THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.864 of 2004 BETWEEEN: G.Raji Reddy … Appellant AND 1. State through Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.864 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was working as Village Administrative Officer of Odela village of Karimnagar District. The Principal Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Hyderabad by judgment dated 29.03.2004 in C.C. No.2 of 1997 convicted the accused for 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.100/- on each count separately. 2) P.W-1 is a resident of Odela village. He has four other brothers. His father died possessing certain landed properties. Subsequent to death of his father, P.W-1 and his brothers partitioned their properties. In pursuance of the partition, P.W-1’s brothers got their names mutated in the revenue records and obtained pattadar pass books in respect of the lands which fell to their respective shares. P.W-1 also wanted to have his separate pattadar pass book for the lands which fell to his share. Therefore, P.W-1 approached the accused for the said purpose. It is the prosecution case that when P.W-1 asked the accused to issue his pass book, the accused asked him to pay expenditure for the pass book and that P.W-1 expressed his inability to pay and that on 22.11.1995 P.W-1 again went to the accused and requested him for the pass book and that the accused demanded P.W-1 to pay bribe of Rs.500/- towards expenditure and that when P.W-1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded amount, the accused demanded him to pay at least Rs.350/- as bribe and stated that unless he pays the amount he would not issue pattadar pass book. According to P.W-1, he informed the same to his brother-in-law P.W-2 who took him to P.W-7 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Warangal Range. P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-7. Thereupon, P.W-7 arranged trap for the accused on 24.11.1995 in the presence of mediators viz., P.Ws 3 and 4. It is alleged that the trap was successful and the accused was caught red handed while in possession of M.O-1 tainted cash of Rs.350/-. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. According to the accused, P.W-1 after receiving pattadar pass book forcibly thrusted M.O-1 tainted cash into his pocket. The lower Court after trial found favour with the prosecution and found the accused guilty of the charges. 3) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is no corroboration for evidence of P.W-1 with regard to the alleged demand of bribe by the accused and also for the alleged acceptance of Rs.350/- covered by M.O-1 as bribe from P.W-1. It is further contended that the accused examined D.W-1 who is his assistant to prove the fact of P.W-1 thrusting M.O-1 tainted cash into the pocket of the accused after receiving his pattadar pass book and that the lower Court should have accepted evidence of D.W-1. 4) With regard to the demand said to have been made by the accused for bribe on previous occasions, there was no accompanying witness for P.W-1. It is evidence of P.W-1 that when he approached the accused for pattadar pass book, the accused asked him to give three passport size photos and that on the third day when he again went to him and gave photographs, the accused asked him to meet him after two days. He says that the incident happened in the year 1995. P.W-1 further says that accordingly he met the accused after two days and asked him to give pass book in his name and that the accused demanded Rs.500/- for giving patta pass books in his favour and that he informed the accused about his inability to give such huge amount and requested him to issue patta pass books, but the accused refused and that therefore he had no other go and told the accused that he would pay only Rs.350/- and returned from the accused. On the date of trap, P.W-2 accompanied P.W-1 to the accused. Ex.P-2 pre-trap proceedings were prepared in the office of P.W-7 at Hanmakonda/Warangal. Subsequently P.Ws 1 and 2 reached Odela village by train. When P.Ws 1 and 2 went to office of the accused in Odela village, the accused was not available. When the same was informed by P.Ws 1 and 2 to P.W-7, P.W-7 instructed them to wait for arrival of the accused and approach the accused again. After the accused reached his office, it is evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 that they went into P.W-1’s office of the accused. Office of the accused consisted of two rooms which are separated by a partition. There was only a mat in the room of the accused and there was no other furniture for sitting. P.W-1 deposed that when he went inside the room of the accused and asked him to give his patta pass book the accused asked him whether he brought bribe amount and that he answered positively and that the accused informed him that he would search for his patta pass book and asked him to wait, and that when P.W-1 expressed having some work and wanted his pass book immediately, the accused asked P.W-1 to give bribe amount and that when P.W-1 gave the amount to