IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2005 of 2004 DATE: 13.07.2011 Between: State: rep. by the Inspector of Police, Anti-corruption bureau, Karimnagar Range …… Appellant And K.Kishan Rao …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2005 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The accused/respondent was working as Superintendent in District Social Welfare Office, Backward Class Welfare, Karimnagar. By judgment dated 25.03.2004 in C.C. No.3 of 1994, the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B Cases, Hyderabad, acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. 2) P.W-1/defacto-complainant was working as warden in B.C. Boys Hostel at Veena Vonka of Karimnagar District. P.W-1 submitted pay bills of the staff for the month of February, 1993, diet bill for the month of January, 1993 and bill for house rent for the hostel building in the office of the accused on 01.03.1993 for sanction. It is alleged that on 01.03.1993 P.W-1 approached the accused and requested him for early sanction of the bills and that the accused demanded for bribe of Rs.500/- for showing official favour of processing these bills and that on 02.03.1993 when P.W-1 met the accused, he reiterated the demand for bribe. With the said allegations, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-10 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Karimnagar. After registering Ex.P-1 and issuing Ex.P- 13 first information report, P.W-10 arranged trap for the accused on 03.03.1993. It is alleged that the trap was successful and the accused was caught red handed while in possession of the demanded bribe amount Rs.500/- by way of tainted cash M.O-1. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found the accused not guilty of the charges. 3) In this appeal, it is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that the lower Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and came to an erroneous conclusion in favour of the accused and that in the lower Court the accused did not substantiate his spot explanation. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent’s counsel that there was enemity between the accused and P.W-1 as the accused was responsible for posting P.W-1 at Veena Vonka contrary to his request for Metpally and that the accused had explained his possession of M.O-1 cash to the effect that he received the said amount from P.W-1 towards part of cash payable in connection with a scheme being canvassed by P.W-8. 4) At the outset, there is intrinsic lacunae in the contention of the prosecution to the affect that the accused demanded bribe of Rs.500/- from P.W-1 for processing the bills. Ex.P-2 is the file relating to the bills submitted by P.W-1 for sanction on 01.03.1993. Exs.P-7 to P-9 are the bills contained in Ex.P-2 file. Ex.P-7 is salary bill of the employees working in B.C. Boys Hostel, Veena Vonka for the month of February, 1993. The said bill was for Rs.7,458/-. Ex.P-8 is the diet bill for the month of January, 1993 and the entire amount in respect of which sanction was sought therein, was Rs.740/-. The said bill is supported by vouchers. Ex.P-9 is the bill for payment of rent for the building in which B.C. Boys Hostel at Veena Vonka was located. The said bill was for Rs.2,152/-. There is no dispute that the rent bill amount, after its sanction, will be paid to the landlord by way of demand draft directly and no cash will be paid to the drawing officer towards rent for the building. Out of the three bills, the only discretionary bill is diet bill for Rs.740/-. The lower Court rightly doubted the prosecution contention that the accused demanded huge sum of Rs.500/- as bribe from P.W-1. 5) With this initial deficiency in the prosecution case, the prosecution evidence has to be scrutinised. P.W-1 deposed that after presentation of the bills on 01.03.1993, Kumara Swamy (PW-7), Junior Assistant passed the bills, entered in the budget register and placed the bills before the accused and that he (P.W-1) asked the accused to pass the bills and that the accused demanded Rs.500/- for passing the bills. According to P.W-1, after the Junior Assistant and the Superintendent initials the bills, the District Social Welfare Officer will sign in the sanction order. P.W-7 as well as the accused have to process the bills. As per evidence of P.W-3, District Social Welfare Officer, he can straight away pass the bills even without the signature or initials of the Superintendent. Certain instances were pointed out where bills were passed by P.W-3 even without the signature of the Superintendent. As per rules, it is only the District Social Welfare Officer who has to pass the bills ultimately by way of signing in the sanction order. But, before the District Social Welfare Officer signs on the bills, they have to be processed by his office including the Junior Assistant and the Superintendent. If the District Social Welfare Officer wants to bypass the entire staff, he can do so by signing the bills directly owning the entire responsibility of checking the bills on himself. That does not mean that Superintendent of the office has no role in processing and passing the bills submitted in the District Social Welfare Office. In this case, it is highly doubtful whether the accused demanded bribe of Rs.500/- for passing Exs.P-7 to P-9 bills out of which there is only discretionary bill by way of diet bill for Rs.740/-. 