IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.164 OF 2002 Between: V. Wilson Rao ..... Appellant AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, The Range Inspector-III, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada. ..... Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.806 OF 2002 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, The Range Inspector-III, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada. ..... Appellant AND T. Ramachandraiah ..... Respondent/Accused Officer No.2 The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: It is reported by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Accused Officer No.1/Appellant in Crl.A.No.164 of 2002 died. Since then, L.Rs. are not brought on record. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2002 is liable to be dismissed as abated as the Accused Officer No.1/Appellant died. 2. The Crl.A.No.806 of 2002 by the State under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 28.01.2002, in C.C.No.17 of 1995, on the file of the learned Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby the appellant who is arrayed in Accused Officer No.2 was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), and accordingly he was acquitted. 3. The brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, insofar as the appellant in Crl.No.806 of 2002 is concerned, may be stated as follows: On 16.03.1995, Accused Officer No.1, who is working as Vice Chairman, Vijayawada-Guntr-Tenali Urban Development Authority (hereafter referred to as “VGT - UDA”), Vijayawada, came to the office of P.W.1, who is working as Personal Officer of M/s. Continental Coffee Limited, Duggirala, Guntur, for inspecting the site along with Accused Officer No.2, who is working as Planning Officer-II in the office of Accused Officer No.1 and is also subordinate to him. At the time of inspection, Accused Officer No.1 directed P.W.1 to submit a revised plan. On 18.03.1995 at about 1.00 p.m., when P.W.1 went to the office of Accused Officer No.1 and submitted a revised plan, the Accused Officer No.1 demanded him to give Rs.60,000/- as bribe to enable him to send a favourable report on the queries pointed out by the Government in its letter. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the aforesaid bribe amount to the Accused Officer No.1. On that, Accused Officer No.1 threatened P.W.1 that an adverse report will be sent, if the bribe amount of Rs.60,000/- was not paid on 20.03.1995 during the office hours. Not willing to pay that amount, on the same day, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-complaint with P.W.14-Deputy Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, “A.C.B.”), Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada. The same was registered as case in Crime No.4/ACB-VJA/95 on 20.03.1995 at about 9.00 a.m. by P.W.14. P.W.14, who is the Trap Laying Officer, directed P.W.1 to come on 20.03.1995 along with M.O.2-tainted currency notes. On 20.03.1995, Ex.P15-Pre-Trap Proceedings were drafted duly noting down the numbers of the currency notes and also applying the Phenolphthalein powder. P.W.14 directed P.Ws.1 and 2 to carry that amount and give it to Accused Officer No.1 on demand. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office of Accused Officer No.1 at about 12.15 p.m. On seeing P.W.1, Accused Officer No.1 enquired him whether he brought the demanded amount. Then, Accused Officer No.1 called Accused Officer No.2 through intercom and instructed him to receive the amount from P.W.1 and prepare a letter which has to be sent to the Government and to give the same to P.W.1. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office room of Accused Officer No.2 and then they offered the amount to Accused Officer No.2 and asked him to give the letter. Accused Officer No.2 went to the cabin of Accused Officer No.1 and returned back and told P.Ws.1 and 2 that he would prepare a letter only after they give the amount. P.W.1 opened the brief case and offered M.O.2-cash to Accused Officer No.2. Accused Officer No.2 told P.W.1 that the amount should not be given openly, but the same has to be kept in the cover. As per the instructions of Accused Officer No.2, the amount was kept in a cover and gave to Accused Officer No.2. Accordingly, Accused Officer No.2 prepared a letter which has to be sent to the Government and he took the file and the cover containing M.O.2-cash to the chamber of Accused Officer No.1. Accused Officer No.1 put his signature on the draft letter. Accused Officer No.1 gave that pad and cover containing M.O.2-cash to Accused Officer No.2 and instructed him to keep the said cash with him and later, Accused Officer No.2 went to his office room. Later, Accused Officer No.2 signed the fair copy of the said letter putting the date as 20.03.1995 and delivered