IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.283 of 2004 DATE: 21st March, 2011 Between: G.Subash Girji …… Petitioner A n d State – rep. by D.S.P, ACB, City Range-II ...Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.283 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The appellant/accused was working as clerk (Brodma operator) in medical records section of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad during the relevant time. The Principal Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Hyderabad in C.C.No.13 of 1994 by judgment dated 27.01.2004 convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced on each count separately to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.100/-. 2. One Sriramulu died while working in Ampro Biscuit Factory, Uppal, Hyderabad on 09.04.1992 while taking treatment in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. When his wife Narsamma obtained death certificate of her deceased husband and approached the biscuit factory management for provident fund amount etc., it appears that name of her husband was wrongly written in the death certificate as Sriramu instead of Sriramulu. When she was advised to get revised death certificate with corrected name of her husband, she being an uneducated person approached P.W-1 for doing necessary work. According to P.W-1, Narsamma is his sister by courtesy, as per contents of Ex.P-1 report. According to the accused, P.W-1 is a ‘Pairavykar’ in Osmania General Hospital. Now-a-days, the work of ‘Pairavy’ is being termed as liaison work. When P.W-1 is stated to have approached the Municipal Corporation authorities for giving death certificate with corrected name of the deceased, P.W-1 was advised to get name of the deceased corrected in the death intimation sent by Osmania General Hospital authorities. P.W-4 is the then Health Assistant- cum-Sub-Registrar for ward No.15, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. P.W-4 gives the procedure as to how death will be registered in case the deceased died in a hospital. It is his evidence that P.W-1 asked him to mention the name of the deceased as Sriramulu and also to mention his father’s name, he asked P.W- 1 to get the correction as requested by him from Osmania General Hospital. Thereupon, P.W-1 went to Osmania General Hospital and approached the accused for the necessary certificate in that regard. P.W-5 worked as medical records technician in Osmania General Hospital during that time. He says that on 11.06.1992 he was entrusted with duties of medical records officer and that during that time, the accused who was Brodma printing machine operator was also attending to O.P. (out patient) from 8.30 to 10.30 A.M and that after coming from O.P section, the accused was attending in death registration section. Therefore, P.W-1 approached the accused for the necessary certificate relating to corrected name of Sriramulu. P.W-5 in cross-examination deposed that medical record clerk issues death certificates and he alone has to make necessary corrections, if any and that the accused was not the medical record clerk during that time. He did not say as to who was the medical record clerk during that period. As per his examination- in-chief, the accused was attending in death registration section after completing the work in O.P. section every day. Though the accused was basically Brodma Printing machine operator, he was doing multifarious activities including death registration work in Medical Records section. 3. It is the prosecution case and also evidence of P.W-1 that when he met the accused who is record section clerk of Osmania General Hospital and submitted a letter, the accused told him that an affidavit was required to be filed by any of the relatives of the deceased duly attested by notary, and that he (P.W-1) submitted affidavit signed by Balayya who is related as brother by courtesy and that the accused told him that the said affidavit was not sufficient and it should be submitted by a legal heir of the deceased, and that therefore he (P.W-1) got the affidavit signed by Narsamma and handed over the same to the accused and that the accused again stated that it was also not sufficient and told him to get the corrected name from the biscuit company, and that he (P.W-1) got the certificate issued from biscuit company and handed over the same to the accused and that again the accused told him that it was not sufficient and he should bring certificate attested by two gazetted officers. It is further evidence of P.W-1 that when he told the accused that it was not good on his part to make him so many trips, the accused stated that the papers are sufficient and he would make and issue the correction certificate and asked P.W-1 to approach him on 01.06.1992 and that when he approached the accused on 01.06.1992, the accused asked P.W-1 to come on 04.06.1992, and that when P.W-1 went to the accused on 04.06.1992 the accused asked P.W-2 to come on 08.06.1992 and that because of other reasons P.W-1 approached the accused on 11.06.1992 when the accused told him that the file was not traced out and asked him to come on 15.06.1992, so that he would issue certificate after getting it corrected and asked