IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1372 OF 2002 Between: B. Yadagiri ..... Appellant/Accused No.1 AND The State – A.C.B. ..... Respondent/Respondent The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the Judgment, dated 15.11.2002, in C.C.No.34 of 1998, on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, A1 was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months under each count. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows: A1 was working as Sweeper and A2 and A3 were working as Theatre Assistants in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, at the relevant point of time of the incident. On 21.11.1996, P.W.1 admitted his nephew Chandra Shekar (P.W.3) for brain tumor in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. On 16.12.1996, P.W.3 was taken to Cath Lab of the Hospital for Angiogram Test. Soon after the Test was completed at about 11.45 a.m., A.Os.1 and 2 called P.W.1 to come inside the theatre and demanded bribe of Rs.400/- from him on the ground that they rendered services to P.W.3. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the amount demanded by them. Ultimately, he accepted to give bribe due to fear that they might cause harm to P.W.3 if he failed to satisfy their demand. A.Os.1 to 3 informed P.W.1 that he should pay the bribe amount to A.O.1 after P.W.3 was admitted in intensive care unit. Since P.W.1 was unwilling to pay the bribe amount as demanded by A.Os.1 to 3, P.W.1 went to the A.C.B. office and lodged a report, which is marked as Ex.P1. On 16.12.1996, on the basis of Ex.P1, P.W.6-the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, ‘A.C.B.’), City Range registered a case in Crime No.30/ACB- CR/96 against the accused and issued First Information Report, which is marked as Ex.P10. Then on the next day, i.e., on 17.12.1996, as per the instructions of P.W.6, P.W.1 and the mediators, Sri B. Ramesh (P.W.2) and Sri G. Sudershan Babu, were present in the office. Then P.W.6 introduced the mediators to P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.P1 were read over to P.W.1. Then P.W.1 produced the bribe amount (M.O.1) before the mediators who noted down the serial numbers of the currency notes. Then, Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and the notes were kept in the shirt pocket of P.W.1. The entire procedure was explained to P.W.1. Ex.P3 is the 1st mediator’s report. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with the trap party went to the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, at about 12.00 noon. The trap party took their vantage positions in and around the Cath Lab of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. P.W.1 and the mediator-P.W.2 went to the ICCU Cath Lab of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and found A.O.1 near the entrance door of the Cath Lab. On seeing P.W.1, A.O.1 questioned him whether he brought the bribe amount demanded by him and then A.O.1 took P.Ws.1 and 2 inside the Cath Lab. There, P.W.1 saw A.O.3 and when he offered to pay the bribe amount to A.O.3, he asked him to pay it to A.O.1. Accordingly, P.W.1 paid the bribe amount to A.O.1 who received it with his right hand and kept it in his shirt pocket and afterwards, P.W.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap party. On that, P.W.6 and other trap members rushed to the scene and P.W.6 disclosed his identity to the accused. Then P.W.6 got prepared the Sodium Carbonate Solution in two different tumblers and made A.O.1 to rinse fingers of his both hands in each of the tumbler. The solution then turned into pink colour. Then, P.W.6 questioned A.O.1 about the tainted currency notes received by him from P.W.1 and A.O.1 produced the currency notes from his shirt pocket. Then, the serial numbers of the tainted currency notes were verified and found them tallied with the serial numbers of the currency notes as noted in Ex.P3. The said amount was seized by P.W.6, which is marked as M.O.1. Further, inner lining of the shirt pocket of A.O.1 was also subjected to Sodium Carbonate Solution Test, which gave positive result. Then, the resultant solutions were preserved in sealed bottles. Then, P.W.6 recorded the statements of P.W.1 and A.O.1. Ex.P6 is the 2nd mediator’s report. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Then P.W.6 handed over the further investigation to Harikrishna, Inspector (A.C.B.) (not examined) and from him, P.W.7-V. Surender Reddy, Inspector of Police, A.C.B., City Range-II took over the investigation. During the course of investigation, he got recorded the statement of P.W.1 by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. P.W.7 further recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3 and other relevant witnesses. After completion of the investigation, P.W.7 sent the detailed report to the Government through Deputy General, A.C.B., to issue prosecution sanction order against A.Os.1 and 2. After obtaining the sanction order, a charge sheet was filed on 25.09.1998. 3. During the pendency of the case, A.O.3 died and therefore, the case against him is abated. 4. The learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, framed the following charges against the accused. “Firstly: That A-1 of you being a public servant employed as Sweeper, Cath Lab, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and A-2 of you being a public servant employed as Theatre Asst in Cath. Lab, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and A-3 of you being a public servant employed as Theatre Asst, Cath Lab. in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, on or about 17.12.1996 at about 12.15 hours at I.C.C.U.Ward, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, as per your earlier demand, with a common intention of extracting illegal gratification A-1 and A-2 have demanded and on behalf of A-3 accepted an amount of Rs. 400/- (Rupees four hundred only) from Sri Gummadi Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Seetharamaiah, R/o. Kankipadu village of Krishna District as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing official favour i.e. for the services rendered to the patient Sri Chandrashekar for Angiogram Test at Cath. Lab Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, thereby you committed an offence punishable U/S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. 