IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1910 of 2004 DATE: 01.07.2011 Between: Sk.Prabhakar …..Appellant And The State of A.P. through A.C.B, Hyderabad …… Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1910 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The accused/appellant was working as Village Assistant of Kurnool town. By judgment dated 10.08.2004 in C.C.No.10 of 1993, the Additional Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Hyderabad convicted the accused of the offences 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.500/- on both the counts separately. 2) It is alleged that when P.W-1 approached the accused for residence certificates of himself, his brother and his brother-in-law on 07.02.1992 along with notarised affidavits as they were not having ration cards, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.300/- for signing on the certificates and for getting the certificates signed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-5 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) Kurnool in that regard. P.W-5 organised the trap for the accused on 07.02.1992 in the presence of mediators including P.W-2. Before proceeding for the trap, pre-trap procedures were conducted in A.C.B Office, Kurnool under the cover of Ex.P-9 mediators' report. It is alleged that the trap was successful and that the accused was caught red handed while in possession of M.O-1 tainted cash of Rs.300/- given by P.W-1 to him. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. He contends that M.0-1 tainted cash was thrusted into his hip pocket by s o m e b o d y . After full trial, the lower Court accepted the prosecution version and rejected the defence version and found the accused guilty of the charges. 3) In this appeal, it is contended by the senior counsel for the appellant that there is no proof of demand for bribe made by the accused and that evidence of D.Ws 1 and 2 regarding thrusting of M.O- 1 currency notes should have been accepted by the lower Court and that the lower Court did not appreciate the entire material on record in the right perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion. 4) Ex.P-1 report is dated 06.02.1992. It was recorded by P.W-5 in Telugu on the instructions of P.W-1 who d i d not know reading and writing of Telugu. In Ex.P-1, it is version of P.W-1 that on 06.02.1992 the accused made demand for bribe of Rs.100/- for each certificate. Though a charge sheet filed by the investigating officer has no relevance in evaluating the prosecution case, I propose to refer contents of the charge sheet in this case because it was hopelessly prepared. In the charge sheet, there is no allegation of P.W-1 meeting the accused on 06.02.1992 and the accused demanding P.W-1 for bribe of Rs.300/- on that day. As per allegations in the charge sheet, P.W-1 met the accused on 07.02.1992 along with affidavit of the applicants and that the accused demanded Rs.300/- for himself for signing the same and for getting the same signed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In criminal trial, the charge sheet has no relevance except to the limited extent of knowing line of investigation made by investigating officer and findings arrived by the investigating officer after collection of evidence. 5) Be that as it may, evidence let in by the prosecution has to be evaluated for finding whether there was demand for bribe by the accused or not. It is evidence of P.W-1 that on 06.02.1992 he and Abdul Barik went to Mandal Revenue Office and met the accused and requested him to issue residence certificate and that the accused asked them to get ration cards for issuing residence certificates. He further says that on the next day, since the ration card was not available, they obtained notary affidavit and went to the accused and that he (P.W-1) stayed outside the office and Abdul Barik alone went inside the office and that Abdul Barik came back within 5 minutes and informed him about the accused demanding for bribe of Rs.300/- and that thereafter both of them went to A.C.B office at Kurnool. This evidence of P.W-1 also is to the effect that alleged demand for bribe was made by the accused on the next day of 06.02.1992 i.e., 07.02.1992. P.W-1 did not state that there was any demand for bribe on 06.02.1992. P.W-1 did not state that there was any demand for bribe on 06.02.1992. The conversation between P.W-1 and the accused on 06.02.1992 was relating to existence of ration cards with P.W-1 and other applicants. When there was no demand for bribe on 06.02.1992, the allegations in Ex.P-1 report given on 06.02.1992 become false. As per evidence of P.W-1, even on 07.02.1992 the accused did not make any demand for bribe with him as he did not go inside the office to meet the accused. One A.Barik is stated to have gone and met the accused in his office and the accused is stated to have made demand for bribe with the said Abdul Barik. The said Abdul Barik is not examined. Therefore, there is no proof of demand for bribe by the accused at any time prior to the trap. 6) In the light of t h e above evidence and circumstances, evidence relating to the trap has to be evaluated. P.W-1 deposed that after A.C.B party took vantage positions, he alone entered inside the Mandal Revenue Office, where seat of the accused is located in Varandah and that the accused finally came to the office after 4.30 P.M and that there were so many persons at that time and that he went opposite to the accused and on seeing him, the accused asked him whether he brought the money and thereupon he gave tainted money to the accused and that he gave residence certificates to the accused for his signatures. Proforma of residence certificates were taken by P.W-1 along with him. After receiving pe-arranged signal, the trap party entered into the office and conducted post-trap procedures in that Office. As per evidence of P.W-2 and P.W-5, hand finger rinses of both hands of the accused and rinses of inner lining of hip pocket of pant of the accused turned pink in sodium carbonate solution vide M.Os 3 to 5. Simply because M.Os 3 to 5 do not appear to be pink when trial was taken up on the lower Court in the year 2004, it cannot be said that hand washes of the accused did not turn pink. Admittedly the tainted cash was recovered from hip pocket of the accused. Even hip pocket lining rinse also was not looking pink in M.O-5 at the time of trial in the lower Court. 