HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.707 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused officer against the judgment dated 24.07.2003 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.2 of 1999, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(i)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offences under each count. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant P.W.1 is the Director of M/s. Sanghi Polysters and its Administrative Office is in Bank Street at Koti, Hyderabad. On 21.09.1996 Ex.P.1 demand notice was issued to M/s. Sanghi Polysters for payment of Rs.10,67,129.55 ps towards textile committee cess through the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, under Section 25 of the A.P. Revenue Recoveries Act. On 05.10.1996 M/s. Sanghi Polysters paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the Assistant Textile Officer. On 23.10.1996 M/s. Sanghi Polysters received a letter from the Assistant Textile Officer demanding to pay Rs.8,42,117/-. On the same day, the accused officer namely A. Sharat Chandra Reddy who was working as the Deputy Tahsildar in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad, collected Rs.7,42,117/- through cheques including Rs.74,212/- towards administrative charges. On 26.10.1996 evening the accused officer and one Ramarao, the Revenue Inspector, met P.W.1 and informed him that they helped him to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- by not collecting the administrative charges and demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/-. When P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay bribe, they threatened him to attach his property. On 28.10.1996 the accused officer again came to P.W.1 and demanded to pay at least Rs.25,000/- for not harassing in future and also for not collecting administrative charges and finally reduced the bribe to Rs.15,000/-. As P.W.1 was not willing to pay bribe, he gave Ex.P.3 complaint to P.W.7, D.S.P., A.C.B., on 29.10.1996. Having received the complaint, P.W.7 registered crime No.24/ACB-CR/96 against the accused officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(i) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Act and thereafter P.W.7 organized a trap on 29.10.1996 which proved successful and the tainted currency notes were recovered and the phenolphthalein test conducted on both the hands of the accused officer gave positive result. After completion of investigation and receipt of necessary reports, P.W.8-the Inspector of Police, A.C.B., City Range-II, Hyderabad, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 11 and 13(i)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act. The learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7, 13(i)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act against the accused officer, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused officer, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined but Ex.D.1 was marked. 4. When he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused officer filed a written statement contending that while he was working as the Deputy Tahsildar in Collectorate, Hyderabad, during the year 1995, he was Incharge of demolition squad. As per the orders of the District Collector, he had removed the illegal encroachment of Government land by P.W.1 on 30.05.1995 by using police force inspite of P.W.1 resisting and threatening him with dire consequences and warned him that he would not rest till he takes revenge against him and the District Collector and the same was also published in Eenadu daily newspaper on 31.05.1995. Even after removal of the encroachment, P.W.1 again illegally started construction by raising structures on the Government land within a week of demolition andthose structures also were demolished again by him as per the orders of the District Collector. Later on, he was transferred and posted as the Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Musheerabad Mandal, and he was Incharge of recoveries of Government dues under Revenue Recoveries Act and that P.W.1 was a defaulter to a tune of Rs.11 lakh to the textile committee, Coimbatore, and accordingly, he recovered the entire dues from M/s. Sanghi Industries by resorting to coercive process by attachment of its properties situated at Koti, Hyderabad. Thereby, P.W.1 nurtured ill will and bore grudge against him and was waiting for an opportunity to cause harm to him. and implicated him in this false case. He discharged his duties without fear or favour as per the orders of his superiors and in recognition of his good work done in saving the Government lands worth about Rs.100 crores in Hyderabad, the District Collector awarded him incentive of Rs.5,000/- on the Republic Day i.e. on 26.01.1996 and the Joint Collector too gave him a certificate in recognition of his service. Therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. 5. P.W.1 is the complainant. P.W.2 is the General Manager in M/s. Sanghi Polysters. P.W.3 is the mediator for the trap organized against the accused officer. P.W.4 worked as the Special Revenue Inspector in the Mandal Revenue Office, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, during the relevant time. P.W.5 is the Section Officer in Revenue Department who spoke about the Government according sanction for prosecution of the accused officer. P.W.6 worked as the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad Mandal. P.W.7 is the D.S.P. who laid trap. P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police, A.C.B., City Range-II, Hyderabad, who investigated the case and laid charge sheet. 