THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.961 of 2004 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1408 of 2005 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.961 of 2004 BETWEEEN: V.Venkatratnam … Appellant AND State – rep. By A.C.B. Nizamabad. … Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1408 of 2005 BETWEEEN: State : A.C.B. rep. By Inspector Of Police, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad. … Appellant AND 1.Gulam Qutubuddin Khan & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.961 of 2004 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1408 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: By the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2004, the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad in CC.No.11 of 1994 convicted the 1st accused/A1 of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count separately; and acquitted A2 of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act; and acquitted A3 of the charge under Section 12 of the Act. As against the convictions and sentences, A1 filed Crl.A.No.961 of 2004 and as against acquittal of A2 and A3, the State filed Crl.A.No.1408 of 2005 in this Court. In this judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the trial Court. 2. A1 was working as Junior Assistant in Sub- Registrar’s office, Zaheerabad and A2 was working as Sub- Registrar at Zaheerabad. A3 is a private person said to have been employed by A1 and A2 on daily wages. A3 was a resident of Allipur Village. The de facto complainant/PW1 was a teacher in primary school at Dharmapur Village of Raikot Mandal. He purchased agricultural land of Ac.3.05 guntas at Raikot Village from Murahari Reddy for Rs.11,000/-. It is alleged that PW1 intended to obtain sale deed for the said land in the name of his wife, Lalitha Bai and that on 19.06.1993, he approached A1 to find out details of the stamp duty and registration charges and that A1 calculated the same and informed PW1 by way of a slip showing stamp duty as Rs.1,210/- and registration charges of Rs.151/- and also demanded to pay illegal gratification of Rs.600/- at the rate of Rs.200/- per acre for doing official favour of registering sale deed and that PW2 was accompanying PW1 during that time. On the said allegations, PW1 lodged report Ex.P1 with the officers of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Medak District at Sangareddy on 21.06.1993. PW8, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range arranged trap for the accused on 25.06.1993. It is alleged that the trap was successful and that during the course of trap, A1 received tainted cash of Rs.600/- (MO.1) from PW1 and made six pencil marks on the sale deed presented for registration indicating receipt of bribe amount of Rs.600/- to A2 in pursuance of their conspiracy and that A3 who was running away from the office of Sub Registrar, was caught by ACB officials and MO.1 tainted cash was recovered from his possession. Plea of A1 to A3 is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found A1 alone guilty of the charges and not A2 and A3. 3. In this appeal, the senior counsel appearing for A1/appellant in Crl.A.No.961 of 2004 contended that the lower Court erred in convicting A1, particularly when no tainted cash was seized from his possession and that false case was foisted against A1 because A1 was responsible previously for enhancing stamp duty payable by PW2 when he presented Ex.D1 sale deed for registration and that PW2 in collusion with PW1, got this false case foisted. 4. With regard to demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.600/- by A1 from PW1, there is evidence of PWs 1 and 2. It is evidence of PW1 that PW2 also came along with him to the Sub-Registrar’s office and that he enquired A1 about details with regard to registration fees and stamp duty and that A1 informed him about requirement of stamps worth Rs.1,210/- and registration charges of Rs.510/- and that A1 also demanded Rs.200/- per acre as bribe and further informed that it is not possible to register the land if PW1 did not pay the demanded amount of Rs.600/-. This happened in the Sub-Registrar’s office on 19.06.1993. 5. On 21.06.1993, PWs 1 and 2 went to ACB office at Sangareddy and PW1 gave Ex.P1 written report to the Inspector. On 25.06.1993, Ex.P7, pre–trap proceedings were prepared in the presence of the trap-laying officer, PW8. During pre-trap proceedings, the amount of Rs.1,210/- meant for purchase of stamps, was kept in PW1’s bag; Rs.510/- meant for registration fees, was kept in PW1’s shirt pocket; and tainted cash of Rs.600/- on which phenolphthalein powder was applied, was kept in right side pant pocket of PW1. PWs 1 and 2 along with trap party went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Zaheerabad and PWs 1 and 2 alone entered into the office of the Sub- Registrar, Zaheerabad while others remained at a distance after giving necessary instructions to PWs 1 and 2. 