Back
2022 Supreme(Telangana) 462
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
K. Raghunatha Rao - Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor for ACB - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1461 of 2008
Decided On : 08-09-2022
For the Appellant : Sri V. Surender Rao.
For the Respondent: Sri Ch. Vidya Sagar Rao, Spl. Public Prosecutor.
Point of Law : Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement is not substantive evidence to rely upon by the Court to draw inference regarding the culpability of an accused.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d), (2), 7, 20 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Company - Change Name of Electricity Service - Demanded Bribe - PW1 approached appellant requesting to change name of electricity service connection in name of company as company shifted their premises to new address - An application was made to change old service connection in name of company as instructed by P.W.2, who is Manager in said company - Appellant refused to process file and demanded an amount for processing file - Aggrieved by said demand P.W.1 as instructed by P.W.2 filed a complaint stating that appellant and another have demanded Rs.1,500/- to be paid - Trap party which included DSP, P.W.1, Inspector, independent mediators and others proceeded to office of appellant - P.W.1 entered into office along with P.W.3 one of independent mediators and after receipt of said tainted bribe amount by appellant, P.W.1 came out and gave pre-arranged signal to indicate the amount of bribe has been received by appellant. (Para 11)
Finding of the Court :
Averments in Ex.P1 complaint were disowned and P.W.1 also did not state that there was any demand - Learned Special Judge erred in relying upon said complaint Ex.P2 and also statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. to infer that demand was made by appellant - A complaint when disowned by complainant, contents of complaint cannot be read in evidence - Secondly, Section 164 Cr.PC statement is a previous statement which can be used by prosecution or defence for purpose of contradicting any statement that was subsequently made in Court - In said circumstances, appellant is entitled to be acquitted of all charges leveled against him - In result, conviction recorded against appellant vide impugned judgment in CC is set aside - Since appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the conviction recorded under Sections 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.29 of 2003, dated 06.11.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the ACB is that the appellant worked as Junior Accounts Officer in the office of APCPDCL, Mint Compound. The acquitted Accused No.2 worked as LDC in the same office. The complainant/P.W.1 was working as Accounts-cum-Administrative Assistant in M/s.Embedded Infotech (Private) Limited. PW1 approached the appellant requesting to change the name of electricity service connection in the name of the company as the company shifted their premises to new address. An application was made to change the old service connection in the name of the company M/s.Embedded Infotech Private Limited as instructed by P.W.2, who is the Manager (Operation) in the said company. Appellant refused to process the file and demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- for processing the file. The acquitted accused also allegedly demanded Rs.1,500/- for processing. Aggrieved by the said demand, on 16.04.2002 P.W.1 as instructed by P.W.2 filed a complaint stating that the appellant and another have demanded Rs.1,500/- to be paid on the very same day i.e., 16.04.2002. Accordingly, the said complaint was registered at 12.30 p.m. on 16.04.2002 and P.W.1 was asked to come at 2.00 p.m. on the same day. The pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P6 were drafted from 2.30 p.m. in the office of ACB and concluded at 4.00 p.m.
3. At 4.00 p.m., the trap party which included DSP, P.W.1, Inspector, independent mediators and others proceeded to the office of the appellant. The complainant P.W.1 entered into the office along with P.W.3 one of the independent mediators and after receipt of the said tainted bribe amount by the appellant, P.W.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to indicate that the amount of bribe has been received by the appellant. The DSP and others entered into the office after receipt of the signal and conducted tests on the hands of the appellant, which proved positive. The said amount was produced by the appellant from his left side pant pocket. Thereafter, after concluding the post trap proceedings, the investigation was handed over to P.W.9, who concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act against the appellant and another. After concluding the examination of the witnesses, the learned Special Judge found that this appellant is guilty and acquitted accused A2 not guilty for the said offences.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant/P.W.1, P.W.2 at whose instance the complaint was lodged and also P.W.3 who is an independent mediator have all turned hostile to the prosecution case. Further, according to the prosecution case, the work of PW.1 was already complete and file was already processed by the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments; (i) A. Subair v. State of Kerala, 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 497 (SC); (ii) B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC); (iii) P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, AIR 2015 SC 3549; (iv) Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 952 (SC); (v) C. Giriprasad Babu v. State, ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad, 2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) 96 (TS); (vi) Sk. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 917 (TS); (vii) J. Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 507 (TS); (viii) Addala Subrahmanyam v. State, 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 934 (AP); (ix) State v. R. Krishnaiah, 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 331 (AP); (x) Utpal Das v. State of West Bengal, 2010 Cri
