THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1550 of 2004 BETWEEEN: State:Inspector of Police … Appellant AND D.Nageswara Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1550 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The accused/respondent was working as Junior Accounts Officer in Electricity Revenue Office at Kancharapalem of Visakhapatnam. By judgment dated 10.02.2004 in CC.No.43 of 2000 (old CC.No.21 of 1995), the Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam, acquitted the accused of the charges 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. PW1/de facto complainant is a retired R.T.C. Driver. PW2 is grandson of PW1’s brother. PW2 has got a house in Dekkatipalem Village with electricity service connection No.10. On 27.08.1994, PW2 received demand notice of electricity charges for Rs.679.23 paise. After approaching A.P.S.E.B office at Chittivalasa, ultimately PWs 1 and 2 approached the accused in Kancharapalem Electricity Revenue Office. It is alleged that on 23.09.1994, when PWs 1 and 2 approached the accused, he demanded total amount of Rs.1,000/- consisting of Rs.679/- towards bill amount and the balance amount towards his “mamool”(bribe). On the said allegations, PW1 gave Ex.P1 report to PW6, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Visakhapatnam. Thereupon, PW6 arranged trap for the accused on 24.09.1994 in the presence of mediators, including PW4. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted under the cover of Ex.P12 on the same day prior to the trap. It is alleged that the trap was successful and that the accused was caught red -handed while in possession of MO.5 tainted cash of Rs.200/-. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. It is his contention that after the bill was settled, PW1 thrusted MO.5 cash into his pocket and left the place, even without the accused asking for the same. The lower Court after trial, found the accused not guilty of the charges. 3. In a case of this nature, the prosecution is expected to prove demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused for doing any official favour. There is evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 with regard to the events which preceded the post- trap proceedings. The prosecution relies upon evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5, whereas the accused/appellant intended to rely upon evidence of PW3. PW3 is the then Upper Divisional Clerk in the same office of the accused. PW5 was Junior Assistant in Madhuravada Gram Panchayat and he came there on the date of trap for payment of electricity bill amount of the Gram Panchayat. 4. It is evidence of PW1 that when PW2 got excess electricity consumption charges bill, they were asked to meet the accused and accordingly, they met the accused and that the accused demanded them to bring Rs.1,000/- towards payment of electricity bill amount and bribe and that when they expressed their inability as they were not having the said amount, the accused asked them to come on the next day. With regard to the trap, it is evidence of PW1 that after pre- trap proceedings, they preceded to office of the accused and that he and PW2 went to the accused and that the accused called a lady and asked her to prepare a bill and that she prepared bill for Rs.800/- and that she gave the bill and that they approached the accused who demanded bribe amount of Rs.200/- and that he picked up Rs.200/- out of the tainted cash of Rs.300/- and gave the same to the accused. In cross-examination, PW1 deposed that on the first day of his visit, the accused did not ask him to bring Rs.1,000/- and that at the time of his second visit, though the accused directed him to meet PW4, he did not meet her. He says that the accused informed him that PW2 has to pay Rs.680/- towards electricity consumption bill. Ex.P3 is the bill received by PW2 for Rs.679.23 paise. 5. PW2 deposed that he was not present at the time of making demand of Rs.1,000/- by the accused and that it was informed to him by PW1. With regard to the trap, PW2 says that the accused directed PW1 to pay bill amount of Rs.680/- to a lady clerk and thereafter, the accused demanded ‘mamool’ and that PW1 gave ‘mamool’ to the accused in his office and that immediately, ACB people came there and caught hold of the accused. PW2 did not say as to what was the amount of bribe (mamool) given by PW1 to the accused. When the bill amount paid to the lady clerk was Rs.800/-, PW2’s version that the bill amount was Rs.680/- that was paid to the lady clerk, is not correct. In cross-examination, PW2 stated that PW1 informed him that calculations will be made by the staff at Kancharapalem to arrive at the actual figure and asked him to bring Rs.1,000/- by the staff members of that office. He did not state that the said amount of Rs.1,000/- was inclusive of bribe amount. PW2 finally says that he does not remember whether after coming out of office hall of the accused, PW1 stated to him that balance amount of Rs.200/- was offered to the accused and the accused refused to take that amount and he thrusted the same into front shirt pocket of the accused. PW2 did not deny the same. 6. PW5’s evidence is to the effect that out of the two persons who approached the accused, the elderly person gave money to the accused who took that amount and kept it in his front shirt pocket and that the elderly person left that place while the other person stayed there. In cross-examination, he says that he did not hear conversation between the elderly person and the accused though he was sitting in a chair opposite to the seat of the accused. 7. There is no dispute about recovery of MO.5 tainted currency of Rs.200/- from possession of the accused. The question is whether the said amount was paid by PW1 and accepted by the accused in pursuance of previous demand for bribe made by the accused or whether the said amount was thrusted by PW1 into pocket of the accused. In Ex.P14 post-trap proceedings, it was stated that when the trap laying officer (PW6) questioned the accused about his possession of MO.5 tainted cash, the accused gave spot explanation to the effect that he did not demand any money from PW1 and that PW1 himself thrusted the amount of Rs.200/- into his front shirt pocket. The said spot explanation offered by the accused is reiterated by PW4 (mediator) and PW6 (trap laying officer) in their evidence. Therefore, plea of the accused is consistent to the effect that the tainted cash was thrusted into his pocket and that he did not demand the same from PW1. Admittedly, it was PW3 who was involved in this affair by the accused when PWs 1 and 2 approached the accused on bill dispute. There is also no dispute that PW3 calculated the arrears and finally informed the figure of Rs.800/- as arrears and it was paid by PW1. PW3 says that after calculations, the amount of electricity arrears came to Rs.1,139.10 paise and that after deducting Rs.400/- already paid by the consumer/PW2 and by adding Rs.41/- towards surcharge and Rs.20/- towards reconnection charges, the total amount payable by PW2 was arrived at Rs.800/-. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 slips disclose the said calculations made by PW3. When the original demand as per Ex.P3 was Rs.679.23 and when the ultimate amount of arrears calculated by PW3 and the accused were Rs.800/-, there is no question of doing any official favour by the accused to PWs 1 and 2. In fact, the amount paid by PWs 1 and 2 is much more than demanded amount covered by Ex.P3. 8. With regard to the trap, it is evidence of PW3 in cross- examination that when PW1 asked the accused about the amount payable, the accused stated that approximate amount would be Rs.1,000/- and after making actual calculations, PW1 can take away the remaining amount. She says that PW1 left the office stating that he would bring the amount of Rs.1,000/- and the necessary papers on the next day. She says that at that time, the accused did not ask PW1 to bring Rs.1,000/-towards electricity consumption charges and ‘mamool’. With regard to the trap, it is evidence of PW3 that two minutes after PW1 went to seat of the accused, PW1 left seat of the accused hurriedly and the accused called him by name loudly. It is contended that the accused had to call PW1 loudly because PW1 was leaving his seat after thrusting the amount into his pocket. 9. From the above reassessment of evidence in this appeal by this Court, this Court also has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there was no demand of any specific amount, much less any amount of bribe by the accused and that MO.5 tainted cash of Rs.200/- was not received by the accused by way of acceptance of bribe, but it was thrusted into his pocket by PW1 with oblique motive. There are no grounds in this appeal to come to a different conclusion from that of the lower Court. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 23.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1550 of 2004 DATED: 23.06.2011