him, the accused counted those notes and kept the amount in his shirt pocket and that the accused searched for patta pass book and gave the same to him and that when he was coming out along with patta pass book and informed P.W-2 as to what happened, P.W-2 who was standing at a distance of 3 yards by the side of two persons who were writing something, P.W-2 gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party. Thereafter the trap party consisting of P.Ws 3, 4 and 7 rushed inside room of the accused and tested both hands of the accused with Sodium Carbonate solution which turned into pink as per M.Os5 and 6. When demanded by P.W-7, the accused handed over M.O-1 cash of Rs.350/- from his pocket to P.W-7. M.O-7 is Sodium Carbonate solution wash of shirt pocket of the accused. It also turned pink. As pointed out earlier, there is no dispute about recovery of M.O-1 tainted cash from the possession of the accused. The question is whether P.W-1 paid the said amount in pursuance of demand and acceptance of the same by the accused or whether the said amount was thrusted into pocket of the accused by P.W-1. 5) Even though P.W-1 in his examination-in-chief stated about P.W-2 standing at a distance of 3 yards by the side of two persons who were writing something, in cross-examination he denied P.W-2 not witnessing what was transpiring in the room of the accused. If really P.W-2 saw what transpired between P.W-1 and the accused inside the room, there was no necessity for P.W-1 to inform about the events to P.W-2 after P.W-1 left room of the accused along with pass book. P.W-2 though claimed that he was at entrance of the room when P.W-1 entered into the room and the accused demanding for the bribe and P.W-1 paying the bribe to the accused, in cross- examination P.W-2 deposed that P.W-1 alone went near to the accused and that he (P.W-2) was standing at a distance of 2 to 3 yards and that two persons who were working in the adjacent room enquired him about the purpose of his visit. P.W-2 denied the suggestion that on the date of trap he did not observe the transaction between P.W-1 and the accused. At this juncture, useful reference may be made to contents of Ex.P-3 post trap proceedings. During post trap proceedings, when P.W-7 questioned the accused, the accused did not give any explanation for possession of M.O-1 currency notes with him. On the other hand, in the spot explanation, the accused is stated to have denied demand and acceptance of bribe from P.W-1. There is no foundation in Ex.P-3 about the present explanation offered by the accused to the effect that P.W-1 thrusted money into his pocket after receiving pass book. P.Ws 3, 4 and 7 stated before the lower Court as to the contents of Ex.P-3 post trap proceedings and spot explanation of the accused. 6) D.W-1 was a private servant of the accused. He was employed by the accused for cooking food to the accused and attending to his works. It is his evidence that the accused called him and asked him to give patta pass book of P.W-1 and that he picked up the pass book and gave the pass book to P.W-1 and obtained his signature in the register and that when he came back to the room of the accused, the accused was telling the complainant as to why he thrusted currency notes into his pocket and that immediately thereafter some people came inside the room. D.W-1 did not actually see as to how M.O-1 cash passed on from P.W-1 to the accused. Not only P.W-1 but also P.W-2 denied the suggestion that the accused called D.W-1 and asked him to pick up the pass book of P.W-1. Admittedly, D.W-1 was not in the room of the accused when P.W-1 met the accused. D.W-1 being a personal servant of the accused, in my opinion, naturally supports the accused. But there is absolutely no basis for the evidence of D.W-1. The question of thrusting tainted cash by P.W-1 into pocket of the accused may not arise because there was no proven prior enemity or animosity for P.W-1 towards the accused. Even though it is alleged that P.W-1 asked the accused for giving patta pass book in respect of Government land given on Ek Sal lease to him for which the accused refused, the said suggestion was denied by P.Ws 1 and 2. There is no basis on record to indicate that P.W-1 was in possession of any Government land on Ek Sal lease and he demanded the accused for patta pass book in respect of the said land also. In the absence of any previous animosity or bitterness between P.W-1 and the accused, the theory of thrusting tainted cash by P.W-1 into pocket of the accused, does not stand to reason. The lower Court rightly rejected the version of the accused in view of the evidence of P.W-1 about the previous demand and about acceptance of bribe of Rs.350/- by the accused from P.W-1 for doing official favour of handing over pattadar pass book of P.W-1 to him. The lower Court rightly accepted the prosecution case and found the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him. There are no grounds or reasons to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. 7) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 08.06.2011 ksh