THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2443 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Appellant is the accused in C.C.No.5 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore (trial court). He was tried on charges under Sections 9, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2), Section 13(1)(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short Act) and also Section 420 I.P.C. i.e. cheating on the allegation that he collected amounts from the de facto complainant and two other persons on a promise of securing jobs for their sons and cheated them. 2. The trial court after considering the matter by its judgment dated 14.10.2004, accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant of the charges under Section 9 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d)(i) of the Act and Section 420 of I.P.C. but acquitted him of the charge under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. It imposed a sentence of imprisonment of six months on the first count, rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the second and third counts besides imposing various amounts of fines for all the three counts with default clause prison sentences for non-payment of fines. It ordered that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Questioning that judgment this appeal is filed. As the whole matter is now at large before this Court, it has to be considered in detail. 3. The case of the prosecution is this. The appellant hereinafter wards referred to for short as accused was at the relevant time a Forest Jamedar in the Forest Department of Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam (TTD), Tirupathi and a public servant within the meaning of the Act and was residing at Tirupathi. P.W.1 K.Kuppu Swamy who was then a retired Sub-Inspector of Police and who is the de facto complainant and P.W.7 D.Munemma are residents of Tirupathi. P.W.9 K.Jayaramaiah is a resident of Sorakayalapalem near Tirupathi. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 had two sons i.e. P.W.3. K.Subrahmanyam and another Murali (not examined). Similarly P.W.7 D.Munemma had one son i.e. P.W.6 D.Muruga Reddy and P.W.9 K.Jayaramaiah had also a son i.e. P.W.8 K.Ravisankar. 4. The prosecution version is that P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 were searching for jobs for their sons and all of them came into contact with the accused during the period from October 1992 to February 1993. The accused told P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 that he can secure the jobs of attenders for their sons in Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences at Tirupathi (for short hospital) by influencing the authorities there provided they were ready to spend amounts. On the representations made by the accused and taking into account his job, P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 readily believed him. It is stated that the accused demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- from P.W.1 to secure the jobs of attenders for his two sons and received as advance a sum of Rs.30,000/- from him on 27.2.1993 in the house of P.W.2 R.Jayamma (sister of P.W.1) at Tirupathi and at that time P.W.5 N.Pandurangan was also present. 5. It is further stated that the accused demanded Rs.40,000/- from P.W.7 D.Munemma for securing the job of attender to her son in the above hospital and took an advance of Rs.10,000/- from her on 22.10.1992. Likewise, the accused is also said to have taken an advance of Rs.10,000/- from out of Rs.40,000/- demanded by him from P.W.9 Jayaramaiah for securing job to his son in the above hospital. This payment is said to have been made on 24.12.1992. It is then alleged that thereafter the accused could not secure the jobs and consequently P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 demanded return of money from the accused but he went on postponing the matter. It is also stated that on the insistence of P.W.1 for return of money the accused also executed Ex.P.1 assurance letter dated 21.6.1993 in favour of P.W.1 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.30,000/- and assuring repayment. 6. The further version of the prosecution is that subsequently as P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 did not get back their amounts from the accused, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.2 report on 2.9.1993 and thereupon a case was registered against the accused by the ACB Police and investigation was taken up by P.W.18 C.Krishnam Raju and P.W.19 P.Devadas who were Inspectors of ACB, Tirupathi. It is stated that in the course of investigation, the ACB Police found that the accused himself being a public servant collected money not only from P.W.1 but also P.Ws.7, 9 and some others promising to secure jobs of attenders for their kith and kin in the above hospital by using his influence or influencing the higher officials in the said hospital and cheated them and consequently he is liable for punishment for various offences of which he was tried. It is stated that the competent authority i.e. the Executive Officer of TTD also accorded permission through his Ex.P.4 sanction order for prosecuting the accused for the offences under the Act. 7. The trial court considered the evidence and by its impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Now the point is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the charges of which the accused was convicted by the trial court. 8. Before the merits of the matter are taken up, it must be stated here that Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the accused did not dispute that the accused was a public servant within the meaning of the Act at the relevant time and he also did not dispute about the validity of Ex.P.4 sanction order given for prosecuting the accused for the offences under the Act. Even otherwise P.W.16 N.Ravi a Junior Assistant of the TTD spoke about EX.P.4 sanction order. P.W.15 P.Ramachandraiah the then Deputy Forest Range Officer in TTD spoke about the employment of the accused. A perusal of the cross- examination of P.Ws.15 and 16 would show that nothing was elicited from them to conclude that the accused was not a public servant within the meaning of the Act on the date of the offences. It is brought to my notice that he was an employee in the Forest Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh and was allotted to TTD Forest Department. Accordingly, the findings of the trial court on the above two aspects which went against the accused are confirmed. 