7) It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that during post-trap proceedings covered by Ex.P-10, when P.W-5 questioned the accused for his explanation of possession of M.O-1 tainted cash, the accused did not put forward his defence version during that time and instead admitted the prosecution version. Since the statement said to have been given by the accused during Ex.P-10 is in the nature of a confessional statement made to a police officer, it is hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, it becomes inadmissible and cannot be used for any purposes in Court. At best, the said statement of the accused becomes relevant to the limited extent of noting absence of thrusting theory put forward by the accused during trial. 8) On the events which happened during t r a p , there is evidence of P.W-1 alone, even though post-trap events are spoken by P.Ws 2 and 5. As per P.W-1's evidence, there were many persons when he met the accused in the office during the trap. The accused examined D.Ws 1 and 2 to speak in support of his version. D.W-1 was appointed as Village Administrative Officer of Joharapuram village of Kurnool Mandal and he took charge of the said post from the accused on 07.02.1992 as per Ex.D-1 charge list. D.W-2 was the then Food Inspector working in the same office at Kurnool. T h e y claim to be present during the course of trap along with the accused. It is their evidence that the accused was not available in his office on 06.02.1992. Ex.D-2 is entry in casual leave register of the Mandal Revenue Office and it shows that the accused was granted casual leave on 06.02.1992 on the ground of he going to his native village. D.W-3 was examined to show that on 06.02.1992 the accused was in his village and entered into Ex.D-3 agreement with him. In my opinion, evidence of D.W-3 and Ex.D-3 or Ex.D-4 may not be relevant now because there is no evidence of the accused demanding for bribe on 06.02.1992. 9) It is evidence of D.W-1 that at about 4.00 P.M after the accused gave charge to him, D.W-2 came there and they were in conversation and that in the meanwhile two persons came there with certificates and that the accused stated to them about he signing those certificates already in the morning itself and as to why they came to him again and that one of the two persons left the place and another person was sitting by the side of the accused and that he came from behind and kept some amount in his back pocket of pant. From the evidence of D.W-l, it can be inferred that the two persons who met the accused were P.W-1 and his friend Barik. According to D.W-1, one of the two persons thrusted money into back pocket of pant of the accused. Whereas, it is evidence of D.W-2 that one person came to the accused and gave some papers to the accused who opened those papers and found money in those papers and that the accused returned that amount to that person questioning as to why he was giving that amount to him and that the said person took back the amount and kept that amount on table stating that the papers given by him were relating to the residential certificate, and that the accused saw those papers and told him about he signing those papers already. It is further evidence of D.W-2 that the said person left the place and returned in about 5 minutes along with two other persons and that the first person kept something into hip pocket of the accused and two other persons caught hold of hands of the accused. The evidence of D.Ws 1 and 2 is highly inconsistent and destructive of each other. It is not known whether one person came there or two persons came there or three persons came there and who did what during the course of their meeting with the accused. In my opinion, the lower Court rightly disbelieved thrusting theory put forward by the accused. At any rate, falsity of the defence case cannot be taken as a ground for finding that the prosecution case is proved. The prosecution has to stand or fall on merits of its own evidence and cannot rely upon falsity in the defence version. 10) P.W-4 is brother of P.W-1. It is his evidence that at about 11.30 A.M or 12.00 noon he found the accused in the office and that he gave papers concerned to Talari (village servant) to obtain signature of the accused and that Talari obtained signatures of the accused and gave the same to him and that he came out of the office at about 12.30 P.M. According to P.W-3, Talari informed him that another officer's signature has to be obtained therein. Evidence of P.W-4 shows that signature of the accused on the certificate was already obtained prior to the alleged trap which took place after 4.00 P.M. When the accused already signed in any certificate or certificates and the certificates were waiting for signature of the higher officer viz., Mandal Revenue Officer, evidence of P.W-1 that during the course of trap, the accused after receiving the bribe amount on demand signed on the certificates, becomes false. In the light of such state of evidence, the prosecution cannot contend that P.W-1 is a truthful witness. In the absence of any corroboration for P.W-1, which corroboration may not be as a matter of rule but as a matter of prudence, no reliance can be placed on P.W-1 's evidence in this case. 11) For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the lower Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and landed in erroneous conclusion in favour of the prosecution. I do not agree with the reasoning as well as conclusion arrived at by the lower Court. I have no hesitation to find that the accused is not guilty of the charges. 12) In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences passed by the lower Court against the accused/appellant and acquitting him. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 1, 2011 ksh