HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1544 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused challenging the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.11 of 2005, dated 13.12.2010, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a case—RC No. 03(A)/2005—was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Sri G. Devadanam, Telephone Mechanic (Accused Officer, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant), on 16.2.2005, based on a written complaint (Ex.P2) lodged by PW.1 on the same day. In his complaint, PW.1 alleged that the Appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- for providing a CCB PT connection at Amzad Cycle Tela/Taxi, A-Power House, Ramgundam.

3. The complaint was received by PW.8/Police Inspector, CBI on 16.2.2005 at 1:30 PM at Jyoti Bhawan Guest House, NTPC, Ramagundam. After verifying the complaint, it was faxed to the SP, CBI at 2:10 PM, and PW.9 was directed to register the case.

PW.8 was instructed to proceed with further investigation.

4. On 16.2.2005, PW.8 – Trap Laying Officer summoned two independent witnesses to act as mediators—PW.2 and another witness, Sri Shankaraiah (not examined). They were introduced to PW.1, and Ex.P2 was shown to them. Subsequently, PW.8 recorded the pre-trap proceedings in the First Mediators Report (Ex.P3) on 16.2.2005. The trap organized by PW.8 was successful, and the Appellant was caught red-handed when he demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from PW.1 near Ashok Engineering Workshop on 16.2.2005. Both hand washes of the Appellant were collected, and when subjected to a chemical test, they yielded a positive result. The tainted bribe amount was seized from the T-shirt pocket of the Appellant.

5. The investigation prima facie revealed that the appellant had demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from PW.1 in exchange for the official favour of providing a CCB PT connection. Following this, after obtaining the sanction from PW.7 – Dy. General Manager to prosecute the Appellant, a charge sheet was filed against him for offenses punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. First, it must be determined whether the prosecution has proven the demand and acceptance on the date of the trap beyond reasonable doubt.

6.1. According to PW.1, on the trap date, he and PW.2 both went on a scooter, while the remaining trap party members arrived in a Sumo at the appellant’s workplace. The Sumo was stopped at the power house, approximately 100 yards from the telephone exchange at Ramagundam. PW.1 stated that they stopped their scooter at the telephone exchange, which belonged to PW.2. PW.1 and PW.2 then entered the telephone exchange, where PW.1 called the appellant by his name. The appellant came out of the telephone exchange, took his scooter, and PW.1 sat on the back. The appellant then took him to the centre of Ramagundam, with PW.2 following them on his scooter and the trap party following in the Sumo.

6.2. PW.1 stated that the appellant stopped his scooter at Ashok Engineer Works, where PW.2 and the CBI team also stopped at a distance. PW.1 stated that at this point, the appellant asked him whether he had brought the amount. PW.1 then handed over the amount to the appellant, who took it with his left hand, counted it with both hands, and placed it in his left T-shirt pocket. PW.1 further stated that the appellant told him that the connection would be provided the next day. However, during cross- examination, PW.1 stated that on the date of the trap, the appellant had taken him on his scooter to the location for providing the telephone connection. This contradicts the claim that the appellant was taking him to a secret location specifically for collecting the bribe. Moreover, the location where the bribe was al