IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 966 & 968 of 2004 DATE: 04.07.2011 CRL.A.No.966 of 2004 Between: E.Sulochana Devi …..Appellant And The State of A.P. through A.C.B, Hyderabad …… Respondent CRL.A.No.968 of 2004 Between: Y.Subrahmanyam …..Appellant And The State of A.P. through A.C.B, Hyderabad …… Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 966 & 968 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are filed by A-2 and A-3 respectively questioning judgment dated 09.04.2004 passed by the Additional Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Hyderabad, in C.C. No.18 of 1994 by which they were convicted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and payment of Rs.1,000/- each on each count separately. A- 2 was working as junior assistant in the office of Inspector of Factories at Anantapur. A-3 was working as attender in the same office. P.W-1 is husband of B.Noorjahan. Noorjahan applied for loan for purchase of grinding machine under Prime Minister Gramodyog scheme and submitted an application to General Manager of Industries, Anantapur. It is alleged that on 16.03.1994, P.W-1 went to Inspector of Factories and submitted plans, permission for grinding machine given by Hindupur Municipality and requested for ‘no objection certificate’ from him and that Factories Inspector by name Shiva Shankar Reddy verified those documents and asked him for bribe of Rs.700/- for giving the said certificate on the same day and that when P.W-1 expressed his inability to pay the said huge amount, the Factories Inspector asked him to speak to the Head Clerk in that office and that when he approached the said senior clerk, he asked P.W-1 to pay Rs.500/- to the officer and Rs.200/- to himself totaling Rs.700/- as bribe and that after bargain he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.300/- out of which Rs.200/- was for the officer and Rs.100/- to himself for doing his work and that in the meanwhile the attender/A-3 demanded for Rs.50/- and the clerk/A-2 who has to pursue his file also asked for Rs.50/- and that the senior assistant/A-1 also informed him about the need for payment to A-2 and A-3. With the said allegations, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-3 report to P.W-7 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Anantapur range on 17.03.1994. Thereupon, P.W-7 organised trap for the accused on 18.03.1994 in their office. It is alleged that the trap was successful and A-1 to A-3 were caught red-handed with the tainted cash M.O-1. During trial of the case in the lower Court, A-1 died and the case stood abated in so far as A-1 is concerned. A-2 and A-3 faced trial in the lower Court. Plea of A-2 and A-3 is that they are not guilty of the charges. The lower Court found that A-2 and A-3 are guilty of the charges. 2) In this appeal, it is contended by the appellants’ counsel that except evidence of P.W-1, there is no corroborative evidence for the alleged demand for bribe made by A-2 and A-3 and that there is no proper identification of A-3 by P.W-1 and that no part of the tainted cash was recovered from possession of A-2 and that what was tainted during Ex.P- 5 pre-trap proceedings was not the cash that was recovered from possession of A-3 during the course of trap. 3) Before considering this appeal on merits, I propose to go into root of the case from the prosecution allegations. In Ex.P-3 report given by P.W-1 to P.W-7, it is alleged that initial demand for bribe was made by the Inspector of Factories by name Shiva Shankar Reddy for Rs.700/- from P.W-1 and on the directions of Shiva Shankar Reddy, P.W-1 approached A- 1 and that A-1 demanded for bribe of Rs.700/-, representing Rs.500/- for the officer and Rs.200/- for himself and that when P.W-1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, A-1 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.300/- representing Rs.200/- for the officer and Rs.100/- for himself. Ultimately during trap, P.W-1 paid Rs.300/- to A-1 and the said amount of Rs.300/- out of the tainted cash was recovered from possession of A-1. In spite of it, the investigating agency viz., Anti Corruption Bureau did not start criminal proceedings against Shiva Shankar Reddy. It was Shiva Shankar Reddy as Factories Inspector who is competent to give ‘no objection certificate’ to P.W-1’s wife. The principal official favour was pending with Shiva Shankar Reddy. According to P.W-1, it was Shiva Shankar Reddy, who demanded the bribe amount of Rs.700/- . In pursuance of the said demand, ultimately P.W-1 paid Rs.300/- to A-1 as bribe out of which Rs.200/- was for Shiva Shankar Reddy and Rs.100/- for A-1. A-1 collected the said bribe amount on behalf of the Shiva Shankar Reddy and in pursuance of demand made by Shiva Shankar Reddy. In those circumstances, Shiva Shankar Reddy is the principal offender in this case. In spite of it, A.C.B for certain non-legal reasons which are not on record, have chosen to omit to prosecute Shiva Shankar Reddy. Instead, A.C.B wanted to prosecute A-1 to A-3 and after the death of A-1, to prosecute A-2 and A-3 who are alleged to have received bribe amounts of Rs.50/- each from P.W-1 in pursuance of their demands. If for any non-legal reasons A.C.B intended to give concession to Shiva Shankar Reddy, the same concession should have been extended to other accused also. 4) Ex.P-1 is application of P.W-1’s wife Noorjahan given to Manager, District Industries Centre, Anantapur for the purpose of running a flour mill. Flour mill and grinding machine are one and the same, unless the grinding machine is described as a wet grinder. Ex.P-1 shows that it was received in office of the accused on 15.11.1993. P.W-1 approached that office on 16.03.1994. Evidence of P.W-1 and Ex.P-3 do not read that he approached office of the accused with Ex.P-1 for the first time on 16.03.1994. On 16.03.1994 P.W-1 went to that office and submitted plans contained in Ex.P-2. It is nobody’s case that P.W-1 approached the Industries Centre, Anantapur along with the application. 