P.W-1 for a bribe of Rs.100/- to be brought on the next date. In that state of affairs, P.W-1 approached P.W-8 who was the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Range-2 in Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Hyderabad and gave Ex.P-1 report to him on 15.06.1992. On the same day, P.W-8 arranged trap for the accused. P.W-1 deposed that after pre-trap proceedings in the office of P.W-8, they left that office by 12.30 P.M. P.Ws 2 and 6 who were working as Superintendent and senior assistant respectively in the office of Chief Engineer, Sriram Sagar project at Hyderabad functioned as mediators for Ex.P-6 pre-trap proceedings prepared in the office of P.W-8 and also in Ex.P-7 post-trap proceedings. Though P.Ws 2 and 6 supported the prosecution version contained in Exs.P-6 and P-7, P.W-2 stated that Ex.P-7 was drafted subsequently and not simultaneously in Osmania General Hospital when the events were happening. Even though there were two mediators, none of them was sent as accompanying witness with P.W-1 when he approached the accused on the date of trap. 4. After reaching the hospital, P.W-1 alone went inside the room of the accused and the remaining trap party remained outside the building in the compound of the hospital where the vehicles were parked. It is evidence of P.W-1 that on seeing him, the accused asked him to wait for some time and that after some time the accused went to some other office in Osmania General Hospital premises and he also followed the accused and enquired him as to what happened to his certificate and that the accused replied that he was busy on that day and asked him to come on the next day and that when he requested the accused to give the certificate on the same day and when he informed the accused that he also brought demanded bribe amount, the accused asked him to come after some time. He further says that then they went to the room of R.M.O to find out whether R.M.O was there or not and came back and that the accused asked him to get case sheet of the deceased by paying some money in the concerned section. P.W-1 says that accordingly he brought the case sheet and gave the same to the accused and that thereafter the accused asked him to give the money and that then he gave the same to the accused and that the accused kept the tainted cash in the back pocket of his pant and that after some time the accused came out and was trying to obtain change in the hospital premises and in the meanwhile he (P.W-1) went out and gave pre-arranged signal to the raid party by 2.50 P.M and that the trap party came inside. In cross- examination P.W-1 deposed that he and Narsamma went to Osmania Hospital and gave Ex.P-5 in the hospital. According to P.W-1, he gave Ex.P-5 in Osmania General Hospital on the next day of the Municipal Corporation authorities asking him to get corrected name of the deceased from that hospital. P.W-1 says that he gave Ex.P-5 to the accused on his second visit to Osmania Hospital and that one week thereafter he gave affidavit of Balayya to the accused and that the accused gave format of the affidavit and that about three days thereafter he gave affidavit of Narsamma to the accused and that three days thereafter certificate issued by the company of the deceased was given to the accused. It is contended that even though P.W-1 gave several dates and trips for the documents, all the documents Exs.P-2 to P-5 given by P.W-1 to the accused contain the same date 29.05.1992. Ex.P-3 is affidavit of Narsamma. It was attested on 29.05.1992. Ex.P-4 is certificate of Ampro Industries Private Limited and it is dated 29.05.1992. Ex.P-5 is the requisition given by Narsamma to the Superintendent of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and it is also dated 29.05.1992. Therefore, it is contended that P.W-1 was not giving correct version. 5. It is contended by the senior counsel for the appellant that P.W.1’s evidence that the accused was demanding one paper or the other on every date when P.W.1 was approaching him and he was providing the said paper to him, is not correct as Exs. P2 to P5 bear the same date as 29-05-1992. It is also contended that since P.W.1 is not a truthful witness, the lower Court should have expected corroboration for his evidence. As pointed out earlier, there was no accompanying witness or shadow witness for P.W.1 at the time of the alleged demand of bribe and acceptance of the same by the accused. It is further contended that on 15-06-1992, in spite of there being no demand by the accused, P.W.1 had voluntarily given tainted cash of Rs.100/- covered by M.O.1 to the accused. It is pointed that during Pre- trap Proceedings, P.W.8 specifically instructed P.W.1 to pay M.O.1-cash to the accused only after the accused demanded for the same. 6. Even though P.W.1 could not substantiate the version of the accused making him to approach him on several days in spite of he providing the documents one by one to the accused as per his dictation, in my opinion, the said circumstance alone cannot be taken to dub P.W.1 as untruthful witness. The grain has to be separated from the chaff. The evidence of P.W.1 about he meeting the accused on 01-06-1992, 04-06-1992, 08-06-1992 and 11-06-1992 may