IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1580 of 2004 DATE:24.06.2011 Between: State : Range Inspector-III, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada …… Appellant And G.Madhusudhana Rao and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1580 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The 1st respondent/A-1 was working as District Probation Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam holding full additional charge of the post of Regional Inspector of Probation, Vijayawada. The 2nd respondent/A-2 was Typist in the office of Regional Inspector of Probation, Vijayawada. By judgment dated 30.01.2004 in C.C. No.8 of 1994, the Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Vijayawada acquitted A-1 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 acquitted A-2 of the charge under Section 12/7 of the Act. Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. 2) P.W-1 was working as District Probation Officer, West Godavari District at Eluru. A-1 gave tour programme scheduling his visit to Eluru from 13.09.1993 to 17.09.1993 for the purpose of inspection of P.W-1’s office. It is alleged that A-1 informed P.W-1 that he would visit for inspection on 17.09.1993 only, and directed P.W-1 to prepare his diary as if inspection commenced from 13.09.1993. It is further alleged that A-1 demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- from P.W-1 for showing official favour of writing favourable remark on P.W-1’s office. With the said allegations, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report on 14.09.1993 to P.W-7 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Vijayawada. P.W-7 organised trap for A-1 on 15.09.1993 with the help of two mediators viz., P.Ws-4 and 5. Before proceeding for the trap, Ex.P-4 mediators’ report relating to pre-trap proceedings were prepared. It is alleged that during the course of trap, on the directions of A-1, P.W-1 paid M.O-3 tainted cash of Rs.1,000/- to A-2 at Chuttugunta centre on Eluru Road of Vijayawada and that A-2 in his turn went to A-1’s house and that at A-1’s house, on seeing the raid party, A-1 instructed A-2 to throw away the tainted cash and that thereupon A-2 had thrown the tainted cash from a window or ventilator which fell in the neighbouring compound. Plea of A-1 and A-2 is that of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found A-1 and A-2 not guilty of the respective charges. 3) The lower Court disbelieved evidence of P.W-1 on the ground that his evidence is highly improbable and motivated. The lower Court also disbelieved the prosecution case with regard to seizure of M.O-3 tainted cash. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that in this appeal against acquittal, this Court may scrutinize the evidence on record and come to its own conclusion. On the other hand, it is contended by two senior counsel appearing for the respondents/A-1 and A-2 respectively that the conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is proper and is not liable to be disturbed. 4) There is no dispute that P.W-1 joined in service earlier to A-1. P.W-1 joined in service as District Probation Officer Grade-II on 16.04.1979. According to A-1, he joined in service as District Probation Officer Grade-II on 14.08.1982. In spite of P.W-1 being senior to A-1, P.W-1 was denied promotion earlier to A-1’s promotion. P.W-1 admits that A-1 was junior to him in service and that A-1 was promoted to Grade-I on 17.04.1989 and that his seniority was overlooked and that subsequently he was promoted to Grade-I on 27.08.1991. Previously one Nagireddy was Regional Inspector of Probation, Vijayawada. After Nagireddy got promotion and was transferred to Hyderabad, A-1 was placed in full additional charge of the post of Inspector of Probation, Vijayawada. As Inspector of Probation, Vijayawada, A-1 intended to inspect the office of p.W-1 which is within the inspectorate of Vijayawada. It is contended that P.W-1 bore grudge against A-1 as A-1 got promotion earlier to him in spite of he being junior to him and as A-1 who is a junior to him intended to inspect the office of P.W-1. It is contended that with this back ground, evidence of P.W-1 has to be scrutinised by this Court. 