THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 OF 2021

ORDER

Heard Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel representing Sri Shaik Laiq Pasha, learned counsel for the appellants/A.1 and A.2 and Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

to set aside the judgment dated 12.08.2021 in C.C.No.99 of 2020 with regard to the conviction and sentence imposed against the A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 171-E of IPC, passed by the Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases of Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. at Hyderabad by the Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases of Elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. at Hyderabad.

3. The appellants are A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.99 of 2020. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 188 and 171-E of IPC and Section 123(2) of the Public Representatives Act. The allegation leveled against A.1 is that he has distributed money during 2018 Assembly Elections for A.2, the contesting candidate as a Member of Legislative Assembly of Pinapaka Assembly Constituency from T.R.S.Party. Basing on the A.1’s confession, A.2 was implicated in the present case and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against both the appellants/A.1 and A.2. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.99 of 2020.

4. To prove the said offences against the appellants herein, the prosecution has examined P.W.1-Police Constable who is said to be the eye witness and assisted to P.W.4-Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.2- Superintendent, Mandal Prajaparishad, Pinapaka and panch witness for confessional – cum – seizure panchanama, P.W.3 another panch witness for confession – cum- seizure panchanama and P.W.4 the Sub Inspector of Police who conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the appellants. On consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-

5. Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel for the appellants attacking the impugned judgment would contend as follows:-

i. P.Ws.2 and 3 turned hostile.

ii. There is delay of 36 days in submitting the First Information Report to the court concerned.

iii. There are contradictions in the deposition of P.W.2 with regard to confession – cum - seizure panchanama, crime date etc.

iv. Basing on the confession statement of A.1, A.2 cannot be implicated.

v. The contents of the charge sheet and depositions lack the ingredients of Section 171-E of IPC.

vi. TRS party slips mentioned in Ex.P.1 confession – cum –

seizure panchanama of A.1, dated 06.12.2018 including cover were not seized by the Investigating Officer.

vii. There is no material against A.2 except the confession statement of A.1.

viii. Even then, the Court below recorded conviction against the appellants herein vide impugned judgment.

ix. The Investigating Officer failed to conduct investigation properly and prosecution failed to prove the aforesaid offences against the appellants herein. Even then, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences.

x. With the said submissions, he sought to set aside the

6. Whereas, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has proved the role played by the appellants in commission of offences by examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and by marking Exs. P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1 cash of Rs.4000/-. The trial Court gave specific findings in the impugned judgment and it does not require interference by this Court. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the criminal appeal.

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, P.W.2 turned hostile. There is serious contradictions with regard to panchanama and seizure etc. in the depositions of P.W.2. He also turned hostile to some extent. Basing on the confession statement of A.1, the police have charged A.2 which is contrary to the Section 30 of the Indian Evi