6. In his evidence P.W.1 deposed that Ex.P.1 demand notice dated 20.09.1996 was issued to them by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad, for payment of cess to a tune of Rs.10,67,129.55 ps under Section 25 of the A.P. Revenue Recoveries Act and on 04.10.1996 they paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh in favour of the Assistant Inspecting Officer, Textile Committee, through a demand draft. While so, on 23.10.1996 the accused officer came to their office and demanded to pay the balance of tax and on that day they paid the total amount due through four cheques. After receiving the four cheques, the accused officer left their office. On 26.10.1996 the accused officer came back to their office and stated that administrative charges have to be paid on a sum of Rs.10,67,129.55 ps and he saved them Rs.1 lakh by collecting the administrative charges only on Rs.8,42,117/- and so saying he demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe and threatened him to attach their properties. On 28.10.1996 again the accused officer came to their office and demanded to pay Rs.25,000/- and when he told that he need not pay any bribe, the accused officer finally asked him to pay at least Rs.15,000/- as bribe. As he was not willing to pay the said amount, he approached P.W.7 and gave Ex.P.3 complaint against the accused officer. Subsequently, P.W.7 organized a trap on 29.10.1996 which proved successful. 7. According to P.W.2, on 21.09.1996 a notice was served on them by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad, as in Ex.P.1 demanding to pay Rs.10,67,129/- as cess. After two days, the accused officer along with some other officers came to their office and threatened that he would attach their properties. On that, they issued three cheques for Rs.7,42,117/- towards cess in favour of the Textile Committee and one cheque for Rs.74,212/- towards administrative charges in favour of the District Collector. On 26.10.1996 the accused officer came and demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe saying that he showed favour by not collecting 10% on total cess towards administrative charges. On 29.10.1996 the accused again met P.W.1 and demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- and on that day he was trapped by the A.C.B. officials. 8. P.W.3 mediator deposed with regard to the trap conducted by the A.C.B. officials and recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused officer. P.W.4 deposed that on the instructions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, himself and two others accompanied the accused officer for collection of revenue from M/s. Sanghi Polysters on 23.10.1996 and 29.10.1996 and that on 29.10.1996 he came to know that the accused officer was trapped by the A.C.B. officials. 9. The evidence of P.W.6 is that previously he worked as the M.R.O., Musheerabad and a notice was issued on 21.08.1996 with instructions to serve the same on M/s. Sanghi Polysters for payment of cess of Rs.10,67,129/- due to the Government and the same was served on the said company by the Special Revenue Inspector. Since the company has not paid the cess, another notice in Ex.P.1 was also issued to the company on 20.09.1996. After one month, the accused officer was asked to attach the property of the company for non payment of the cess and later the accused officer has collected cheques from the company and sent them to the Collector, Hyderabad District. The cheques were given on 23.10.1996. It is his further evidence that the accused officer cannot approach the company after 23.10.1996 for any official purpose. 10. After evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused officer as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, he filed this Criminal Appeal. 11. Heard both sides. 12. Now, the points for consideration are: i. Whether the appellant-accused officer made any demand of bribe? ii. Whether the prosecution proved receipt of such amount? iii. Whether any valid reasons for such demand made by the appellant exist at the time of the demand? POINTS 1 TO 3: 13. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for favouring P.W.1 by way of not collecting 10% of administrative charges on the total cess amount. Admittedly, the cess amount payable by the company amounting to Rs.10,67,129/-. It is also the case of the prosecution that due to the efforts taken by the appellant, apart from the amount of Rs.1 lakh paid by P.W.1 to the Textile Committee, he paid a sum of Rs.7,42,117/- through cheques including Rs.74,212/- towards the administrative charges. The administrative charges as per the case of the prosecution is 10% on the amount recovered by the authorities. In the present case, even admitting that the cess amount is Rs.10,67,129/-, P.W.1 already paid Rs.7,42,117/- to the accused officer by way of cheques and also a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the Textile Committee. It is evident that the remaining cess amount