* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2345 OF 2004 % Date: 13-09-2011 # Sk. Abdullaji .. Appellant v. $ State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam .. Respondent ! Counsel for the appellant : Sri C. Praveen Kumar ^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri P. Kesava Rao, Special Standing Counsel for CBI < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED: 1. 2004 Crl.LJ 153 2. AIR 2010 SC 1589 3. (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010 = (2011) 6 SCC 450 C/15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2345 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25-10-2004 in C.C. No.25 of 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam convicting the appellant – accused officer for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”) and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and further sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, appellant preferred this Criminal Appeal on the ground that the conviction and sentence recorded against him are contrary to the evidence and material on record and the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and erroneously held that he is guilty of the said offences. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (a) The appellant was working as co-coordinator of the Study Center at Sanghamithra Junior College, Nellore, having accreditation to National Open School, New Delhi, which was working under the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India. (b) That, four students viz., (1) A. Srikanth, (2) G. Madhusudan, (3) Buela Rakesh and (4) S. Ramatulasi preferred Ex.P-5 complaint before PW.7 - the Inspector, C.B.I., Nellore stating that the appellant being coordinator of the Study Center, at Sanghamithra Junior College, Nellore, having accreditation to National Open School, New Delhi, demanded Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) from each of them as bribe to get them through in theory examinations by copying, during April and May 2000; that on 18-05-2000, he also demanded Rs.1,000/- from each of them to pass them in the practical examinations; that ultimately he reduced the same to Rs.500/- and asked them to pay the same at his institute, which is owned by him, viz., Noble Institute, Nellore; however, they preferred Ex.P-5 complaint before PW.7 on 19-05-2000; that the C.B.I. authorities arranged trap proceedings by securing the presence of PW.3 to act as one of the mediators; that on 19-05-2000, the C.B.I. officials explained significance and practical procedure of the phenolphthalein test to PWs.1, 2, 3 and 9 under Ex.P-7 pre-trap panchanama. (c) That all of them went to the appellant, who was at Sanghamithra High School, Nellore; that on seeing them, appellant came out of the office and asked them whether they brought the amount; then PW.1 paid the tainted bribe amount to the appellant; that on receiving pre-arranged signal from PW.9, trap party came there and questioned the appellant as to whether he received any amount from PW.1, for which he remained silent for some time and when pressed, he stated that he kept the amount in his left side pant pocket and offered explanation as stated in Ex.P-8 post-trap proceedings that he accepted bribe amount from PW.1, which he kept in his left side pant pocket. (d) That when the fingers of both the hands of the appellant were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, his right hand fingers turned negative and left hand fingers turned positive. That after completion of investigation by PWs.7 and 8, PW.8 laid charge sheet. 3. After furnishing case documents to the appellant, when he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, he pleaded not guilty of the offences charged with. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has got examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-29 and also MOs.1 to 7 on its behalf. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, when the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. However, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. 6. That the trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the entire material on record, found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as referred supra for the said offences. Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred this appeal assailing the judgment of the trial Court. 7. Now the case of the appellant is that his defence before the trial Court as well as this Court is that he was not a public servant, as such, provisions of the PC Act could not be extended to him. That even if he is considered to be a public servant, there is no sanction to prosecute him and PWs.1, 2, 9 and another had a motive to implicate him at the behest of one Vijay, who is correspondent of Vijay Kiran Institute, Nellore, in which, PWs.1, 2, 9 and another were taking coaching. That the appellant could not have extended any official favour to PWs.1, 2, 9 and another since examinations were conducted by the National Open School, New Delhi and results would be announced by it and the appellant has no role to play in assessment of answer sheets and/or awarding marks in the practical examinations. Moreover, all the students including PWs.1, 2, 9 and another alleged to have taken away answer sheets from the examination hall, as such, it is the case of the appellant that on 18-07-2000 they were not allowed to appear for practical examinations. That being so, the question of PWs.1, 2, 9 and another approaching the appellant on 19-05-2000 and paying him bribe does not arise. There is no evidence on record that the appellant had demanded bribe from PWs.1, 2, 9 and another and that PW.1 had paid bribe amount to him and the appellant had accepted the same as bribe. That the explanation stated to have been offered by the appellant before the mediator – PW.3 and the investigating officer – PW.7 does not find place in Ex.P-8 post trap panchanama. 