2025 INSC 1263 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1770 OF 2014 P. SOMARAJU …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 08.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1540 of 2004. By way of the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No. 13 of 1999. The appellant, who was the accused before the Trial Court, was thereby convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [Digitally signed by] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous Signature i N m ot Ve p rifie r d isonment for one year with a fine of ₹10,000/- on each count.

NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2025.10.28 Reason:

1 For short, ‘the PC Act’

2. The facts leading to the instant Appeal may be described briefly. The appellant was an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle I, at Anjaiah Karmica Bhavan, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad from 01.01.1996 to 26.09.1996. The complainant, S. Venkat Reddy (PW-1) was a licensed Labour Contractor who had been operating two establishments, Swetha Enterprises and Sindhu Enterprises, for many years. In June 1997, the complainant made an application to the appellant in connection with the renewal of contract labour licenses for the aforementioned establishments for the year 1997-1998 and also paid the necessary fees, including a late application fee for one of the establishments, of total ₹250/-. The appellant allegedly verified and signed the registers produced by the complainant but he kept postponing the renewal of the licenses on some pretext or the other. The nephew of the complainant, S. Prabhakar Reddy (PW- 3), had also sought renewal of license for his firm, Tirumala Enterprises, and similarly states that he met the appellant twice or thrice along with the complainant to renew his license, but after some delay, entrusted the matter to the complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.1997, the complainant went to meet the appellant in the evening. At that meeting, the appellant demanded a sum of ₹9,000/- as bribe for renewing the three licenses, failing which he would keep the renewals pending. Allegedly, a part payment of ₹3,000/- was made by the complainant on that day itself by placing the money in the appellant’s table- drawer and the remaining amount of ₹6,000/- was demanded to be paid within one to two days. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau2 around 11:00 AM the next day and presented a written complaint against the appellant (Ex. P1) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, [For short, ‘DSP’] of ACB, U.V.S. Raju (PW-7). The DSP asked the complainant to bring the balance bribe amount in ₹100/- denominations by 2:00-2:30 PM.

4. The DSP allegedly made some enquiries and found out that the reputation of the appellant was not good. An FIR was registered around 1:00 PM. The DSP also sent a requisition for two mediators. When the complainant returned with the money, he was introduced to two Government employees: (i) P. N. Rajender (PW-2), Office Superintendent in the Directorate of Insurance and Medical Services, Hyderabad; and (ii) B. Balaji Rao, Junior Assistant, Directorate of Insurance and Medical Services, Hyderabad. They were to be the mediators in the trap proceedings. The complaint was handed over to them with instructions to verify their contents. The mediators did so and further noted down the numbers of the notes brought by the complainant in Annexure I to the pre-trap mediators’ report (Ex. P2). A constable (PC 490, Sri Kistappa) applied phenolphthalein powder to the notes and then kept them in the complainant’s shirt-pocket. The DSP instructed the complainant not to touch the no