34 IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly and Lastly: That A-1 of you being a public servant employed as Sweeper, Cath. Lab at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and A-2 of you being a public servant employed as Theatre Asst, Cath. Lab at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and A-3 of you being a public servant employed as Theatre Asst Cath Lab, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, on or about 17.12.1996 at about 12.15 hours at I.C.C.U. Ward, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing your position as such public servants obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 400/- (Rupees four hundred only) from Gummadi Venkateshwar Rao s/o. Seetharamaiah, R/o. Kankipadu village of Krishna District, for showing official favour i.e. for the services rendered to the patient Sri Chandrashekar for Angiogram Test at Cath. Lab, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and thereby you committed an offence specified Under Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable Under Sec. 13 (2) of that Act read with Sec. 34 IPC and within my cognizance.” When the charges were read over and explained to A.Os.1 and 2 in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10, besides the case properties- M.Os.1 to 8. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A.Os.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of A.Os.1 and 2, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Exs.D1 to D3. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found A.O.1 guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as stated above, while acquitting A.O.2. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal is filed. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against Appellant/A.O.1 for the charges levelled against him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for Appellant/A.O.1, contended that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act have not been established; that there was no official favour to be shown by A.O.1 to P.W.1 was pending; that as A.O.1 to P.W.1 was working only as a Sweeper in the Cath Lab of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad; that the sanction order-Ex.P8 was given without application of mind as it was nothing but a replica of Ex.D2-draft sanction order sent by A.C.B.; that the case put forth by A.O.1 is more probable; that the amount of Rs.400/- was taken by A.O.1 which was meant for services rendered by A.Os.1 and 2; that having regard to the fact that the amount was trivial and more so, in the nature of tip, the authorities should not have accorded sanction for prosecuting A.Os.1 and 2 and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the Appellant/A.O.1. 10. On the other hand, Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.C.B., contended that even though there was no official favour to be shown by A.O.1 to P.W.1, A.Os.1 and 2 demanded Rs. 400/- for the services rendered by them; that A.Os.1 and 2 are not supposed to demand any amount; that the amount demanded is the higher amount in so far as P.W.1 is concerned because he is a poor person; that the tainted currency notes have been seized from the possession of A.O.1; that there is no other reason for P.W.1 to foist a false case of this nature against A.Os.1 and 2; that though the amount received by A.O.1 was towards service rendered by him and others, it is not a legal remuneration and therefore, it is an illegal gratification; that after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, the trial Court rightly found A.O.1 guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced, and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 11. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act are: i) that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; ii) that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or dis-favour to any person. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: i) that he should have been a public servant; ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 12. It is not in dispute that P.W.3 was affected with brain tumor. When he was examined by the doctors at Vijayawada, they advised him to take treatment in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He came to the hospital and got himself admitted in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, on 21.11.1996. P.W.1, who is no other than his junior paternal uncle, accompanied him to the hospital. Professor Madhav Reddy, Neuro Surgeon, treated him and advised P.W.3 for Angiogram Test in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. It is stated that A.Os.1 and 2 demanded P.W.1 a bribe of Rs.400/-. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to the fact that he was admitted in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for brain tumor is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that A.O.1 was working as a Sweeper in the Cath Lab of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 was assisting P.W.3. It is not in dispute that on the advice of Professor Madhav Reddy, Neuro Surgeon, P.W.1 has taken P.W.3 to the Diagnostic Centre in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for Angiogram Test. It is also not in dispute that on 16.12.1996 at 12.00 noon, Angiogram Test was conducted on P.W.3 in the Cath Lab, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Then, all the accused demanded Rs.400/- from P.W.1 as a bribe for attending P.W.3 and also for rendering the services. Though P.W.1 informed them that he would pay the same in the evening, he was not willing to pay that amount and so, lodged Ex.P1- complaint to P.W.6, who registered the case. 13. P.W.4 is the doctor who was granted permission for doing Four Vessel Angiogram Test for Neuro Surgical case of Professor Madhav Reddy, i.e., P.W.3. Accordingly, the Angiogram Test was performed by Dr.Murthy on 16.12.1996. Ex.P5 is the Log Book of Cath Lab showing about the Angiogram Test conducted on P.W.3 on 16.12.1996. There is no dispute that A.O.1 had no role to play in conducting Angiogram Test on P.W.3. It is not in dispute that A.Os.1 and 2 were to shift P.W.3 from the Cath Lab to the ward. So, from the evidence on record, the nature of duties that have to be attended to, by A.O.1 was to take the patient from Cath Lab to ward in the hospital. A.O.1 is nothing to do with conducting or assisting in the Angiogram Test. Even according to P.W.1, A.O.1 along with two others demanded to pay Rs.400/- as a bribe for attending P.W.3 and also for rendering services. 14. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 has categorically stated that while P.W.3 was lying on the bed, A.Os.1 and 2 asked him to pay Rs.400/- for services rendered to P.W.3, and when he replied that he had no money, they insisted for a demand of Rs.400/- to be shared by all the three accused. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.O.1, there is no official favour pending to be shown by A.O.1 to P.W.1 or P.W.3 prior to the date of trap. 15. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 would go to show that the tainted currency notes-M.O.1 have been seized from the possession of A.O.1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 also would go to show that A.O.1 received the tainted currency notes, counted the same and kept in his shirt pocket. Thereafter, P.W.1 went outside and gave the pre-arranged signal. The trap party, led by P.W.6, came to the scene of occurrence and subjected the fingers of both hands of A.O.1 to Sodium Carbonate Solution Test. The solution turned into pink colour. Similarly, the inner lining of shirt pocket of A.O.1 was also subjected to the Sodium Carbonate Solution Test which gave positive result. There is no other reason for P.Ws.2 and 6 to speak false against A.O.1. They are totally independent witnesses. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.O.1, A.O.1 received the said amount as a tip for the services rendered but not as a bribe. Even in Ex.P1- complaint, P.W.1 has not stated that A.O.1 demanded the amount of Rs.400/- as bribe. Admittedly, the Angiogram Test was conducted in the Cath Lab by the concerned Doctor and A.O.1 was nothing to do with conducting or assisting the Doctor in conducting the Angiogram Test which has to be conducted by the competent person. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that after the Angiogram Test was conducted, all the accused demanded Rs.400/- as a bribe for attending P.W.3 and also for rendering services. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.O.1 placed reliance on the decision reported in Deepchand Jot Ram, Petitioner v. The State, Respondent[1], wherein in similar circumstances, when there was no demand of any bribe or when the amount was asked for a tip or for rendering services, it is held thus: “For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home to the appellant the charges made against him. It is true that the habit of demanding tips or inam after doing the work cannot possibly be encouraged but it is difficult to hold in view of the Bench decision that that would constitute any offence under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, or Section 5 (2), read with Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. I therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him.” In view of the above decision, though such acts are not to be encouraged, at the same time, the said act would not constitute any offence under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. Further more, the amount appears to be trivial in nature because all the three accused allegedly demanded to pay Rs.400/- for the services rendered by them which means each of the accused would get nearly Rs.130/-. Considering the trivial nature of the amount demanded, the sanctioning order ought not have been granted. 17. The other contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.O.1 is that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind in granting sanction. P.W.5 was the Section Officer, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, who stated that the Secretary, Smt. Rachal Chattarjee had gone through the material sent by the Director General, A.C.B. and issued sanction order as in Ex.P8 to prosecute Appellant/A.O.1. P.W.5 also admitted that the A.C.B. officials have sent the draft sanction orders along with the file. Exs.D2 and D3 are the draft sanction orders produced by the witness from his file. On this aspect, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.O.1 relied upon a decision reported in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed, Appellant v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Respondent[2], wherein it is held thus: “This argument is wholly untenable because what the Court has to see is whether or not the Sanctioning Authority at the time of giving sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same and any subsequent fact which may come into existence after the resolution granting sanction has been passed, is wholly irrelevant. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned.” In this case, as the draft sanction orders have been admittedly sent by the A.C.B., it can be said that the sanction order-Ex.P8 was given by the sanctioning authority with total non-application of mind. 18. Similarly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.O.1 relied upon a decision reported in Hanumantappa Murtyappa Vijapure (since deceased by L.Rs.), Appellants v. State of Maharashtra, Respondent[3], wherein it is held thus: “Mr.Jamdar therefore contended that when the amount of bribe is trivial in all the three cases referred to above the accused came to be acquitted. In the present case the bribe amount of Rs.150/- only and Rs.150/- according to him of 1994 were could be compared with the amount of bribe of Rs.50/- in 1990 and, therefore, this amount is being trifle in nature, the sanctioning authority should have considered whether the departmental enquiry would be proper instead of launching criminal prosecution.” So, considering the trivial nature of the amount demanded and considering the fact that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind to issue the sanction, it is a case to acquit A.O.1. 19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in the judgment, dated 15.11.2002, in C.C.No.34 of 1998, against Appellant/A.O.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act are set aside. A.O.1 is found not guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly, he is acquitted. The bail bonds of A.O.1 shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by A.O.1 shall be refunded to him. 20. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 11th September, 2009. KL [1] AIR 1966 Punjab 302 (V 53 C 66) [2] AIR 1979 Supreme Court 677 [3] 2004 Criminal Law Journal 3001