8. It is further the case of the appellant that he alleged to have demanded and accepted the alleged bribe amount of Rs.500/- each on behalf of PWs.1, 2, 9 and another amounting to Rs.2,000/-. However, PW.1 turned hostile. He did not support the case of the prosecution. His evidence does not disclose that the appellant had demanded bribe amount from him. However, he has admitted of having paid the tainted amount to the appellant and the appellant receiving the same by his right hand and putting the same in his left side pant pocket. But, when the fingers of both his hands were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, his left hand fingers alone turned in to pink colour and right hand fingers did not turn in to pink colour. Therefore, evidence of PW.1 that the appellant had received the tainted amount by his right hand from him stands disproved. Further, it is in the evidence of PW.1 that he was taken away by one Vijay, correspondent and principal of Vijay Kiran Institute, to the C.B.I. authorities, where he was made to prefer Ex.P.5 complaint at his behest. It is not known whether there is any enmity between Vijay Kiran Institute and the appellant, who happened to be coordinator of Sanghamithra Junior College having accreditation with the National Open School, New Delhi. Further, it is in the evidence that he took away answer sheets of one of his examinations and the same is evident from his cross-examination and that Vijay, correspondent and principal of Vijay Kiran Institute, misled him and his three other colleagues and got filed this case. Hence, the case of the appellant is that from the evidence of PW.1, it could be said that he did not support the case of the prosecution. 9. With regard to the evidence of PW.2, it is the case of the appellant that though she was examined by PW.7, the investigating Officer, she did not state before him that appellant had demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe from any of them i.e. PWs.1, 2, 9 and another; that they did not pay any amount to him. That the rest of her evidence is also not in support of the case of the prosecution, as such, she was declared hostile. That though she was subjected to cross- examination, nothing useful to the case of the prosecution was elicited from her evidence. Even she has denied a suggestion in her cross- examination that hand fingers of the appellant were not washed in her presence and the resultant solution did not turn in to pink colour. Thus, the evidence of PW.2 does not support the case of the prosecution, in any way. 10. With regard to the evidence of PW.3, it is the case of the appellant that PW.3 is the mediator to pre and post-trap panchanamas. She has stated that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW.1 in her presence and that he had received the tainted amount by his left hand and his left hand fingers yielded positive result when subjected to sodium carbonate solution test. However, this evidence is shown to be contrary to the evidence of PW.1, who has testified that the appellant had received the tainted amount with his right hand and then passed it over to his left hand and kept it in his left side pant pocket. However, the sodium carbonate solution test of his right hand fingers did not yield positive result. Whereas, it is in the evidence of PW.3 that fingers of the left hand of the appellant yielded positive result since he accepted the tainted bribe amount by his left hand, and his pant and shirt pockets also yielded positive result. That though PW.3 claims to have herself introduced to the appellant and the appellant had informed that on 19-05-2000 practical examinations are going to take place, it is in the evidence of PW.9 that all the examinations were over by 18-05-2000. Therefore, it is the case of the appellant that the very presence of PW.3 at Sanghamithra Junior College on 19-05-2000 is doubtful so also the appellant demanding and accepting bribe amount from PW.1 in her presence. 11. PW.4, who is the Principal of Sanghamithra Junior College, Nellore, has testified that he has appointed the appellant as coordinator of the Study Center as per the instructions of the National Open School, New Delhi. It is also in his evidence as to removal of the appellant by himself. Therefore, it is the case of the appellant that the appellant cannot be said to be a public servant, and, as such, provisions of the PC Act are not applicable to him. 12. PW.5, who is Senior Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Guntur, spoke only about opening a current bank account bearing No.799 in the names of the appellant and the principal of Sanghamithra Junior College. Hence, the case of the appellant is that evidence of PW.5 is not relevant for the purpose of this case. 13. PW.6 is the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. He has testified as to MOs.4 to 7 being subjected to chromatographic and spectroscopic techniques and the same detecting phenolphthalein in MOs.5 to 7 and the sodium carbonate in MOs.4 to 7. That phenolphthalein powder was not detected in MO.4. Hence the case of the appellant is that evidence of PW.6 is not relevant since the contents of his report under Ex.P-25 are not disputed. 