not assume much importance. It is only on 11-06-1992, the accused is stated to have demanded P.W.1 for the first time for the bribe of Rs.100/- assuring him that he would give the certificate on the next date of meeting. Therefore, P.W.1 met the ACB officials on 15-06-1992 and gave report. Even on 15-06-1992, P.W.1 did not either hand over M.O.1-Cash to the accused voluntarily or did not thrust the same into the pocket of the accused. No doubt, after meeting the accused, P.W.1 himself disclosed about he bringing the demanded illegal gratification of Rs.100/- on that day. It is contended that in spite of disclosing the same to the accused, the accused did not readily obtain the same from P.W.1. Even though P.W.1 approached the accused on 15-06-1992 at 12:50 P.M, the pre-arranged signal could be given only at about 2:45 P.M, when the ACB officials nabbed the accused along with tainted cash. It took nearly two hours for the accused to come into the trap. From the said delay, it is contended that it was not the accused who showed interest in receiving the illegal gratification, but it was P.W.1 who pursued and made the accused to receive the same. As pointed out earlier, it is evidence of P.W.1 that even though P.W.1 disclosed about he bringing the demanded illegal gratification of Rs.100/-, the accused asked him to wait for some time. After going here and there and after P.W.1 bringing the case sheet from the section, it is evidence of P.W.1 that the accused asked him to give the money and there upon he gave the same to the accused and the accused kept the tainted cash in the back pocket of the pant. Therefore, it cannot be said that P.W.1 volunteered to pay M.O.1-tainted cash to the accused. Before the raid party came into the hospital building from the vantage position after P.W.1 gave pre-arranged signal to the raid party, the accused obtained change for one currency note of Rs.50/- out of M.O.1-tainted cash from P.W.3 who is the Junior Assistant in the Office of Lay Secretary in that Hospital. P.W.3 says that on 15-06-1992, the accused came to his office room and gave Rs.50/- currency note and asked for change and that at that time he was disbursing the salaries to the employees and that he took Rs.50/- currency note from the accused and gave five currency notes of Rs.10/- each to him. Even though 100 to 150 employees approach him in his cash counter, P.W.3 could remember the instance of the accused obtaining change for currency note of Rs.50/- from him on 15-06-1992, because ACB officials came to him on that day and traced the currency note of Rs.50/- from his cash counter and obtained the same from him after returning five currency notes of Rs.10/- each to P.W.3. When the raid party consisting of P.Ws.2, 6 and 8 approached the accused, the accused gave back one tainted currency note of Rs.50/- and five currency notes of Rs.10/- to them, stating that he obtained change for one of the two tainted currency notes of Rs.50/. It is only thereafter P.W.8 went to P.W.3 and obtained the other tainted currency note from P.W.3 after paying its value. Therefore, having regard to the above evidence on record, this Court has no hesitation to accept the finding of the lower Court about the accused demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.100/- from P.W.1 for doing official favour of issuing certificate with correct name of the deceased Sriramulu. 7. It is contended by the senior counsel that the amount of Rs.100/- received by the accused from P.W.1 is trivial amount and that therefore presumption under Section 20 of the Act may not be drawn in this case. Reliance is placed on A.SUBAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA[1] of the Supreme Court on this aspect. It was a case where the illegal gratification involved therein was only Rs.25/- in the year 1989. The Supreme Court observed that the alleged demand was Rs.25/- only and therefore the High Court was not justified in drawing presumption under Section 20 of the Act and holding that the offence under Section 7 of the Act was proved. No doubt, for certain persons an amount of Rs.100/- may be trivial in these days, but whether the amount is trivial or not has to be judged with reference to the facts of that particular case. The bribe involved in the present case is Rs.100/- in the year 1992. The said amount was demanded from a person whose husband died while taking treatment in a Government General Hospital. For family of a person who was only a worker in a private biscuit factory, the amount of Rs.100/- during the year 1992 cannot be said to be trivial amount. The said amount also cannot be compared to its present value in the year 2011. In any event, this Court is not banking on the presumption under Section 20 of the Act to come to a conclusion against the accused. This Court, from the evidence of P.W.1, is satisfied that there was demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.100/- by the accused from P.W.1. 8. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I have no hesitation to accept finding of guilt recorded by the lower Court. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 21st March, 2011 Ksh / Ksm [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 587