the same to P.W.1 under his acknowledgement. Later, as per the instructions of Accused Officer No.1, Accused Officer No.2 accompanied Accused Officer No.1 in the office car belonging to Accused Officer No.1 along with the said file pad of P.W.1 and the cover containing M.O.2-tainted currency notes. After receipt of pre-arranged signal, the A.C.B. officials asked Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 to get down from the car and took them to the office room. The Sodium Carbonate Solution Test conducted on the left hand fingers of the Accused Officer No.2 and also the outer side of the cover containing M.O.2-tainted amount, gave positive result. M.O.2-tainted amount was seized. The numbers of currency notes as noted in Ex.P15-Pre-Trap Proceedings were tallying with M.O.2-tainted amount seized from the possession of the Accused Officer No.1. Then Ex.P17-Post- Trap Proceedings were drafted. Later, the investigation was taken over by P.W.15-Inspector, A.C.B. He examined the witnesses and also gave a requisition to the concerned Magistrate to record the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After obtaining sanction order, P.W.15 filed the charge sheet. 4. The learned Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, Vijayawada, framed the following charges against the accused: “1st: That A.1 of you, being Vice-Chairman, Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada and being a public servant within the meaning of Sec.2(1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, demanded Rs.60,000/- from R.Ramanjaneyulu, who is working as Personal Officer in M/s Continental Coffee Limited, Duggirala, on 18th day of March, 1995 at 1.00 P.M. at your office, for yourself as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing official favour in exercise of your official functions i.e. for sending a favourable report on the querries pointed out by the Government on the application of R.Ramanjaneyulu for conversion of land, and that on the 20th day of March, 1995 at 2.15 P.M. you A.1 and your subordinate A.2 of you accepted the said amount of Rs.60,000/- from R.Ramanjaneyulu, and that you A.1 & A.2 thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. 2nd: That you A1 and A.2 on the 20th day of March, 1995 at 2.15 PM at your office, being public servants, viz., Vice-Chairman and Planning Officer-II respectively accepted Rs.60,000/- from R.Ramanjaneyulu for yourselves as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by abusing your position as public servants obtained for yourselves Rs.60,000/- as pecuniary advantage and thereby committed criminal misconduct an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. 3rdly: That you A1 on the 20th day of March, 1995 at 2.15 PM abetted A.2 to receive an amount of Rs.60,000/- from R.Ramanjaneyulu, an offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and within my cognizance. Fourthly: That A.O.2 of you on the 20th day of March, 1995 at your office, being public servant to wit. Planning Officer-II, Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, abeted/aided/assisted A.O.1 in accepting the amount of Rs.60,000/- from R.Ramanjaneylu, which is an offence punishable under section 7 of P.C.Act 1988, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 12 of P.C.Act 1988 and within my cognizance.” When the above charges were read over and explained to the Accused Officers in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23, besides case property M.Os.1 to 7. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused Officers were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the Accused Officers, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the Accused Officer No.2 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the same, Criminal Appeal No.806 of 2002 is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the Accused Officer No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act and whether the judgment of the Trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.C.B. Cases, contended that the Accused Officer No.2 knows about the bribe amount that was given by P.W.1; that Accused Officer No.2 was one of the abettors of the crime who perpetrated the crime by receiving the amount; that the amount so received by the Accused Officer No.2 is not towards any fee or any particular legal remuneration; that knowing full well that the amount was given towards bribe, the Accused Officer No.2 received the bribe amount from P.W.1; that the Accused Officer No.2 accepted the bribe amount on behalf of Accused Officer No.1, and therefore, the charges are proved against Accused Officer No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence, he prays to convict the Accused Officer No.2. 