14. PW.9 is one of the de facto complainants – student. She has supported the case of the prosecution. However, it is the case of the appellant that as per the evidence of PW.9, practical examinations were commenced on 16-05-2000 and concluded on 18-05-2000. That on 16-05-2000, she along with PWs.1 and 2 did not meet the appellant at all. It is not known as to what happened on 17-05-2000. It is in her evidence that on 18-05-2000, appellant did not allow her, PWs.1 and 2 and another to attend the practical examinations, as such, they were constrained to prefer Ex.P-5 complaint before PW.7. In this connection, it is the case of the appellant that Ex.P-5 was preferred by PWs.1, 2, 9 and another before PW.7 at the behest of one Vijay, Principal and Correspondent of Vijay Kiran Institute, Nellore, since Vijay Kiran Institute was one of the competitors for accreditation from National Open School, New Delhi, as such, its Principal and Correspondent - Vijay Kiran has instigated PWs.1, 2, 9 and another to prefer false complaint against the appellant as they happened to be students of his institution. That they also developed a grudge against the appellant by then since he did not allow them to attend the practical examinations on 18-05-2000. 15. PWs.7 and 8 are the investigating officers. They have only stated as to their investigation. The prosecution has not obtained sanction order from the Government to prosecute the appellant. In this context, it is the case of the appellant that if the appellant is considered as a public servant, the absence of sanction order is a lacuna in the case of the prosecution and the same goes to the root of the case and vitiates it. That in case, it is considered that the appellant is not a public servant, the provisions of the PC Act are not applicable to him. 16. It is further the case of the appellant that there is every possibility of PWs.1, 2, 9 and another preferring Ex.P-5 on false premises in order to implicate the appellant since the principal of Sanghamithra Junior College, Nellore had preferred a police complaint basing on the report of the invigilator that about 47 students of their college had taken away answer sheets during senior secondary examinations. Further, PWs.1, 2, 9 and another had motive to falsely implicate the appellant since he did not allow them to appear for practical examinations on 18-05-2000. That since PWs.1, 2, 9 and another did not appear either for some papers of theory and all the papers of practical examinations, they could not be expected to get through the examinations, and as such, the appellant was helpless and there was no question of extending any official favour by him to them – PWs.1, 2, 9 and another. 17. Further, it is the case of the appellant that since there is no clear evidence on record as to when the appellant had demanded and accepted the alleged bribe amount from PWs.1, 2, 9 and another, prosecution should have no case at all and that the trial Court has therefore committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. 18. So far as theory examinations are concerned, the case of the appellant is that answer sheets were to be evaluated by the National Open School, New Delhi, and, as such, appellant had no role to play in the process thereof. That so far as practical examinations are concerned, it is in the evidence of PWs.1 and 9 that on 18-05- 2000, there were disturbances at the examination centre in Sanghamithra Junior College, Nellore and that they were not allowed to appear for the practical examinations, as such, the question of evaluating their performance at the practical examinations does not arise. That, in either case, the appellant had no role to play. That being so, the appellant cannot be said to have power or authority to extend any official favour to PWs.1, 2, 9 and another. That it is again in the evidence of PWs.1 and 9 that on 18-05-2000, there were disturbances at the examination centre in Sanghamithra Junior College and that they were not allowed to appear for the practical examinations. It was at that time, Mr. Vijay, who is the Principal and Correspondent of Vijay Kiran Institute, Nellore, came there, took them to Railway Retiring Room No.1 and got a complaint (Ex.P-5) preferred by them before the C.B.I. authorities against the appellant. In this context, it is the case of the appellant that Vijay came to the examination centre on 18-05-2000 as some of his students were appearing for the examination including PWs.1, 2, 9 and another and on coming to know that PWs.1, 2, 9 and another were not allowed to appear for practical examinations on that day, took them to C.B.I. authorities to prefer a complaint. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 that he along with PWs.2, 9 and another preferred a written complaint before the District Collector, Nellore, against the management of Sanghamithra Junior College, in this regard. 19. In support of the case of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in BRIJ BHUSHAN PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR[1], BANARSI DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA[2] and STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER v. C.P. RAO[3]. 