JUDGMENT:
Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short, 'the trial Court'), in C.C.No.7 of 2002, dated 13.09.2006, appellants/Accused-Officer No.1 (for short, 'A.O.1') and Accused-Officer No.2 (for short A.O.2.') preferred the present appeal.
Both the appellants were tried by the trial Court under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') r/w Section 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted both the appellants and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (01) year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each under two counts. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Brief facts enumerated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses is as follows :
(i) A.O.1 was working as Revenue Inspector-VI and A.O.2 was working as Bill Collector in Vijayawada Municipal
2
KSR, J.
Crl.A.No.1345_2006
2
Corporation, Vijayawada, at the relevant point of time and they are public servants within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act.
(ii) On 16.06.1998, appellants/A.Os.1 & 2 went to the house of P.W.1, who is residing in Door No.23-11/1-29 of Tirumalasettivari Street, Vijayawada and informed him that his house tax is revised to Rs.1,200/- as against the previous tax amount of Rs.572.05 Ps., and demanded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards bribe for not revising the house tax, for which, P.W.1 expressed his inability.
(iii) Again on 17.06.1998, appellants/A.Os.1 & 2 approached P.W.1 and reiterated their earlier demand. On the request of P.W.1, they reduced the bribe amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/- and asked P.W.1 to pay the same on 24.06.1998 at A.K.T.P Municipal High School Bill Collection Centre, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. As P.W.1 was reluctant to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-, he approached Anti- Corruption Bureau (for short 'ACB') officials.
(iv) On 23.06.1998 at about 2.00 pm., P.W.1 approached P.W.6-Inspector, ACB, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, and gave a written report-Ex.P1. Then, P.W.6 informed the same to P.W.7-Dy.S.P, ACB, Vijayawada, who instructed P.W.6 to verify the antecedents of appellants/A.Os.1 & 2 as well as P.W.1. P.W.6
3
KSR, J.
Crl.A.No.1345_2006
3
caused discreet enquiries and made an endorsement on Ex.P1 and submitted the same to P.W.7 on 24.06.1998 at 7.00 am., Having received the same, P.W.7 registered a case In Cr.No.14/ACB- VJA/1998, under Section 7 of the Act. Ex.P13 is the original FIR.
(v) Later, at about 8.00 am., P.W.7 called P.W.1 and introduced him to P.W.4 and another, who are the mediators. On the instructions of P.W.7, P.W.1 produced Rs.1,000/- i.e., 10 Rs.100/- denomination notes, which is intended to pay as bribe to the appellants/A.Os.1 & 2. Thereafter, P.W.7 prepared pre-trap proceedings, which is marked as Ex.P6.
(vi) Later, on the same day, at about 9.45 am., the trap laying party along with P.W.1 went to Municipal Park, S.N.Puram, Vijayawada, and as per the instructions of P.W.7, P.W.1 proceeded to Tax Collection Centre, and wished A.Os.1 & 2. Both of them, enquired P.W.1 whether he has brought the amount demanded by them. Then, P.W.1 handed over the tainted currency to A.O.2. Thereafter, P.W.1 came out and relayed pre-arranged signal to the trap laying party. Immediately, P.W.7 along with P.W.4 and others went to A.Os.1 & 2 and introduced themselves. On the instructions of P.W.7, phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the accused. Test conducted on A.O.1 proved 'Negative' and test conducted on A.O.2 proved 'Positive'. Thereafter, A.O.2 produced the tainted
4
KSR, J.
Crl.A.No.1345_2006
4
currency and they verified the denomination as per Ex.P6-Pre-trap proceedings. P.W.7 prepared Ex.P8-Post-trap proceedings. In Ex.P8, A.O.2 stated that he received tainted currency from P.W.1. After completion of investigation and after obtaining necessary sanction, the successor of P.W.6 laid charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P13 apart from marking M.Os.1 to 7.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A.Os.1 & 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence against them. A.Os.1 & 2 denied the evidence. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defence.
6. Learned Special Judge having considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced both of them, as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, both of them have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
7. Heard Sri A.Hariprasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/A.Os.1 & 2 and Smt.A.Gayatri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for A.C.B.
5
KSR, J.
Crl.A.No.1345_2006
5
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/A.Os.1 & 2 strenuously argued that the prosecution is not able to prove demand on the part of the appellants. He further contended that the appellants never demanded bribe from P.W.1. P.W.1 in his evidence categorically stated that on 16.06.1998 two officials from Vijayawada Municipal Corporation visited his house and informed his wife that the house tax is going to be revised and they have to pay revised tax of Rs.1,200/- approximately. Similarly, on the next day also i.e., on 17.06.1998, they have informed about the same to his wife. As such, on 18.06.1998, P.W.1 went to Tax Collection Centre and met one Kondala Rao, who is an outsider, who enquired about the purpose of his visit. The said Kondala Rao informed P.W.1 that if he pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to him, he will manage the concerned municipal officials. After negotiations with the said Kondala Rao, the amount was reduced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/- As such, learned counsel submitted that there was no demand on the part of both the appellants and the demand was made by one Kondala Rao, who is an outsider and the learned counsel for the appellants/A.Os.1 & 2 pleaded for extending benefit of doubt to them.
9. This Court has gone through the entire evidence on record. As seen from the record, P.W.1 was declared hostile by the prosecution and he did not support the prosecution. It is only to
6
KSR, J.
Crl.A.No.1345_2006
6
help the appellants, P.W.1 changed his earlier version and introduced one Kondala Rao, who is an outsider. If really the demand was made by the said Kondala Rao, P.W.1 ought not to have given report against both the appellants.
10. The learned counsel further contended that as the prosecution is not able to prove either demand or acceptance on the part of the appellant/A.O.1, he is entitled for acquittal. More particularly, in a trap case, the prosecution has to prove demand as well as acceptance. As seen from the record, the evidence of P.Ws.4, 6 & 7 is crystal clear that A.O.2 accepted the bribe and phenolphthalein test conducted on him, proved 'Positive' and phenolphthalein test conducted on A.O.1, proved 'Negative'. Moreover, P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution. In such circumstances, as the prosecution is not able to prove either demand or acceptance on the part of A.O.1, he is entitled for acquittal.
11. So far as A.O.2, is concerned, in Ex.P8-Post-trap proceedings, the explanation recorded from A.O.2, was that he asked P.W.1 whether he brought the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- On that, P.W.1 took out tainted currency and paid it to A.O.2, who received the same with his right hand and kept the same in left upper shirt pocket. The right hand and shirt pocket were subjected to chemical
7
KSR, J.
Crl.A.No.1345_2006
7
test and they proved 'positive'. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove the factum of demand as well as acceptance on the part of A.O.2. Therefore, taking all the aspects and entire material on record into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution is able to prove the factum of demand as well as acceptance on the part of A.O.2, and he is liable to be convicted.
12. In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed in part setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against appellant/A.O.1 by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.8 of 2002, dated 10.10.2006. However, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/A.O.2 by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.8 of 2002, dated 10.10.2006, is hereby confirmed. Fine amount paid by A.O.1 shall be refunded, while maintaining the fine amount of A.O.2. Bail bonds of A.O.1 shall stand cancelled.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
___________________
K.SURESH REDDY, J.
24thday of February,2022.
RPD
8
KSR, J.
Crl.A.No.1345_2006
8
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1345 of 2006
DATED : 24.02.2022
RPD
9