TELANGANA HIGH COURT
K. Surender, J.
L. Venkateshwara Rao – Appellant
versus
State of AP, through Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1567 of 2010
Decided on 2.4.2025
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 137 and 138 – Examination of witnesses – Once examination-in-chief is complete, question of ‘further chief-examination’ does not arise – Prosecution cannot adopt method of further chief-examination to fill in other lacunae and scope of re-examination is confined – To overcome such confined scope of re-examination, permitting prosecution to conduct further chief-examination is not the procedure that can be followed and is contradictory to scheme of examination of witnesses under Sections 137 and 138 of Evidence Act. (Paras 23 and 24)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Several discrepancies and inconsistencies in prosecution case have raised doubts about manner in which trap was laid, as well as events on trap day – No reasons were given as to why independent mediator or other witness, whose presence was secured for the purpose of trap proceedings, were not asked to accompany complainant to witness what transpired between complainant and appellant – Demand for bribe itself becomes doubtful – Recovery is only partially done and explanation given by officer regarding missing of Rs.200/- bribe amount is also questionable – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant – Judgment of trial Court set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 26, 27 and 28)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.43 of 2005, dated 07.12.2010. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant worked as the Special Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Himayatnagar Mandal. The complainant/P.W.1 was the GPA holder of Nawab Mohd.Kabiruddin Khan. He submitted an application along with requisite documents on 04.08.2003 in the MRO office for the issuance of Fasil Pahani copies Nos.1355 and 1356 in Sy.No.2002/2 at Bagh Lingampally. P.W.1 approached the office of the MRO after one month. Since the MRO was not available, he approached the Dy.MRO-T.Damodar Reddy/P.W.4 and enquired about his application. P.W.4 directed the appellant to attend the work of P.W.1. As such, P.W.1 approached the appellant, who asked him to come after three days. When P.W.1 approached the appellant after three days, the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.500/-.
4. On 03.11.2003, at about 11.00 a.m, when P.W.1 approached the appellant, he enquired about the amount. P.W.1 informed him that he would come with the money the next day. Unwilling to pay the bribe amount, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB/P.W.7 and gave Ex.P1/complaint. P.W.7 instructed P.W.1 to come to the office on 04.11.2003 at 1.00 p.m along with bribe amount of Rs.500/-. P.W.7, after verifying the genuineness of the complaint, registered an FIR, which is Ex.P7. At about 2.15 p.m, P.W.7 called P.W.1 to his chambers and introduced P.W.5/mediator and another person, namely Acharyulu (not examined), to him. After following the formalities, pre-trap proceedings were conducted under Ex.P2. Then, all the trap party members went to the office of MRO, Himayatnagar at 5.00 p.m. As per the directions of P.W.7, P.W.1 and P.W.2 (who was secured from Gandhi Bhavan Bus Stop), went to the office of the appellant. The appellant asked P.W.1 whether he had brought the amount. Then, P.W.1 paid the amount to the appellant, who kept the same in his left side pant pocket. At that time, P.W.3, who was present in the room, requested the appellant to give Rs.200/-. The appellant took the same from his pant pocket and gave it to P.W.3, who in turn gave it to P.W.4/Dy.MRO. P.W.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. Immediately, all the trap party members rushed to the room of the appellant. P.W.7 disclosed his identity to the appellant and P.W.3. The test on the hands of both the appellant and P.W.3 turned positive. When P.W.7 enquired about the amount, the appellant produced an amount of Rs.300/- and informed that he gave Rs.200/- to P.W.3 towards the hand loan. P.W.7 enquired P.W.3, who informed that he paid the amount to P.W.4. Post-trap proceedings were conducted under Ex.P5. P.W.7 instructed P.Ws.5 and 8, along with the Inspector, to go to the residence of P.W.4/Dy.MRO for the recovery of the amount of Rs.200/-. By the time they reached, P.W.4 was not available at his residence. On contacting P.W.4, he came to his house at 8.30 p.m. Though the sodium carbonate test was conducted on the hands of P.W.4, the same turned negative. However, his right-side pant pocket and the car steering yielded positive results. When the trap party enquired P.W.4 about the Rs.200/-, he informed that he had thrown the amount along with his money in the Musi river. Though a search was conducted at the Musi river, the same could not be recovered. All the events were recorded under Ex.P4, and thereafter, they proceeded to the office of MRO, Himayathnagar. P.W.7 seized the attendance register/Ex.P8, Ex.P3, Ex.P10/pahani copies, and also prepared a rough sketch unde
(1) Examination of witnesses – Once examination-in-chief is complete, question of ‘further chief-examination’ does not arise – Prosecution cannot adopt method of further chief-examination to fill in ....
The court emphasized the necessity for credible evidence to support bribery allegations, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused due to significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Point of Law : When amount was recovered from the table drawer and once demand is not proved, which is sine qua non proof, an offence under Section 7 of the Act is not proved, the prosecution fails.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained when there are glaring inconsistencies insofar as amount of money demanded.
The mere recovery of a bribe amount does not suffice for conviction; the prosecution must prove the demand for the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.