Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 78
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
A.S.Nagaraju – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P., Rpe By Inspector of Police, ACB, - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1659 of 2006
Decided on : 12-06-2020
Point of Law :
It is settled principle of law that mere recovery of tainted notes is not sufficient and the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt like any other offence
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) -Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case, the appellant - Accused Officer preferred the present appeal -Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant- Accused Officer for the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month under each charge - Trial Court ordered to run both the sentences of imprisonment concurrently -
Finding of the Court:
Failure of the accused to offer explanation on recovery of tainted notes is not a bar to the Accused Officer to submit his defence plea during his evidence or in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the same cannot be discarded on mere ground that it was furnished at a belated stage. It has to be accepted if trustworthy on examination that the accused has not taken different/inconsistent version at different stages. In the present case, it is the consistent plea of the Accused Officer that PW.1 bore grudge against him and to implicate him in a false case, deliberately planted the said amount in the table drawer-PW.1 bore grudge against him and to implicate him in a false case, deliberately planted the said amount in the table drawer - Finding of the trial Court that Accused Officer has demanded and accepted MO.3 - cash of towards illegal gratification for doing the official favour to PW.1 is contrary to evidence, both oral and documentary, as discussed in detailed supra - In the said circumstances and foregoing discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court recording conviction is unsustainable -
Result: Criminal Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 05.12.2006, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.12 of 2002, the appellant - Accused Officer preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant- Accused Officer for the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) and accordingly imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month under each charge. The trial Court ordered to run both the sentences of imprisonment concurrently.
3. Accused Officer - A.S. Nagaraju worked as District Tribal Welfare Officer, Nizamabad District, while PW.1 - de facto complainant, Mr. Poodati Kamalesh was working as Warden, S.T.Boys Hostel, Dichpalli, Nizamabad District at the relevant point of time.
4. The allegation of the prosecution in the present case is that the Accused Officer being the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Nizamabad District has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.3,000/- from PW.1 for the purpose of releasing cheques in respect of the bills submitted by PW.1 in respect of S.T. Boys Hostel. Thus, the Accused Officer being public servant abusing his official position as a public servant obtained for himself, the above said pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.3,000/- from PW.1 as illegal gratification for the purpose of doing said official favour, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act.
5. According to the prosecution, the Accused Officer being the District Tribunal Welfare Officer is having power to release the cheques in respect of the bills submitted by PW.1. The said official favour was pending with the Accused Officer at the relevant point of time and accordingly demanded the said bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- from PW.1.
6. Since PW.1 - de facto complainant was not interested to meet the said demand of bribe, approached the ACB Officials on 19.02.2001 and lodged Ex.P3 - complaint. Thereafter, PW.4 - DSP, ACB, Nizamabad Range, registered a case in Crime No.2/ACB-NZB/2001 on 20.02.2001 and laid trap on the same day by following the due procedure including conducting pre-trap and post-trap proceedings in the presence of mediators.
7. After completion of investigation, the ACB filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.12 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act.
8. The trial Court framed the charges under above provisions. On examination, the Accused denied the said charges and prayed for trial. Accordingly, the trial Court proceeded with the trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P16 and MO.1 to MO.6 were exhibited. On behalf of the Accused Officer, DW.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. The trial Court also marked Exs.X1 to X3.
9. After completion of trial and on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the Accused Officer guilty of the aforesaid charges and accordingly convicted him vide the impugned judgment in the manner stated above.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the Accused Officer preferred the present appeal.
11. Heard Mr. A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - Accused Officer and Mr. T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel - cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases.
12. Impugning the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant would make the following submissions:
(i) PW.4 - DSP, ACB on receipt of Ex.P3 - complaint from PW.1, who is subordinate to the Accused Officer, without conducting discreet enquiries as per the ACB Manual, registered the case and laid the trap.
(ii) As per the ACB