5) It is evidence of P.W-1 that on 14.09.1993 he met A-1 at Vijayawada and enquired him about the inspection programme and that A-1 told him that he would come and inspect his office on 17.09.1993, and asked P.W-1 to write his own diary as if A-1 inspected his office from 13.09.1993 onwards. P.W-1 further says that A-1 also demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe promising to write good report about his office administration and that when P.W-1 expressed there being no practice of paying bribe at the time of inspection, A-1 threatened him to spoil his career in case he did not pay Rs.1,000/- as bribe to him. For the said demand, there is no other evidence except that of P.W-1. It is contended that P.W-1’s evidence cannot be taken on its face value because of the admitted seniority dispute between them. 6) On the date of trap on 15.09.1993, P.W-1 claims to have gone to A-1’s house at B.R.Nagar, Vijayawada; and as he was not available at his house, P.W-1 claims to have gone to A-1’s office located in Indira Gandhi Municipal Stadium, Vijayawada, where also A-1 was not available P.W-1 claims to have waited in A-1’s office for some period during which phone located in the office of A-1 began to ring and P.W-1 claims to have attended that phone. In A-1’s office, there are staff members like A-2 who is a Typist, P.W-2 who is a Senior Assistant and P.W-3 who is an attender. When a phone ring is received in the office of A-1 and when A-1 was not available in his seat, then any of A-2 or P.W-2 or P.W-3 would have naturally attended that phone call. Instead, P.W-1 claims to have attended the phone call. According to P.W-1, it was a phone call from A-1, and on phone, A-1 asked P.W-1 to go to A-1’s house along with A-2 and also asked P.W-1 to hand over the receiver to A-2, and A-1 also talked to A-2 on phone. This phone call business is not supported by P.W-2. P.W-2 in her cross-examination deposed that on 15.09.1993 P.W-1 and A-2 did not attend any telephone call from A-1’s office at Vijayawada. But for this phone call, P.W-1 and A-2 together would not have gone to the house of A-1 on that evening. If evidence of P.W-1 regarding the phone call is disbelieved, bottom of P.W-1’s evidence would be knocked off. 7) It is evidence of P.W-1 that he and A-2 went from A-1’s office to A-1’s house by double riding on A-2’s cycle and that when P.W-1 offered tainted cash of Rs.1,000/- to A-1 at his house, A-1 stated to P.W-1 that he was not in the habit of receiving bribe at his house, and asked P.W-1 to pay the said amount to A-2 outside his house. According the P.W-1, he and A-2 went to a distance of about half a kilometre from A-1’s house to Chuttugunta bus stop of Eluru road at Vijayawada and at that place P.W-1 paid tainted cash of Rs.1,000/- to A-2 for handing over the same to A-1. It is not known why a busy place like Chuttugunta bus stop was selected by P.W-1 for payment of bribe amount and by A-2 for receipt of the alleged bribe amount. 8) After A-2 returned from Chuttugunta bus stop to A-1’s house which is located in second floor of the building, the raid party is stated to have followed him. It is the prosecution case that on seeing A.C.B trap party, A-1 directed A-2 to throw away the cash which was in his hand and that when A-2 had thrown away the cash, it fell in the neighbour’s compound. The lower Court pointed out that there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws-4, 5 and 7 with regard to the place from where the tainted cash of Rs.1,000/- was recovered. According to P.W-4, the tainted cash was recovered from a place by the side of bath room of neighbour’s house. Whereas P.W-5 deposed that when a constable saw from the upstair portion of A-1, the tainted cash was found in the neighbour’s bath room and that the tainted cash was seized from the bath room. P.W-7 deposed that the tainted cash was recovered from the back yard of the neighbour. Having regard to the above inconsistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the lower Court also doubted the prosecution version on recovery of the tainted cash. Admittedly, the tainted cash was neither recovered from possession of A-1 nor from possession of A-2. 9) At this stage, a further look into evidence of P.W-1 becomes relevant. P.W-1 in cross-examination admitted the suggestion of A-2’s defence counsel that A-2 was an innocent carrier of the tainted amount. He says that he had been cordial with A-2 who has got confidence in P.W-1. P.W-1 further says that A-1 had registered house four or five days after the trap. It is contended that P.W-1 gave tainted cash of Rs.1,000/- to A-2 instructing him to hand over the said amount to A-1 who asked for loan of the said amount for the purpose of registration of his house. Thus, in any event, A-2 being an innocent carrier of the tainted cash, it cannot be said that A-2 aided muchless intentionally aided A-1 in collection of bribe by him. In so far as A-1 is concerned, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that ipse dixit P.W-1 cannot be relied upon having regard to the background between P.W-1 and A-1. The investigating agency did not employ any accompanying witness in this case and in the absence of corroboration of P.W-1, which corroboration is not as a matter of rule, but as a matter of prudence, no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of P.W-1 in this case. The lower Court on thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence on record came to right conclusion in favour of the accused and I do not find any grounds in this appeal to interfere with the order of acquittal of A-1 and A-2 recorded by the lower Court. 10) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 24, 2011 ksh