9. On the other hand, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Accused Officer No.2 contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show that Accused Officer No.2 demanded and accepted the bribe to show any favour; that as a matter of fact, no official favour to be shown to P.W.1 was pending with him; that Accused Officer No.2 merely acted on the instructions of Accused Officer No.1; that as per the directions of the Accused Officer No.1, the Accused Officer No.2 received Rs.60,000/- from P.W.1; that after receiving the amount, Accused Officer No.2 prepared a letter and obtained the signature of Accused Officer No.1; that accordingly, Accused Officer No.2 handed over M.O.2-cash and Ex.P11-file to the Accused Officer No.1, and therefore, no offence is made out even if the entire case of the prosecution is to be accepted as true and correct. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 11. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act are: i) that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; ii) that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or dis-favour to any person. 12. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: i) that he should have been a public servant; ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 13. Accused Officer No.2 was working as Planning Officer-II in the Office of the Vice Chairman, VGT – UDA, Vijayawada, at the relevant point of time of incident. It is not in dispute that M/s. Continental Coffee Limited, Duggirala, Guntur, submitted an application for conversion of the agricultural land into industrial use. The VGT - UDA has to send the said application to the Government. The Government directed the Accused Officer No.1 to inspect the site personally and answer the queries pointed out in the letter. Though it is the case of the prosecution that on 16.03.1995, the Accused Officer No.1 inspected the site along with Accused Officer No.2, there is absolutely no evidence to show that on 16.03.1995, Accused Officer No.1 inspected the site along with Accused Officer No.2. 14. On the other hand, P.W.1 who is the Personal Officer of M/s. Continental Coffee Limited, Duggirala, Guntur, has categorically stated that on 16.03.1995, Accused Officer No.1 came to the office at Guntur for inspecting the site. Similarly, on 18.03.1995, P.W.1 went to the office of VGT – UDA where Accused Officer No.1 was working as Vice Chairman and submitted revised plan along with a covering letter. P.W.1 asked the Accused Officer No.1 to furnish additional information to the Government as required. Thereupon, the Accused Officer No.1 demanded P.W.1 to pay Rs.60,000/- as a bribe so as to write a favourable note to the Government and Accused Officer No.1 directed him to pay that amount on 20.03.1995. As the presence and participation of Accused Officer No.2 has not been spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 prior to the trap proceedings or even on the date of giving Ex.P1-Report to P.W.14, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the Accused Officer No.2 has participated in the commission of offence or he was instructed or abetted to receive the bribe amount or that knowing full well that the amount which was given by P.W.1 to him was the bribe amount. 15. Insofar as the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the Accused Officer No.2 is concerned, on the date of trap i.e., on 20.03.1995 at about 12.45 p.m., both P.Ws.1 and 2 met Accused Officer No.1 in his office room. On seeing P.W.1, Accused Officer No.1 enquired P.W.1 whether he brought the amount demanded by him. Thereafter, Accused Officer No.1 called Accused Officer No.2 through intercom and instructed Accused Officer No.2 to receive the amount from P.W.1 and to prepare a letter to be sent to the Government and give it to P.W.1. Thereupon, Accused Officer No.2 went to the office room of Accused Officer No.1 followed by P.Ws.1 and 2. When, P.Ws.1 and 2 offered to give the bribe amount to Accused Officer No.2 and asked him to give the letter, he again went to the office room of Accused Officer No.1 and returned back and told P.Ws.1 and 2 that he would prepare the letter only after P.W.1 hand over the money. Then P.W.1 opened the brief case and took out M.O.2- cash and offered the same to the Accused Officer No.2. Then, Accused Officer No.2 told them that the amount should not be given openly and asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to keep it in a cover. Then P.W.1 put M.O.2-cash in a cover and gave it to the Accused Officer No.2. Then, Accused Officer No.2 took the file and the cover containing M.O.2-cash and went into the cabin of Accused Officer No.1. Accused Officer No.1 put his signature on the draft letter. Accused Officer No.1 gave that pad and cover containing M.O.2-cash to Accused Officer No.2 and instructed him to keep the said cash with him and later, Accused Officer No.2 went to