6. On that day, when PWs 1 and 2 approached A1 and again made enquiry with regard to the charges, PW1 gave Ex.P3 slip showing market value for Ac.3.05gts. of land as Rs.11,000/- and stamp duty payable thereon as Rs.1,210/-. Ex.P5 is the earlier slip said to have been given by A1 to PW1 on 19.06.1993 when he made similar enquiries with regard to stamp duty and registration charges with A1. In Exs.P5, market value is given as Rs.11,000/- for Ac.3.05gts @ Rs.3,500/- per acre, stamp duty as Rs.1,210/- and fees as Rs.110/- and Rs.41/- totalling Rs.151/-. It is contended for A1 that when PWs 1 and 2 obtained Ex.P5 slip on the previous occasion, there was no need for PW1 to approach A1 again on 25.06.1993 and to obtain Ex.P3 slip. It appears that Ex.P5 slip was not initialled by A1, whereas Ex.P3 slip was initialled by A1, so that the document writer can incorporate details as to valuation contained in Ex.P3 in the sale deed authoritatively. Ex.P5 was issued when PW1 made casual enquiries and Ex.P3 was given by A1 after PW1 gave details of the land by presenting Ex.P2 annexure. It appears, PW1 gave registration charges as Rs.510/- in his evidence instead of Rs.151/- by way of mistake. After obtaining the details, PW1 got the sale deed drafted through PW5 who is the document writer, after purchasing stamps from PW4 who is the stamp vendor. After Murahari Reddy executed the sale deed Ex.P4, it was presented before A1 by PW1. 7. PW1 deposed that he gave Ex.P4 to A1 and also gave Rs.510/- towards registration charges to A1 and that A1 demanded Rs.600/-towards bribe and that thereupon, he took out the tainted currency notes from his pant pocket and gave those notes to A1 and that A1 counted Rs.600/- and kept those notes in his right side pant pocket and that A1 kept the registration charges in between the sheets of Ex.P2 and asked him to wait. PW1 says that thereupon, PW2 went out and that A1 after receiving Rs.600/- from him as bribe, had drawn six small lines with pencil on Ex.P4 on the last page. According to the prosecution, the said drawing of small lines on last page of the sale deed by A1 is a communication to A2 of he receiving bribe of Rs.600/- for registration of the said sale deed. PW1 says that after receiving signal from PW2, the trap party rushed into the office. 8. PW2 is a resident of Raikot village to which village PW1 as well as Murahari Reddy belong to. It is evidence of PW2 that on 19.06.1993, he and PW2 went to the Sub- Registrar’s office, Zaheerabad, to find out registration charges and stamp duty for getting Ac.3.05gts of land registered and met A1 and that A1 informed registration charges as Rs.151/- and requirement of stamps worth Rs.1,210/- and demanded bribe of Rs.600/- and gave Ex.P5 deed giving details of stamp duty and registration charges and that A1 insisted for the bribe. PW2 further says that on 25.06.1993, he and PW1 went to ACB office where pre-trap proceedings were conducted and that all of them went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office by 2:30 PM and that the trap party along with jeep remained at a distance of 200 yards from the Sub-Registrar’s Office and that he and PW1 went to the document writer, PW5 who asked them to go to the Sub- Registrar’s Office and get necessary details regarding stamp duty and registration charges by giving details of land in Ex.P2. PW2 says that when they went to A1 and gave Ex.P2 to him, A1 gave Ex.P3 chit and that they went and purchased stamps from the stamp vendor and went to the document writer, PW5 who drafted Ex.P4 and obtained signature of Murahari Reddy. PW2 and PW1 and one Veera Reddy signed as attestors in Ex.P4 sale deed. PW2 says that he and PW1 went inside the office with Ex.P4 and gave Ex.P4 to A1 and A1 verified the papers and that PW1 gave Rs.151/- towards registration charges and that A1 asked PW1 whether he paid the bribe amount and thereupon, PW1 gave tainted currency notes and that A1 counted the notes and kept those notes in his pant pocket and asked them to wait outside. PW2 says that he went outside and gave signal to the trap party and the trap party entered inside the office. 