Visakhapatnam during 1995.
According to prosecution, Noolu Venkata Gowreswara Rao complainant (PW1), the proprietor of M/s.N.G.S.Pharmacy, Visakhapatnam who was running a medical shop submitted an application dated 23.12.1994 to the Joint Director (Agriculture), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam for sale of pesticides manufactured by M/s.Sujanil Chemo Industries, Pune and Pest Control of India, Bombay for bugs and mosquitoes by remitting a sum of 300/-towards licence fee. The AO has recommended for granting the said licence on 06.01.1995 and note was put up by the concerned and submitted to the Joint Director on 12.02.1995 for necessary approval and the same was approved on 18.02.1995. Accordingly, licence bearing No.231/94-95 was issued by the Joint Director authorising PW1 to sell the products of Pest Control of India Limited, Bombay only.
b) Then PW1 visited the office of Joint Director and met the AO and asked him as to why permission was given only to sell the products of one company when he applied for two companies. AO informed PW1 that principal certificate was not in force and it was expired and therefore it was not possible to issue licence for the sale of products of Sujanil Chemo Industries. Then PW1 showed the principal certificate to AO by informing that it was not expired and inspite of that the AO did not hear PW1.
c) PW1 met the AO on several occasions but of no use. Therefore, on 01.09.1995 PW1 addressed a letter to the Joint Director (Agriculture), Visakhapatnam requesting him to add in his licence permission to sell the products of Sujanil Chemo Industries and obtained acknowledgement. Then AO asked PW1 to address a letter to Sujanil Chemo Industries requesting it to send principal certificate to the office of Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. At that time PW1 told AO that it would take time and asked him as to how to sell the products in the meanwhile. For that AO stated to PW1 that the matter relating to the correspondence for the licence was in progress and there would be no problem for sale of those products and if at all there was any check, he (AO) only has to book the case and therefore in order to avoid further problems, he demanded Rs.5,000/-as bribe. When PW1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, AO reduced it to Rs.1,000/-and demanded him to pay the same within ten or fifteen days.
d) On 21.09.1995 at about 1.00 PM AO visited the shop of PW1 and asked him as to why the demanded amount was not brought and paid and threatened to make a visit along with Vigilance Officer and seize the stocks and book a case by taking samples of various products under sale unless the demanded amount was paid before 25.09.1995.
e) Unwilling to pay bribe, PW1 submitted Ex.P1complaint to DSP, ACB, Visakhapatnam (PW4) on 22.09.1995 who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.7/RC-SLR/95 and successfully laid a trap against AO on 25.09.1995. On completion of investigation charge sheet was laid against AO.
f) On appearance of the AO charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act were framed against him and conducted trial.
g) During trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P21 were marked and MOs.1 to 9 were exhibited on behalf of prosecution.
DW.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked on behalf of defence.
h) The trial Court on appreciation of evidence held that prosecution failed to prove the vital ingredients such as demand and acceptance of bribe and accordingly acquitted the
