THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1538 of 2004 BETWEEEN: State:Dy.Supdt. of Police … Appellant AND Sri C.Thimma Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1538 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The accused/respondent was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector in Mandal Revenue Office, Amarapuram Mandal of Anantapur District. The Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad in CC.No.17 of 1999 framed charges against him for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and tried him for the said offence. After trial, the lower Court by judgment dated 11.12.2003, recorded acquittal of the accused of the above charges. 2. PW1 is a member of Primary Agricultural Co- operative Society Limited (PACS), Amarapuram. He intended to avail long term loan from that society and for the said purpose, he required Small Farmer Certificate to be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Ex.P4 is copy of No.10(1) account relating to Ac.4.86 cents of land in S.No.584/3 of Valasa Village held by PW1. Valasa Village was within the area (Firka) of the accused. On 08.10.1998, PW1 secured Small Farmer Certificate proforma showing details of his land as per Ex.P3 and enclosed copy of No.10(1) account, duly attested by the Village Administrative Officer of Valasa Village and thereafter, approached the accused for his attestation in Ex.P3. It is alleged that the accused without doing the needful, made PW1 to go round his office for about fifteen days and that on 22.10.2008, when PW1 met the accused, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/- for doing the official favour of attesting the Small Farmer Certificate and stated that unless his demand is met with, he would not do the needful. On the said allegations, PW1 approached PW5, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Anantapur Range and gave Ex.P1 report. PW5 arranged trap for the accused on 23.10.1998 in the presence of two mediators including PW2. Before proceeding for the trap, Ex.P5 mediators report relating to pre-trap proceedings was prepared at Anantapur on 23.10.1998. Thereafter, the entire trap party along with PW1 proceeded to Amarapuram Village and remained at a distance and took vantage positions and PW1 alone went into Mandal Revenue Office where the accused was working. It is alleged that the accused was successfully rapped and that he was caught red handed while in possession of tainted cash, MO.5 consisting of Rs.500/-. Ex.P6 mediators report relating to post- trap proceedings were prepared in the Mandal Revenue Office, Amarapuram. 3. It is evidence of PW1 that on 08.10.1998 after obtaining prescribed proforma covered by Ex.P3 and obtaining Ex.P4 copy of No.10(1) account from the Village Administrative Officer, he went to Mandal Revenue Office, Amarapuram and requested the accused to sign on the proforma of Small Farmer Certificate and that the accused postponed signing therein for about fifteen days and that on 22.10.1998 at about 1:00 PM, when he went to office of the accused and requested him to sign on the proforma, the accused demanded Rs.500/- as bribe and that when he expressed his inability to pay the said amount to the accused, the accused asked him to get the amount on the next day, and that as he was in need of the certificate, he agreed to pay the amount on the next day. But, PW1 went to ACB office, Anantapur and gave Ex.P1 report. With regard to the trap on 23.10.1998, it is evidence of PW1 that they reached Amarapuram at 10:30AM and that their jeep was stopped at a distance of one furlong from Mandal Revenue Office and that when he went to the office, the trap party followed him and took vantage positions at that office. He says that when he went into room of the accused in that office, the accused was sitting alone in his seat and that when he placed Small Farmer Certificate proforma before the accused and asked him to sign, the accused asked him whether he brought the bribe amount and that he replied in the positive and gave the amount to the accused who received the same, counted it and kept it in his shirt pocket and thereafter signed on the Small Farmer Certificate proforma and also on No.10(1) account extract, put the date and affixed the seal and gave them back to him and that he came out of the room and gave pre- arranged signal to the trap party at about 10:50 AM. In Ex.P6 post-trap proceedings, it was stated that when PW5 after entering into the office and questioned the accused as to whether he received any amount from PW1, the accused denied to have received any amount from PW1. PWs 2 and 5 spoke to post trap proceedings as per in Ex.P6. Mos.3 and 4 are right hand and left hand washes of the accused in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned into pink. MO.6 is similar solution which turned into pink when shirt pocket of the accused was dipped in that solution. MO.7 is the shirt of the accused. In the final stages of the post-trap proceedings, when PW5 again enquired the accused about presence of tainted cash with him, the accused stated that PW1 took hand loan of Rs.1,000/- from him and repaid Rs.500/- about three months ago and that the balance amount was paid during the trap. The accused further stated that he had no witness for the transaction and no recorded proof for the same. PW1 deposed that during post trap proceedings when PW5 enquired him whether he was due any amount to the accused, he stated that he was not due any amount to the accused. 4. In cross-examination, PW1 admits his friendship with the accused and also both of them associating with each other in Telugu Desam Party prior to the accused joining in service in the year, 1984. Presently, PW1 is stated to be in Congress Party. 5. In cross-examination, PW1 admits that about five months prior to the date of trap, he obtained Rs.1,000/- from the accused. But he says that he repaid Rs.500/- about 15 days after taking the loan and that about 1 ½ months or 2 months prior to the date of trap, he repaid balance amount of Rs.500/- to Madanakunta Eeranna (DW1), who is friend of the accused, since on that day, the accused was not available. PW1 admits that even after the said debt also, the accused demanded him for balance of Rs.500/- out of the loan amount and that he informed the accused about he already giving the said amount to DW1. He says that DW1 informed him about he paying the said amount to the accused. PW1 further says that the accused demanded him to pay back balance amount of Rs.500/- by saying that DW1 did not pay any amount to him. He admits that there was verbal altercation between him and the accused in that regard. 6. In view of the explanation of the accused contained in Ex.P6 post-trap proceedings, there is no dispute on the part of the accused about he receiving MO.5 tainted cash of Rs.500/- from PW1 during the course of trap. It has to be seen whether the said amount was received by the accused as bribe amount or as repayment of loan amount by PW1. Having regard to above evidence of PW1 in cross-examination, the lower Court found favour with the plea of the accused in this regard. Eeranna, who is examined as DW1 by the accused in the lower Court deposed that PW1 did not give any cash to him to be handed over to the accused. Except the interested evidence of PW1 which was denied by DW1, there is no recorded evidence or independent evidence to show that PW1 gave any amount of Rs.500/- to DW1 requesting him to make over the said amount to the accused towards repayment of balance of loan amount of Rs.500/- to the accused. In the light of the said evidence, there is possibility of coming to the conclusion that PW1 paid MO.5 cash of Rs.500/- to the accused towards repayment of loan amount. It is well settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, if on consideration of the evidence on record, two views are possible and if one of the said possible views was taken by trial Court, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court, even if the appellate Court subscribes to the second view. (See STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHANLAL of the Supreme Court[1]). In that view of the matter, even though there is evidence of PW1 with regard to the alleged demand for bribe by the accused on 22.10.1998 and pendency of official favour with the accused by way of counter signing the proforma of Small Farmer Certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, I do not place reliance on the evidence of PW1 regarding acceptance of MO.5 cash as bribe amount. I find that there are no circumstances in this appeal to reverse the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 7. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:21.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1538 of 2004 DATED:21.06.2011 ysk [1] 2009(6)SCALE 240