9. It is pointed out by the senior counsel appearing for A1 that on 09.06.1993, Ex.D1 sale deed was presented by PW2 by mentioning value of site as Rs.15/- per square yard and that A1 having regard to door numbers mentioned in the schedule therein, gave valuation of the site as Rs.25/- per square yard and that therefore, PW2 had to remove one sheet from the sale deed and to substitute the same with another sheet deleting the door numbers of properties and that it is only thereupon, Ex.D1 sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar and that therefore, PW2 bore grudge against A1 and was instrumental in making this case filed against A1. PW2 denied the above suggestions given by A1’s defence counsel in the lower Court during trial, in his cross-examination. The stamp vendor, PW4 deposed in cross-examination that as per Ex.P33 register, stamps against Sl.Nos.9485 to 9489 were sold by him which are four sheets of Rs.500/- each, one sheet of Rs.20/- to PW2 on 09.06.1993 and that on the same day, he sold one stamp paper of the denomination of Rs.20/- to PW2 as per Sl.No.9526. Ex.D2 is certified copy of Ex.D1 sale deed dated 09.06.1993. It shows that stamp papers bearing Sl.Nos.9485 to 9488 and Sl.No.9526 were utilized for engrossing the said sale deed and that stamp paper worth Rs.20/- with Sl.No.9489 was not utilized for engrossing that sale deed when it was presented for registration. From the fact of absence of stamp sheet bearing Sl.No.9489, it is contended for A1 that his suggestion to PW2 with regard to objection raised by him for value of the property covered by Ex.D1 on 09.06.1993, is probablized. At any rate, PW2 is alleged to be having grudge against A1 and not for PW1. PW1 is a teacher working in a primary school. He had no prior acquaintance with A1 and no prior grouse towards A1. Except PW2 being a co-villager, there is no other special acquaintance for PW1 with PW2 and has no reason for PW1 to collude with PW2. Even though PW2 is alleged to be a real estate dealer, nothing could be established to show that he was a party to any registered documents in the Sub-Registrar’s office at Zaheerabad apart from Ex.D1 sale deed. Therefore, I have no hesitation to find that PW1 has no reason or grouse in order to foist a false case against A1. 10. With regard to recovery of MO.1 tainted cash, there is evidence of PWs 3 and 8. PW3 is one of the mediators in Exs. P7, pre-trap proceedings mediators report and Ex.P8, post- trap proceedings mediators report. PW3 was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings at Sangareddy. He was drawn by PW8, trap-laying officer as one of the mediators for the trap along with another mediator. It is evidence of PWs 3 and 8 that when the trap party was waiting outside the office of Sub-Registrar, A3 was found running away from that office and therefore, A3 was caught by one of the Inspectors and was brought into the office after receiving signal. During post-trap proceedings, when both hands fingers of A1 were rinsed in Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution turned pink as per Mos.3 and 4. Similarly, when inner lining of A1’s pant pocket was rinsed in similar solution, it turned pink as per MO.5. But, Mo.1 tainted cash was not with A1. MO.1 cash was seized from A3. Hand finger washes of A3 in Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink as per Mos.6 and 7 and inner lining of A3’s pant pocket also turned pink as per MO.8. Mos.12 and 13 are pants of A1 and A3 respectively. In Ex.P8 post-trap proceedings as well as in the evidence of PWs 3 and 8, it is disclosed that not only MO.1 tainted cash of Rs.600/- covered by this case, but also additional cash was recovered from possession of A3 as per MO.2. Ex.P8 further reads that in pursuance of statement of A3, some more cash was also seized at his instance from ventilator in the bathroom behind the clerks’ room of that office. PWs 3 and 8 speak about A1 and A3 giving spot explanations at the time of post-trap proceedings and the said statements being incorporated in Ex.P8. From the above material on record, it is evident that MO.1 tainted cash from PW1 passed on to A1, who kept the same in his pant pocket; and it was ultimately recovered from possession of A3. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 disclose that when A1 demanded for bribe of Rs.600/-, PW1 gave MO.1 cash to A1, who received the same with his hands, counted the same and kept the same into his pant pocket. It is contended for A1 that it is a mystery as to how MO.1 tainted cash which is stated to have been given to A1, went into the hands of A3. No doubt, there is no evidence to show as to how MO.1 tainted cash went to A3 from A1. But, identity of the tainted cash which was handed over by PW1 to A1 and which tainted cash ultimately reached A3, is proved by the hand washes as well as pant pocket washes of A1 and A3. When the prosecution has proved that MO.1 tainted cash was in possession of A3, it is for A3 to prove as to how it reached him. When passing of MO.1 