5) In so far as demands for bribe by A-2 and A-3 are concerned, it is evidence of P.W-1 that one female clerk who was sitting near A-1 demanded him to pay Rs.50/- in that connection and that one attender who was standing there at that time demanded to pay Rs.50/- in that connection. The demands for Rs.50/- each by the clerk and by the attender were stated to have been made when A-1 settled the bribe amount for himself and for the Factories Inspector as Rs.300/- put together. In Ex.P-3 report also P.W-1 did not disclose names of A-1 to A-3. The only name of the person who demanded bribe as disclosed in Ex.P-3 was Shiva Shankar Reddy who was allowed to slip away from being charged before the lower Court by the investigating agency. Even though Ex.P-3 did not disclose names of A-2 and A-3, during post-trap proceedings, P.W-1 identified A-2 and A-3 and identities of A-2 and A-3 were confirmed. Simply because names are not found in the initial stages of the investigation, it cannot be said that prosecution of A-2 and A-3 was not warranted. Criminal case does not proceed on names of individuals but proceeds on the basis of identities of individuals, which identities have to be established during investigation before the investigating machinery moving the Court by filing final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 6) With regard to pre-trap proceedings, it is evidence of P.W-1 that he brought Rs.400/- for giving the same as bribe and that the said amount consisted of three currency notes of Rs.100/- each and two currency notes of Rs.50/- each and kept the same in front of P.W-7. As per P.W-1’s evidence, it was the said amount which was tainted with phenolphthalein powder. P.W-2 deposed that during pre-trap proceedings, P.W-1 gave Rs.400/- consisting of three currency notes of Rs.100/- each, one currency note of Rs.50/-, two currency notes of Rs.20/- each and one currency note of Rs.10/- as per M.O-1. P.W-7 did not state denomination of currency notes handed over by P.W-1 for the purpose of tainting the said currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that the offence took place in the year 1994 whereas trial of the case started in the year 1998 and therefore, there is possibility of P.W-1 not remembering exact currency notes used in this case for trapping the accused. But nothing prevented the Additional Public Prosecutor who conducted trial in the lower Court either to recollect memory of P.W-1 before he entering into witness box or to treat P.W-1 as hostile to the prosecution to the limited extent of details of currency notes and to supply the details to P.W-1 by way of suggestive cross-examination. No steps were taken by the prosecution in that regard in the lower Court. Therefore, the record remains that as per P.W-1’s evidence, the tainted cash consisted of two notes of Rs.50/- each. What was recovered during post-trap proceedings from possession of A-3 was not a tainted currency note of Rs.50/-, but two tainted currency notes of Rs.20/- each and one tainted currency note of Rs.10/-. After having owned in P.W-1’s evidence about details of currency notes given by him, the prosecution could not explain the discrepancy relating to seizure of currency notes of different denomination from possession of A-3. The discrepancy is on material aspect relating to the bribe amount which is stated to have been passed on by P.W-1 to A-3. 7) It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that both hand finger rinses of A-2 and A-3 turned pink when dipped in sodium carbonate solution and that A-2 and A-3 could not explain possession of tainted cash in their respective possession. In Ex.P-6 post-trap proceedings, it is noted that when P.W-7 questioned A-3, he gave spot statement to the effect that mercy may be extended and that he may be excused taking it as his first offence. The said portion of statement of A-3 contained in Ex.P-6 is inadmissible in evidence as it is in the nature of confession to a police officer, which is prohibited under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. A-3 further stated that P.W-1 kept the money in his pant hip pocket by force and that he did not demand anything from him. No cash of Rs.50/- was recovered from physical possession of A-2. When questioned, A-2 denied her knowledge and stated that P.W-1 forcibly paid the bribe to her and she returned the same to P.W-1. When searched, tainted cash of Rs.50/- was found underneath A-2’s table in irregularly folded condition. Even as per prosecution case, file relating to Ex.P-1 application of P.W-1’s wife Noorjahan was seized from the seat of Factories Inspector; and by the time of its seizure, A-2 had already put up the file to the said Inspector of Factories. Therefore, no official favour was pending with A-2 in respect of Ex.P-1 application as she had already performed her duty in respect thereof. 8) The lower Court did not critically scrutinize the record in the above perspective and ignored the said aspects which go to root of the matter in this case. It lead the lower Court in landing in erroneous conclusion in favour of the prosecution. I am of the opinion that the prosecution could not prove requirements of law under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. Hence, I find that the appellants/A-2 and A-3 are not guilty of the charges. 9) In the result, both the appeals are allowed setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed by the lower Court against both the appellants/A-2 and A-3 and acquitting them. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 4th July, 2011 Ksh