THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1545 of 2004 BETWEEEN: State: Dy.Supdt. of Police. … Appellant AND 1. P.Ch.Satyanarayana, Works Inspector, (Died) & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1545 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The 1st respondent/A1 was working as Works Inspector in Mandal Development Office, Gummalakshmipuram of Vizianagaram District. The 2nd respondent/A2 was working as Mandal Development Officer of Gummalakshmipuram Mandal. By the judgment dated 04.02.2004 in CC.No.41 of 2000 (old CC.No.19 of 1995), the Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam, acquitted A1 and A2 of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). Questioning the said acquittal, the State filed this appeal. 2. After filing of this appeal, A1/1st respondent died and the appeal stood abated insofar as A1 is concerned. Now, the appeal is heard insofar as A2/2nd respondent is concerned. 3. PW3 was Sarpanch of Beerupadu Gram Panchayat in Gummalakshmipuram Mandal. Work worth Rs.60,000/- relating to Dabbalaguda Check Dam under Jawahar Rozgar Yozana was entrusted to the Sarpanch/PW3. Under the said work, part payment was made by A2 and balance payment of nearly R.30,000/- was due. According to the prosecution, PW3 entrusted the said Check Dam Work to PW1 by executing Ex.P9 agreement. Originally, Ex.P1 cheque was given by A2 to PW3 for Rs.13,500/- on 06.11.1993. When it was presented, PW6, who is working in District Treasury Office, Vizianagaram, informed that the said amount was not available and that only Rs.10,000/- was available in that account. Therefore, Ex.P1 cheque was corrected from Rs.13,500/- to Rs.10,000/-. When it is presented for the second time, PW6 informed that by the time of second presentation, there was only Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, again the accused were approached in connection with the said payment. According to the prosecution, PWs 1 and 3 together were going ad meeting the accused. It is alleged that originally, A1 demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for A2 signing the cheque and that while issuing Ex.P1 cheque for Rs.13,500/-, A1 instructed PWs 1 and 3 to pay Rs.5,000/- after encashment of the said cheque on 11.11.1993. It is further alleged that after issuing the second cheque for Rs.5,000/- on 12.11.1993, A1 reduced bribe amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/- and threatened with not issuing further cheques for balance amount in case the demanded bribe amount was not paid. Thereupon, PW1 approached PW7, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Vizianagaram and gave Ex.P2 report on 11.11.1993. PW7 arranged trap for the accused on 12.11.1993 in the presence of mediators including PW2. Ex.P4 pre-trap proceedings were prepared before proceeding for the trap. It is alleged that PWs 1 and 3 met A1 and A2 at Vijayalaxmi Wine shop located in bus-stand at Kurupam village of Gummalakshmipuram Mandal and gave the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to A1. Prior to payment of the said bribe amount, PW1 was having only Rs.500/- with him. The said amount was tainted with phenolphthalein powder during pre-trap proceedings. Subsequently, PWs 1 and 3 went to Sub-Treasury office, Kurupam and encashed the cheque for Rs.5,000/- and out of the said amount, PW1 separated Rs.1,500/- and added the same to the tainted amount of Rs.500/- in order to make the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/-. It is alleged that when Rs.2,000/- was paid by PW1, A1 separated Rs.800/- out of it and kept the same in his pocket and kept the remaining sum of Rs.1,200/- in dickey of the scooter which was parked in front of the wine shop. When PW1 gave pre- arranged signal to the raid party, PWs 2 and 7 and others rushed there and conducted the formalities of testing hands of both the accused in Sodium Carbonate solution and arresting both the accused. Plea of A2 is one of not guilty. 4. During trial in the lower Court, PW1 supported the entire prosecution case. A1 as Works Inspector was in-charge of processing the file for issue of cheques under Jawahar Rozgar Yozana and A2 was signing the cheques in his capacity as Mandal Development Officer. In the entire evidence of PW1, there is no averment to the effect that A2 demanded any bribe amount from him. As per evidence of PW1, it was only A1, who demanded bribe amount saying that it was required for himself and also for A2. At no point of time, either on 06.11.1993, 08.11.1993, 11.11.1993 and 12.11.1993, A2 made any demand for bribe from A1. On all the occasion, it was A1, who is stated to have demanded PW1 for the respective bribe amounts. 5. Even with regard to payment of bribe amount including MO.8 tainted cash of Rs.500/-, it was made to A1 only and not to A2, even though A2 was physically present in the wine shop where the trap was laid. No part of the bribe amount was found with A2 and A2’s hand-fingers rinsed in Sodium Carbonate solution did not turn pink. 6. PW3, who is the Sarpanch, turned hostile to the prosecution totally. He says that he did not entrust the work of Dabbalaguda Check Dam to PW1. He denied execution of Ex.P9 agreement for execution of the said work in favour of PW1. Ex.P1 cheque as well as the other cheque were issued only in the name of PW3 and not in the name of PW1. PW3 denied having accompanied PW1 to the accused or to Vijayalaxmi wine shop of Kurupam. PW3 totally denied any connection for him with PW1 with regard to the work of Dabbalaguda Check Dam. It is for PW3 to plead that there was official favour pending with A1 and A2. Insofar as PW1 is concerned, there was no official favour pending with A1 and A2. Unless Ex.P9 agreement inter se between PW1 and PW3 is proved, the question of PW1 coming into the picture does not arise at all. PW3 denied his thumb impression in Ex.P9 agreement. When Ex.P9 agreement is not proved by the prosecution, PW1 has no legs to enter into the picture at all. The person who has got official favour pending with the accused, namely PW3, did not speak anything against the accused. Further, as pointed out earlier, there is absolutely no allegation that A2 demanded any bribe from anybody and that A2 either received or accepted any bribe amount from anybody. No tainted amount was recovered from A2’s possession. In the absence of any of the said incriminating ingredients, I find that this appeal lacks substance. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:21.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1545 of 2004 DATED:22.06.2011 ysk