R.Bal Reddy vs State Of A.P.

Criminal Appeal No.378 of 2010 is preferred by A2 and Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2010 is preferred by A1. A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2009 dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, both the appeals are heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant approached the ACB and filed a complaint. In the said complaint, P.W.1 stated that he was running toddy shop at Malkajgiri and he was also President of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Malkajgiri. He renewed his licence and same was valid from 01.10.1996 to 30.09.2001. It is alleged that A1 who was working as Inspector and A2 as Sub-Inspector at Prohibition and Excise Station, Balanagar demanded Rs.70,000/-for his two shops, in order to not harass him by booking cases which would lead to cancellation of the licence.

It is alleged that on 26.12.2001, both the appellants visited toddy shop of P.W.1 and asked to pay the bribe amount of Rs.70,000/-. However, on repeated requests made by P.W.1, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.40,000/- and on the very same day, Rs.20,000/- was paid. P.W.1 had promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- on 27.12.2001 in the office of accused.

P.W.1 aggrieved by the said persistent demand, approached the ACB and filed telugu written complaint Ex.P1 at 10.30 a.m. Immediately, at 11.30 a.m on the same day, the formalities before laying trap were completed and pre-trap proceedings Ex.P7 was drafted in the presence of the independent mediator/P.W.6 and another and also in the presence of the DSP, Inspector and other trap party members.

Having concluded pre-trap proceedings, the trap party reached office of the appellants at 1.00 p.m. P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant and P.W.2, who is the cousin of P.W.1 who was asked to act as an accompanying witness, both went and met A1. A1 demanded for the bribe amount and asked A2 to collect the said amount. Having handed over the bribe amount, P.Ws.1 and 2 came out and relayed signal to P.W.6 and others who were within the vicinity of the office. Having received the signal, the trap party entered into the room of appellants and questioned A1 regarding the bribe amount. A1 denied having received the bribe amount and the bribe amount was recovered at the instance of A2. Test was conducted on the hands of both A1 and A2. Test on the hands of A1 remained colourless, whereas tests on both the hands of A2 turned positive. The bribe amount was handed over by A2 from his pant pocket. Having tallied the currency note numbers, examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and appellants, post trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P11. After concluding the post trap proceedings, investigation was handed over to the Inspector/P.W.8 by the trap laying officer/P.W.7. After concluding investigation, charge sheet was filed.

The Special Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act and examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 on behalf of the prosecution. Material objects 1 to 8 were also brought on record. The learned Special Judge found that though P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the case of demand of bribe by A1 and A2, however, the circumstances in the case prove that there was demand by A1 and A2 and the recovery from A2 also supported the version of the prosecution. Accordingly, both the appellants were convicted by the Special Judge.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that both P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not support either version of demand or acceptance of bribe. Both the witnesses stated that the said amount of Rs.20,000/- was handed over to A2 requesting him to handover the said amount to Satya Prasad, who was working as Excise Constable in the said office. P.W.1 specifically stated that Satya Prasad approached him in the month of November, 2001 and requested to help him to meet his daughter’s marriage expenditure. P.W.1 further stated that in fact earlier also the said Satya Prasad had taken hand loan of Rs.5,000/- which was returned. Since both P.Ws.1 and 2 have not stated factum of demand, mere recovery from A2 is of no avail to the prosecution. In several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the Judgment of K.Shanthamma v. The State of Telangana 2022(4) SCC 574, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of amount is of no consequence. He also relied on the following judgments; i) State of Kerala and another v. C.P.Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450; ii) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 SCC 371; iii) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v District Inspector of Police and another 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.)(883) (SC); iv) Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam 2013(3) ALT (CRI.)(SC) 316 (D.B); v) B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that both P.Ws.1 and 2 were won over by the appellants. The earlier version under Ex.P1 regarding demand of bribe can be accepted though both the witnesses turned hostile. The said Satya Prasad to whom the money was to be handed over was not examined by the appellants. Accordingly, once the amount is accepted to have been received, the burden shifts on to the appellants to discharge their liability. Since the circumstances in the case point towards the illegal demand made by the appellants, appeals have to be dismissed.

P.Ws.1 and 2 have specifically stated that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was handed over to A2 in order to give it to Satya Prasad, a Constable who was working in the very same office. It is not in dispute that Satya Prasad was working in the office and subsequently even before trial, the said Satya Prasad died, according to the defence version.

The Hon’ble three Judge Bench in the case of P.Satyanarayana Murthy’s case held that if two views are plausible, then benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true. It is further held that mere surmises and conjunctures cannot take place of legal proof.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not in any manner support the case of the prosecution regarding any illegal demand for the purpose of not causing any obstruction to business or to see to that the licence of P.W.1 would be cancelled. The licence was already subsisting and valid till 31.03.2002. The said licence was issued on 01.10.2001. In the said circumstances, when the defacto complainant/P.W.1 has not stated about any demand made by the appellants, the prosecution version regarding the demand of bribe becomes doubtful. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 are self-condemned witnesses. The Court cannot extend any benefit to the prosecution on account of its own witnesses unless the factum of demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of the amount from the possession of A2 is of no consequence and cannot be held to be proof of demand made from P.W.1.

Since the evidence on record fails to prove the demand made by A1 and A2, the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge has to be set aside.

In the result, the judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2009 dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is hereby set aside. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Both the Criminal Appeals are allowed.