THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.845 of 2004 BETWEEEN: E.Venkata Ramana … Appellant AND State: by Inspector of Police … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.845 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 12.03.2004 in CC.No.13 of 1994 convicted him of the offences punishable under Sections 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 one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count separately. PW1, whose son by name Niranjan died, approached PW7 (Mandal Revenue Officer) and gave application on 21.02.1994 for compensation for the death of his son, who died in unnatural circumstances, under the scheme of Personal Accidents Benefits under Social Security. Under that scheme, a financial benefit of Rs.3,000/- is given to the dependants/beneficiaries by United India Insurance Company Limited as per Ex.P9 rules. It is the prosecution case that when the application of PW1 was forwarded to the accused for enquiry, the accused demanded for bribe of Rs.500/- from PW1 and later reduced the demand to Rs.300/- and that when PW1 approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mahabubnagar Range and gave Ex.P2 report, trap was arranged for the accused and it was successfully carried out. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. As can be seen from the record as well as from the evidence recorded in the lower Court, there is no dispute on the part of the accused about recovery of MO.7 tainted cash of Rs.300/- from the possession of the accused during post trap proceedings covered by Ex.P5. It was the spontaneous explanation of the accused during post trap proceedings that he did not demand any bribe from PW1 and that PW1 himself forcibly thrusted MO.7 tainted cash into his pocket. The lower Court after full fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act. 2. During trial in the lower Court, the decoy witness PW1 totally turned hostile to the prosecution. Because of the same, there is no evidence of the accused previously demanding for bribe of Rs.500/- from PW1 and subsequently reducing the bribe amount to Rs.300/- on 04.03.1994 after bargain. But, with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe covered by MO.7 on the date of trap, there is evidence of PW2, who is the accompanying witness. The lower Court believed evidence of PW2 and found the accused guilty. It is contended by the appellant’s senior counsel that evidence of PW2 is not trustworthy and is liable to be rejected. PW2 is dubbed as a pairavakar (broker in offices). Though it is alleged that PW2 tried to harass and blackmail the accused previously, there is no proof of the same. PW7 expressed ignorance about the accused complaining to him against PW2 harassing him in discharging his official duties. There was no written report or representation against PW2 by the accused on any previous occasion. No personal or official enmity is established between the accused and PW2. There are no circumstances to find PW2 as a pairavakar or broker in Government offices. It is also contended that PW2 is an informant for ACB. PW9, who is the Inspector of Police who assisted the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the trap proceedings, denied the said suggestion. The prosecution could not examine the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the trap laying officer as he was no more by the date of trial in the lower Court. Though several roles like Pairavakar and ACB informant were attributed to PW2, there is absolutely no material on record to either substantiate the same or to accept the said suggestion. 3. PW2 is the scribe of PW1’s application contained in Ex.P4 file for financial assistance of Rs.3,000/- for the un-natural death of his son Niranjan. PW2 is also the scribe of Ex.P2 report given by PW1 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Mahabubnagar District. There is no dispute on the part of PW2 and PW9 that PW1 did not know reading and writing. It is contended for the appellant that PW1 was only a marksman and cannot even sign and that the signatures in Ex.P2 as well as in the application covered by Ex.P4 were forged by PW2. There is no basis for the said contention in record. No doubt, PW1 affixed his thumb marks in the deposition recorded by the lower Court and did not sign in it. There is no dispute that PW1’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate (PW6) during the course of investigation of this case. PW6 says that in the statement recorded by him from PW1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., PW1 had signed in each page of the said statement. Further, PW1 was summoned by the Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P8 is the served summons of PW1. In Ex.P8 also, PW1 has signed acknowledging receipt of the said summons by him. From the above material, it is evident that though PW1 does not know reading and writing, he has been a signatory only and not a marksman. In pursuance of his collusion with the accused during trial in the lower Court, PW1 put his thumb marks on his deposition recorded by the lower Court and did not sign therein. It is evident that PW1 was won over by the accused during trial in the lower Court. Therefore, the prosecution could not lead any evidence with regard to the prior demands of the accused for bribe during February, 1994 and with regard to reduction of demand of bribe to Rs.300/- on 04.03.1994. It is contended by the appellant that as there is no proof of previous demand of bribe, mere recovery of MO.7 tainted cash from the possession of the accused, cannot lead to conviction of the accused. Even though there was no proof of previous demand of bribe either in February, 1994 or on 04.03.1994, it has to be seen whether the prosecution was able to prove prior demand for bribe on the date of trap during the proceedings of trap. 4. PW3, who is the mediator and PW9, who is the Inspector of Police who assisted the trap laying officer speak to Ex.P3 