tainted cash was proved by the prosecution from PW1 to A1, it is for A1 to show as to how it went away from him. It is not A1’s case that A3 committed theft of MO.1 cash from him; and it is not A3’s case that he committed theft of MO.1 cash from A1. Apart from the tainted cash covered by MO.1, some more cash was also seized from possession of A3 and also at the instance of A3 from bathroom lying behind clerks’ room in the same office. It undoubtedly indicates that A3 was employed by A1 to keep custody of the bribe amounts being collected by A1 from the parties who approach that office for registration of documents. Simply because MO.1 tainted cash was not found with A1 and was not recovered from possession of A1, A1 cannot be exonerated from the charges in this case because the prosecution was proved beyond any shadow of doubt not only from oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 about his demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.600/- but also from hand wash rinses and pant pocket rinses of A1. There is no doubt of the fact that PW1 paid tainted cash MO.1 to the extent of Rs.600/- towards bribe to A1 when A1 demanded for the same at the time of PW1 presenting Ex.P4 sale deed for pre-registration checking. 11. It is contended for A1 that A3 had no connection with A1 and that A3 and PW2 were friends and A3 might have been employed by PW2 to stage manage running away with MO.1 cash. A3 would not venture to collude with PW2 in order to mulct himself with criminal liability when he is in possession of tainted cash. There is absolutely no indication in record and also from the spot explanation given by A3 at the time of post- trap proceedings, Ex.P8 to have any semblance of basis towards that conclusion. Simply because A3 and PW2 signed as attestors in Ex.D3 document bearing registration No.1607 of 1993 on the same date 25.06.1993, one cannot conclude that A3 was an associate of PW2. As pointed out earlier, A3 is a resident of Alampur Village where as PW2 is a resident of Raikot village. Since A3 and PW2 happened to be present in the Sub- Registrar’s office on that day, their signatures might have been obtained as attestors in Ex.D3 document. Even though PW2 denied having signed as attestor in Ex.D3, there cannot be any doubt that PW2 was one of the attestors in Ex.D3. From the fact of A3 and PW2 signing as attestors in Ex.D3, one cannot jump to the conclusion that A3 was an associate of PW2. PW7, who is the executant of Ex.D3 sale deed, deposed that on the date of trap, he went to the Sub-Registrar’s office, Zaheerabad along with A3 and one Raju in order to register a plot of land and that since PW2 was also available in the Sub Registrar’s office, apart from A3’s signature, PW2’s signature was also obtained as attestor in Ex.D3. Evidence of PW7 shows that A3 came to the Sub-Registrar’s office along with PW7 and not PW2. I do not find any collusion between A3 and PW2 in this case. 12. Except the alleged confessional statement of A2 with regard to small pencil lines indicating receipt of bribe by A1, there is no other legal evidence before the Court to show that A2 had any complicity in this case. The alleged confessional statement of A2 contained in Ex.P8, post-trap proceedings and recorded in the presence of the police officer, PW8 is irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the lower Court rightly did not find A2 guilty of the charges. 13. Insofar as A3 is concerned, from the material discussed above, it is evident that A3 was holding the bribe amount collected by A1 including MO.1 tainted cash of Rs.600/- collected by A1 from PW1. It undoubtedly indicates that he was intentionally aiding A1 in the transaction of collection of bribe from the parties. Otherwise after receiving MO.1 from A1, there was no need for him to run away from the Sub-Registrar’s office when the trap party were waiting and about to enter into the Sub- Registrar’s office. I do not agree with the conclusion of the lower Court in acquitting A3. 14. CRL.A.No.961 of 2004: In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed but altering sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. 15. CRL.A.No.1408 of 2005: In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly dismissed insofar as the 1st respondent/A2 is concerned; and the appeal is partly allowed setting aside acquittal of A3 recorded by the lower Court and convicting A3 for the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to simple imprisonment for one month. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 13.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.961 of 2004 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1408 of 2005 DATED: 13.06.2011 ysk