his office room. Then, Accused Officer No.2 signed the fair copy of the said letter putting the date as 20.03.1995 and delivered the same to P.W.1 under his acknowledgement. Later, as per the instructions of Accused Officer No.1, Accused Officer No.2 accompanied Accused Officer No.1 in the office car belonging to Accused Officer No.1 along with the said file pad of P.W.1 and the cover containing M.O.2-tainted currency notes. After receipt of pre-arranged signal, the trap party caught hold of them. 16. Admittedly, P.W.1 did not meet Accused Officer No.2 prior to 18.03.1995. Accused Officer No.2 was not a party to the demand made by Accused Officer No.1 to show an official favour i.e., favourable recommendations made to the Government. Similarly, on the date of trap also, Accused Officer No.2 was not a party to the conversation or talking between Accused Officer No.1 and P.W.1. As a matter of fact, P.W.1 admitted that till he gave Ex.P1-Report, he was sure that Accused Officer No.2 was nowhere in the picture and he did not receive the bribe amount from P.W.1 in the chamber of Accused Officer No.1. Even after P.W.1 asked Accused Officer No.2 to give the letter, he did not demand to pay money to him. Accused Officer No.2 only informed to P.W.1 that Accused Officer No.1 would not sign the letter unless P.W.1 pays the bribe amount. Accused Officer No.2 only advised P.Ws.1 and 2 to give that amount by putting in a cover. 17. As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that Accused Officer No.1 called Accused Officer No.2 to his room and instructed P.W.1 to give the bribe amount of Rs.60,000/- to the Accused Officer No.2 and also directed Accused Officer No.2 to receive the same. So, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there was no demand or acceptance made by Accused Officer No.2 to show any official favour to P.W.1. Accused Officer No.2, being a subordinate to Accused Officer No.1, obliged Accused Officer No.1 and received the amount on behalf of Accused Officer No.1. From the evidence on record, it is clear that Ex.P11-file relating to M/s. Continental Coffee Limited, Duggirala, Guntur, and the cover containing M.O.2-cash was seized by P.W.14 in the presence of Mediators from the car of Accused Officer No.1. 18. It is not in dispute that the car from which M.O.2-cash was seized was exclusively intended for the use of Accused Officer No.1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that Accused Officer No.2 received the bribe amount as per the instructions of Accused Officer No.1. The Accused Officer No.2 has not either directly or indirectly demanded or received any amount or part of it for himself for showing any official favour to P.W.1. Accused Officer No.2 simply obeyed the instructions of Accused Officer No.1 who is his superior. There is no evidence to show that the Accused Officer No.2 had knowledge that P.W.1 was giving that amount towards bribe to Accused Officer No.1. The only incriminating evidence available against Accused Officer No.2 was he told P.Ws.1 and 2 that the amount should not be given openly and the same has to be kept in a cover. From that evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it can be said that he had a knowledge that M.O.2-cash being paid to Accused Officer No.1 was towards bribe to show an official favour. Even after returning from the chamber of Accused Officer No.1, Accused Officer No.2 informed P.Ws.1 and 2 that Accused Officer No.1 would sign the letter only if P.W.1 gives that amount. If the Accused Officer No.2 knows that the amount offered by P.Ws.1 and 2 to Accused Officer No.1 was a bribe amount or illegal gratification, certainly, he would share the intention with Accused Officer No.1. But such evidence is lacking. The Accused Officer No.2 is not a party to the settlement arrived at between Accused Officer No.1 and P.W.1. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that Accused Officer No.2 intentionally or knowingly abetted the offence. The complaint was lodged against Accused Officer No.1 only and it is not the case of the prosecution that the Accused Officer No.1 instructed the Accused Officer No.2 to receive the amount or abetted P.W.1 to pay that amount towards bribe to Accused Officer No.2. Therefore, the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly found the Accused Officer No.2 not guilty and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal insofar as the Accused Officer No.2 is concerned. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2002 is dismissed as abated and the Criminal Appeal No.806 of 2002 is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 28.01.2002, in C.C.No.17 of 1995, on the file of the learned Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, Vijayawada. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 19th November, 2009 KL