pre trap proceedings, which took place in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB at Mahabubnagar. After the pre-trap proceedings, PW2 was employed as accompanying witness for PW1 during the course of trap. When PWs 1 and 2 went into the office of the accused at about 1:00 P.M., the accused was not available at his office. Therefore, after reporting the same to the trap laying officer, they came back to office of the accused and found the accused there. It is evidence of PW2 that the accused asked PW1 whether he brought money, to which PW1 said that he brought it, and that the accused took that money, counted and kept the same in his shirt pocket and that thereafter, he (PW2) went out and gave pre–arranged signal to the trap party and that the trap party rushed into the office of the accused. PWs 3 and 9 speak to recovery of MO.7 tainted cash from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P5, post-trap mediators report. As pointed out earlier, in Ex.P5, it was noted that when the trap laying officer questioned the accused about his possession of tainted cash, the accused stated that he did not demand any bribe or money from PW1 and that PW1 himself thrusted the said cash into his pocket. Since PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution during trial in the lower Court, the defence counsel in the lower Court changed the version and suggested to PW2 that PW2 thrusted the tainted cash MO.7 into pocket of the accused. PW2 denied the said suggestion. This inconsistent version of the accused with regard to the person who is stated to have thrusted tainted cash into his pocket, this Court is of the opinion that it is only a lame excuse put forward by the accused in order to wriggle himself out of this muddle. Evidence of PW2 undoubtedly established that on the date of trap on 09.03.1994, PW1 paid tainted cash of Rs.300/- to the accused after the accused made a demand for the same. Evidence of PW2 proved not only acceptance of MO.7 tainted cash by the accused from PW1, but also the accused making demand for the same by enquiring with PW1 whether he brought the amount. PW1 did not pay the bribe amount prior to the accused asking for the same. 5. It is contended for the appellant that there is no proof of pendency of application of PW1 for financial assistance of Rs.3,000/- to him for unnatural death of his son Niranjan. PW7, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, deposed that PW1 gave that application to him on 21.02.1994 and that he initialed on it and forwarded the same to the accused for enquiry. After PW7 received the application from PW1 on 21.02.1994, it was received by ‘J’ Section of the Mandal Revenue Office, where PW4 was Senior Assistant. According to PW4, he forwarded the same to the accused. It is contended for the appellant that in the distribution register, signature of the accused is not there to show that the accused received the same for enquiry. According to PW4, he endorsed the same to the accused on 26.02.1994. PW5 is the Attender in that office and according to him, he sent the application to the accused. As per the evidence of PW5, he could not enter this application into the distribution register because the distribution register was held up with one VAO (Village Administrative Officer). PW10, who is the Head Assistant in the office of PW7 also deposed that the application of PW1 was pending with the accused for enquiry. According to the prosecution case, the accused demanded bribe amount for the purpose of sending favourable report on the application of PW1. 6. It is contended that application of PW1 did not contain thumb impression of PW1 and it contained one signature as Niranjan. Niranjan is the deceased son of PW1. It could not have been signed by Niranjan because he was no more by then. The application contained in Ex.P4 reads that it was the application of PW1 namely Jangaiah, claiming financial assistance for death of his son Niranjan. Simply because at the end of the application, name of Niranjan is signed, it cannot be said that it is a forged application made by PW2. It was not elicited from PW2 that he signed in that application as Niranjan. It is further contended that as per evidence of PW7, the Mandal Revenue Inspector need not send the report in case the application is not in order. It cannot be correct. It is not for the Mandal Revenue Inspector to dispose of the application at his end. The Mandal Revenue Inspector is only an enquiring authority, who has to submit report to the Mandal Revenue Officer after making enquiry on the application. He is not the final authority on the application. 7. Evidence of PWs 3 and 9 and Ex.P5 read that Ex.P4 file containing application of PW1 was seized from the office of the accused under the cover of Ex.P5 itself during post trap proceedings. Therefore, from the evidence of official witnesses PWs 4, 5, 7 , 10 as well as trap witnesses PWs. 3 and 9 the application of PW1 for financial assistance for unnatural death of his son was pending enquiry with the accused. 8. From the above evidence let in by the prosecution, there can be least doubt of the fact that there was official favour pending with the accused and that the accused demanded and accepted bribe covered by MO.7 from PW1. Simply because the decoy witness PW1 tuned hostile to the prosecution, the entire prosecution case is not liable to be thrown out. It has to be seen whether there is any other evidence to prove the ingredients required under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act in order to find the accused guilty of the said offences. In this case, the lower Court scrutinized the entire record in the right perspective and rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution. I do not find any reasons to come to a different conclusion from that of the lower Court. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 06.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.845 of 2004 DATED: 06.06.2011 ysk