6) With regard to the trap, it is P.W-1’s evidence that he alone went inside office of the accused and requested the accused to pass the bills and that the accused asked whether he brought the demanded bribe amount and that thereafter he took out M.O-1 currency notes and gave the same which was received by the accused with his right hand transferred the same to his left hand and kept it in left side back pant pocket. After P.W-1 came out and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party who were at vantage positions, the trap party rushed into the office and post-trap procedures were conducted as per Ex.P-4 second mediators’ report. During post trap proceedings, when P.W-10 trap laying officer questioned the accused about he receiving Rs.500/- from P.W-1, the accused stated that he took Rs.500/- from P.W-1 and that P.W-1 gave the amount to purchase the lucky lottery dip belonging to somebody. It is noted in Ex.P-4 that on the table of the accused no papers relating to lucky lottery dip were found. Even though details of the lucky lottery dip were not stated in Ex.P-4, the investigating agency made detailed investigation with regard to a scheme run by Bhavitha Plantations Private Limited. In cross-examination, P.W-1 admits his signature in Ex.D-1 application. Ex.D-1 was produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet. But, P.W-1 says that he signed in Ex.D-1 at Veena Vonka and not at Karimnagar. P.W-1 in cross-examination admits that by the time he went to the accused during trap, I.Sunanda (P.W-8) was present with the accused. P.W-8 was then working as Member in the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act at Karimnagar. According to the accused/respondent, after coming to know about the scheme relating to Bhavitha Plantations Private Limited which was being discussed at the table of the accused, P.W-1 became interested in joining the scheme and offered to pay Rs.500/- to P.W-8 who was canvassing for the scheme, but P.W-8 did not receive the said cash M.O-1 as amount under the scheme has to be paid by way of demand draft to the extent of Rs.1,000/-, and in those circumstances P.W-1 handed over M.O-1 cash to the accused promising to remit balance of Rs.500/- subsequently. It is suggested to P.W-1 that he thrusted M.O-1 into the hands of the accused to keep the said amount with him. Ultimately the accused received the said amount and kept the same in his pant pocket. P.W-8 admits that though she was not enrolling members into that scheme, she was canvassing for the said scheme. The scheme promoters were examined as P.Ws 5 and 6. The prosecution examined P.Ws 5 and 6 in order to show that the said scheme was discontinued in the year 1992 itself. It is the evidence of P.Ws 5 and 6 that the scheme was temporarily stopped in October, 1992. But, P.Ws 5 and 6 could not produce any proof to show discontinuation of the scheme in October, 1992. Even though the promoters gave wide publicity in newspapers about the scheme, admittedly did not publish anything notifying stoppage of the scheme in October, 1992. It is evidence of P.W-8 that P.W-1 came along with files and obtained signature of the accused and asked her as to what she was discussing with others and that she told P.W-1 about the scheme and that P.W-1 expressed his willingness to join in the scheme but stated about he having not the entire amount of Rs.1,000/- but having some amount with him and that she asked P.W-1 to keep the amount with the accused as she may not be in a position to receive the said amount as she was busy. In that fashion, the accused tried to explain his possession of M.O-1 tainted cash of Rs.500/-. In the light of the said evidence produced by the prosecution itself, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove either demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused from P.W-1. There are absolutely no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the said findings of the lower Court. 7) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 13, 2011 ksh