9. It must also be mentioned here that in the charge sheet it is stated that the accused apart from collecting monies from P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 also collected money from two others viz., L.Satyanarayana Murthy of Tirupathi and M.Venkataratnam Naidu of Nagari for securing jobs to their sons. The offences relating to the aforesaid two persons, it is brought to my notice by both sides, were tried separately in another case by the trial court as it appears that it went by the rule in Section 219 Cr.P.C. that more than three offences of the same kind committed within a year cannot be tried together. No documents have been filed to show what was the result of the said case, but that circumstance is not a ground to keep this appeal pending. Thus this appeal is confined to the offences relating to collection of money from P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 and cheating them. 10. Now turning to the merits of the matter, the evidence on record would show that P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 supported the charges. Their evidence would show that they came into contact with the accused and paid him money on his promise of securing jobs of attenders in the above hospital is quite consistent and also convincing. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the accused demanded Rs.80,000/- for securing jobs to his two sons and that on 27.2.1993 he paid Rs.30,000/- as advance in the house of P.W.2 Jayamma at Tirupathi to the accused and at that time both P.Ws.2 and 5 were present. P.Ws.2 and 5 supported the version of P.W.1 and further P.W.3 K.Subramanyam who is the son of P.W.1 also spoke about that. The evidence of P.W.1 would also show that subsequently when the accused neither secured the jobs nor repaid the amount of Rs.30,000/-, he demanded the accused for return of the amount and that on 21.6.1993 the accused executed Ex.P.1 acknowledgment letter-cum-assurance letter which is named as a bond for promising to return the amount, but did not return. 11. It may be noted that two suggestions were made to P.W.1 in support of the defence of the accused. The first is that a quarrel broke out between the accused and one Kasinath when they were residing in the same locality and P.W.1 supported the said Kasinath and he foisted this case at the instance of the said Kasinath. The other suggestion was that three persons namely Pandurangam Mudaliar, Dharmaiah Mudaliar and Singaram Mudaliar who were related to the accused were booked in a sandalwood smuggling case at the instance of the accused and that they were apprehended several times and that by way of retaliation he foisted this case as the above three persons were related to him (P.W.1). P.W.1 denied the above two suggestions and nothing has been elicited from him to accept the above defence of the accused. 12. It may be noted that the accused could not lead any defence evidence and could not even otherwise show as to how P.W.1 or the above three persons and Kasinath would stand to gain from the false implication of the accused in a case like this. The accused could not file even a single document to show that the above three persons were booked in a forest case. In the above circumstances the above defence of the accused has to be rejected. 13. Then coming to the evidence of P.W.7 D.Munemma and P.W.9 Jayaramaiah, both of them also stated that the accused promised to secure jobs of attenders for their sons in the hospital and took from each of them a sum of Rs.10,000/- at Tirupathi as advance. The version of P.W.7 is supported by her son P.W.6 and the version of P.W.9 is supported by his son who is P.W.8. The line of defence taken in their cross-examination is that they were speaking falsehood in the instance of P.W.1. This defence was denied by P.Ws.7 and 9 and nothing is elicited from them to conclude that there was a strong reason for them to implicate the accused in a case like this. The trial court gave elaborate reasons in accepting the evidences of P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 and there is no reason to disagree with its conclusions. 14. It may then be noted that the prosecution examined P.W.13 Doctor P.Satyanarayana who worked as Director of the above hospital from October 1991 to May 1993. He stated that there were never any regular appointments made for class-IV posts i.e. the attender posts in the above hospital and attenders were appointed on contract basis through the recognised contractor. He was not cross-examined at all. This evidence of P.W.13 which remains unchallenged would show that the prosecution version that there were no regular recruitment of attenders in the above hospital and this is a strong minus point for the accused. It may also be noted that even assuming that the accused promised employment on contract basis he was in no position to secure the same. 15. To sum up, as held by the trial court, the accused being a public servant took monies that is by way of illegal gratification from P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 on a promise of securing jobs of attenders for their sons in the above hospital obviously by influencing the concerned officials of the said hospital. The officials of the said hospital are also stated by the prosecution to be public servants within the meaning of the Act. Hence the above acts of the accused can be said to be covered by Section 9 of the Act. Further the acts of the accused would also fall under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act as they amount to obtaining a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. In addition to this making P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 parting with their money in his favour on a promise of securing jobs for their sons and failing to do so would also amount to cheating falling under Section 420 I.P.C. In other words it follows that conviction of the accused for the aforesaid three offences/charges recorded by the trial court are proper and are therefore confirmed. 16. Then coming to the question of sentences imposed by the trial court for the aforesaid three offences, it can be said that they are also reasonable. Thus the question of showing any leniency does not arise. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. 17. As the accused is stated to be on bail, he shall surrender before the trial court within 15 days from today to serve out the sentences failing which the trial court shall take necessary steps to commit him to prison for executing the sentences. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 27th December, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2443 OF 2004 DATE: 27.12.2011