Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 739
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
M.W.R.Jayakar A1 - Appellant
Vs.
State Of A.P., Rep. By Inspector Of Police, ACB - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 41, 507 of 2012
Decided On : 16-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : O KAILASHNATH REDDY
For the Respondent: T L NAYAN KUMAR SC SPL PP ACB TS
In appeals against acquittal, the prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in upholding the acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 34, 468, 471, 120
(B) - Appeal against acquittal - The court emphasized that in appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must demonstrate compelling reasons to interfere with the trial court's findings, which are based on the presumption of innocence. (Paras 21, 25, 42)
(B) Demand for Bribe - The prosecution failed to prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence presented created reasonable doubt regarding the alleged demand and the circumstances surrounding the case. (Paras 40, 41)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for filing a report in his favor regarding a land dispute. A trap was laid, but the trial court acquitted the accused, finding insufficient evidence of demand and tampering of records.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, concluding that the prosecution did not prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution established the demand for bribe and whether the trial court's acquittal was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to prove the demand for bribe led to the acquittal being upheld, emphasizing the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Result: Crl.A.No.507 of 2012 dismissed; Crl.A.No.41 of 2012 allowed, setting aside the conviction.
JUDGMENT :
1. Crl.A.No.507 of 2012 is filed by the ACB, questioning the order passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hydeabad, in CC.No.08 of 2010, dated 31.12.2011, in acquitting Accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 468, r/w.34 of IPC, 471 r/w.34 of IPC, and 120(B) r/w.34 of IPC, and acquitting Accused No.2 of all the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, r/w. Sections 109, 120-B, 201, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Crl.A.No.41 of 2012 is filed by Accused No.1, questioning the conviction recorded by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hydeabad, in CC.No.08 of 2010, dated 31.12.2011, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Since Accused No.2 died, this Court, in Crl.A.No.507 of 2012 by order dated 02.08.2022, dismissed the appeal against A2 as abated.
4. This Court has heard the appeals filed by A1/appellant in Crl.A.No.41 of 2012 and by the State against A1 in Crl.A.No.507 of 2012.
5. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 is a practicing advocate. One Buchirami Reddy (plaintiff) and 4 others filed suit OS.No.518 of 1994 in the Court of the Prl. District Munsif (Prl. Junior Civil Judge), Karimnagar, in which PW.1 is the defendant. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of properties in Survey No.227/D2, admeasuring 1.09 guntas at Husnabad Village of Karimnagar District. The said plaintiff filed IA.No.519 of 1997 for appointment of a Commissioner to measure the land in the said survey number and fix boundaries. A2 (died) was the Presiding Officer of the said Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court. A2 appointed A1/appellant in Crl.A.No.41 of 2012, who was a practicing advocate, as Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property with the assistance of a qualified surveyor and to demarcate the suit schedule land. The said IA was posted to 11.06.1997 for the report of the Advocate Commissioner (A.1). On 01.02.1998, A1, with the help of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, executed the warrant of commission, but the report was not filed.
6. On 19.02.1998, A1 went to the house of PW.1 and demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- for filing the report in his favour and insisted that Rs.20,000/- be paid before filing the report. On the next date, PW.1 approached the ACB authorities and filed a complaint.
7. The complaint was received by PW.11-DSP, and a crime was registered at 11.30 A.M., and a trap was also arranged at 6.30 p.m. on the same day. According to PW.11, he orally obtained No objection from the Sessions Judge to lay a trap against A1. PW.2-Sampath Reddy, mediator, and another, namely Komarayya, were asked to assist during the trap proceedings as independent mediators. All the trap party members assembled in the office at 7.00 P.M. PW.1 then informed the mediators in the trap party about complaint. Then all the formalities that had to be undertaken before proceeding to lay the trap were completed by the DSP. All the pre-trap proceedings were drafted as the first mediators’ report.
8. The trap party then went to the house of PW.1. PW.1 went inside his house while the other trap party members stayed at a distance from the house. PW.2, who is an independent mediator, accompanied PW.1 into his house, and both PWs.1 and 2 were sitting in the drawing room of the house. At 9.10 P.M., A1 arrived at the house of PW.1. He entered into the house and enquired with PW.1, stating that he had prepared a report for filing and demanded the bribe amount. PW.1 went inside, came out, and gave the amount to A1. A1 started counting it; meanwhile, PW.1 informed the DSP about A1 receiving the bribe amount. The DSP and other trap party members entered the house, and the DSP asked appellant to hand over the amount to another Mediator, Komarayya. Both the hands of the appellant were tested, which proved positive. A1, PWs.1 and 2 were examined during post-trap proceedings, an