would be Rs.2,25,012/-. When the cess amount yet to be collected by the appellant would come to Rs.2,25,012/-, the administrative charges of 10% on the said amount would be only Rs.22,501/-. Whereas it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant first demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and then reduced the same to Rs.25,000/- and further reduced the same to Rs.15,000/-. The said fact clearly indicates that at the time of making demand by the appellant, the amount to be paid by P.W.1 complainant towards administrative charges is Rs.22,501/-. Then, the question of demand of Rs.50,000/- for showing favour to P.W.1 and reducing the same to Rs.15,000/- is highly unbelievable and improbable. Further, P.W.1 admitted in cross examination as follows: “I did not inform the factory at Hayathnagar that the revenue people may come to attach the properties since we have already paid the amount and no attachment can be affected.” It clearly shows that when P.W.1 is fully aware of the fact that he has paid the entire amount, the question of any attachment by the appellant herein does not arise. In such a situation, the complaint lodged by P.W.1 that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe and reduced the same to Rs.15,000/- shows that with an ulterior motive he lodged the said complaint. If it is the case of P.W.1 that he is not bound to pay any amount, the question of giving bribe does not arise in this case. 14. Further, in the present case, when the trap was conducted by P.W.7, except P.W.1 and the appellant, nobody was inside the room. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the happenings in the room can be witnessed by the mediators or other witnesses. On the said background, the explanation given by the appellant that the amount of Rs.15,000/- was inserted by P.W.1 cannot be ruled out and P.W.3 mediator also stated in cross examination that the appellant spontaneously informed the officials that he has not demanded any bribe. In the present case, if the appellant intends to receive any bribe, there is nothing to suggest that what necessitates the appellant to take three of his office staff to the premises of P.W.1. The explanation given by the appellant is convincing and highly probable. Even though it is the case of the prosecution that prior to 29.10.1996 the appellant along with one Ramarao visited P.W.1 and demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/-, in support of the same the prosecution has not filed any visitors slip before the Court, which clearly shows that the complainant P.W.1 with an ill motive planned to trap and punish an officer who exercised his duty as per the orders of his higher officials. 15. It is the case of the appellant that in an earlier occasion he was Incharge of demolition squad during the year 1995 and demolished the unauthorized constructions in the Government lands in Hyderabad and as per the orders of the District Collector he has also demolished a construction in Road No.12 Banjara Hills and P.W.1 was in illegal occupation of the same and further the said fact was accepted by the M.R.O. and also the action of the appellant was appreciated by the then District Collector and he was rewarded with a cash prize of Rs.5,000/- and also an appreciation certificate. 16. Though P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that on 29.10.1996 the appellant met P.W.1 and demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, in cross examination he has categorically stated that he did not go into the cabin of P.W.1 when the appellant met P.W.1. So, there is no chance for P.W.2 to know as to what happened in the cabin of P.W.1. More over, in absence of any official favour to be shown to P.W.1 and P.W.1 was not having any expectation of any official favour from the appellant, the said demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant from the complainant is highly improbable and unbelievable. 17. In Banarsi Das Vs. State of Haryana[1], the Apex Court held that mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough, in absence of substantive evidence for demand and acceptance and that when the prosecution is not able to establish charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 18. The facts and circumstances of the above case squarely applies to the case on hand since there is no other evidence except the evidence of P.W.1 on the aspect of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. On placing reliance on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences with which he was charged cannot be sustained in law. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused officer by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.2 of 1999, by judgment dated 24.07.2003, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant- accused officer is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to him. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 30th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.707 of 2003 30th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.707 of 2003 Dated:30-12-2010 BETWEEN: A.Sharath Chandra Reddy … Appellant/ Accused AND The State, A.C.B., City Range, Hyderabad. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: [1] (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450