Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 82
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
V. Lakshmaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP Rep by its Spl. PP for ACB Hyd. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1155 of 2006
Decided on : 11-06-2020
Point of Law :
where the shadow witness/accompanying witness turned hostile, heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove the said charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused by examining relevant/independent witness.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) - Conviction - Demand and acceptance of Bribe - Gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing official favour i.e. for not sending any further report against the toddy depot owned by him- Accused Officer thereby committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
Thrust Theory, the defence taken by the Accused Officer, he has examined D.W.1 who deposed about thrusting of the said amount into the right side pant pocket of the Accused Officer who immediately took out the same, threw it away on the floor. D.W.2 childhood friend of the Accused Officer deposed about his stay in Srinivasa lodge on the day of trap, meeting the Accused Officer and thrusting of the currency notes by P.W.1. D.W.3, Bus operator deposed that he knows P.W.1, P.W.2, Gampa Maruti, Kasula Surender. He was in Srinivasa Lodge on the day of trap to attend a meeting. He specifically deposed about thrusting of money by P.W.1 into the pant pocket of the Accused Officer. D.W.4 also deposed in the same manner. D.W.6 deposed about Exs.X.1 and X.2. The prosecution failed to elicit anything from the above said defence witnesses during cross examination. Thus, the Accused Officer has proved the thrusting of currency notes by P.W.1 into his pant pocket. There is consistency in the defence taken by the Accused Officer right from the post trap proceedings i.e. “Thrust Theory” and the Accused Officer has proved the said theory which is probable and believable -finding of the trial Court that the accused has used his official position to extract illegal gratification for not sending further report against P.W.1, and therefore the requirement of law is satisfied, is contrary to the record. As discussed supra, there was no official favour that was pending with the Accused Officer at the relevant point to time to do to P.W.1 and the Accused Officer never abused his official position. In view of the said discussion, the finding of the trial Court is not sustainable
Result:
Criminal Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 17.08.2006, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.22 of 2000, wherein and whereby, the appellant was found guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the appellant preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court sentenced the Accused Officer to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousands only) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The trial Court further sentenced the Accused Officer to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousands only) for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The undergone period of the Accused Officer as under trial prisoner was given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. However, the default sentences were ordered to run separately.
3. The factual matrix of the present appeal is as follows:
According to the prosecution, the Accused Officer was Deputy Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, Karimnagar at the relevant point of time. The de facto complainant/P.W.1 is the resident of Karimnagar. The Accused Officer, being the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, Karimnagar, on 24.01.1998 at hotel Srinivasa of Karimnagar, as per his earlier demand, demanded and accepted Rs.20,000/- from the de facto complainant – K.Jagan Goud, Manager of Toddy Depot No.3 of Karimnagar Town as gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing official favour i.e. for not sending any further report against the toddy depot No.3 owned by him. The Accused Officer thereby committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act.
4. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Accused Officer being a public servant as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Intelligence, Karimnagar, on 24.01.1998, obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.20,000/- from P.W.1 for showing official favour of not sending any further report against the toddy shop No.3 owned by him and thereby committed offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act.
5. The de facto complainant/P.W.1, being not interested to pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/- towards bribe, approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar by way of lodging Ex.P.1 complaint, who in turn registered a case and issued Ex.P.13 FIR. The ACB officials thereafter laid a trap against the appellant/Accused Officer and after completion of the investigation, they filed the charge sheet, which was taken on file vide C.C.No.22 of 2000 by the trial Court.
6. The trial Court framed charges under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act. On examination, the Accused Officer denied the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the trial Court proceeded with the trial.
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 and MOs.1 to 9 were exhibited. In support of the defence, the Accused Officer examined six witnesses i.e., DWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.D-1 and D-2. Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked. After completion of the trial and on consideration of evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the Accused Officer guilty of the aforesaid charges and accordingly convicted him vide impugned judgment and imposed the punishment in the manner stated supra. Feeling aggrieved