20. The defence/pleas raised on behalf of the appellant are that; (i) The appellant was not a public servant as per the PC Act. (ii) Even if he is to be considered a public servant, no sanction orders were obtained from the Government for prosecuting him and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. (iii) The appellant had no power to extend any official favour to PWs.1, 2, 9 and another. (iv) There is no evidence to show that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe amount. (v) There is a motive for PWs.1, 2 and 9 to falsely implicate the appellant in this case at the behest of Mr. Vijay, the Principal and Correspondent of Vijay Kiran Institute at which PWs.1, 2 and 9 along with others were undergoing training to appear for the Senior Secondary examination conducted by the National Open School, New Delhi and the examination centre being Sanghamithra Junior College, Nellore. 21. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the trail Court has committed any error, irregularity or illegality in finding the appellant guilty of the offences charged with ? POINT: 22. Coming to the question of the appellant being a public servant, It is an admitted fact that the appellant was appointed as coordinator of the Study Centre of National Open School, New Delhi under Ex.P-16 – proforma for appointing the coordinator in response to Ex.P-15 – letter of the National Open School, New Delhi, dated 05-07-1999 addressed to the Principal, Sanghamithra High School, Nellore. After the appointment, appellant was to perform the obligations as specified in Ex.P.23 – Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Since the appellant was appointed as coordinator of the Study Centre at Samghamithra Junior College, Nellore having accreditation to National Open School, New Delhi, it is contended that he is to be construed as a public servant as the Study Center of National Open School, New Delhi is working under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. 23. It my be stated in this regard that the appellant is required to discharge his duties under Ex.P-23 Memorandum of Understanding, which are in the nature of public duties. That the National Open School, New Delhi, which is said to be a creature of the statute, the appellant, who was appointed as a coordinator of a Study Center of it, may be said to have become a public servant. 24. As PW.4 – the then Principal of Sanghamithra Junior College, Nellore, has stated at the end of his cross-examination that prior to his appointment as coordinator of the Study Centre of National Open School, New Delhi, appellant was working as a Teacher in Sanghamithra High School, Nellore, it is contended that on appointment of the appellant as coordinator of the Study Centre of the National Open School, New Delhi, he ceased to be a Teacher of Sanghamithra High School, Nellore and had become a public servant to discharge the functions as stated in Ex.P-23 Memorandum of Understanding. 25. No doubt, as per the provisions of Section 2(c)(xii) of the PC Act, appellant may be construed as a public servant. The said provision reads as under:- “Public servant” means any person who is an office bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority.” Hence, the appellant may be said to fall into the above definition of a public servant as he was appointed as a coordinator for an educational institution, i.e. Study Center at Sanghamithra Junior College, Nellore having accreditation to National Open School, New Delhi, which is said to have been created under a Statute and receiving financial assistance from the Central Government. That, by taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, the trial Court has given a finding that the appellant is a public servant and convicted him for the offences charged with though there is no sanctioned order for prosecuting him which is necessary for prosecuting any public servant. 26. That the appellant continued to be coordinator of the Study Centre for National Open School, New Delhi, till 19-08-2000, on which date his services as such were terminated. Therefore, he ceased to be a coordinator from that day onwards. That the charge sheet against the appellant was laid into the Court on 16-11-2000 i.e., about three months after he ceased to be a public servant (3 days short of 3 months). Therefore, the contention of the prosecution is that obtaining sanction orders from the Government to prosecute the appellant were considered not necessary and as such the same were not obtained by the prosecution in the peculiar circumstances of the case and since the appellant had become all of a sudden public servant on his appointment as coordinator and ceased to be so within a short time and charge sheet was filed after his ceasing to be a public servant. However, the said contention appears to be farfetched. 27. It is settled law that once criminal proceedings are initiated against a public servant and during the pendency of such proceedings even if the public servant ceases to be a public servant, such proceedings may continue till their logical conclusion. That the appellant ceased to be a public servant from 19-08-2000, even then the CBI authorities continued its investigation and ultimately laid charge sheet against him on 16-11-2000 and ultimately after conclusion of the trial, the Special Court for CBI Cases found him guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act by its judgment dated 25-10-2004. 28. However, it is to be observed that the C.B.I. officials appear to be not sure of the appellant being a public servant and the same seems to be a reason for their failure in obtaining sanction orders from the Government to prosecute him. Otherwise, they would, in all probability, have obtained such order from the Government. That since such an order is a sine qua non to proceed against any public servant, it cannot be said that the prosecution has strong foundation for its case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that no sanction order is