THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.321 of 2004 DATE:23rd March, 2011 Between: Sri Sunderlal (died, per LR Smt.Lalina) …… Appellant A n d State – rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range, Hyderabad ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.321 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The deceased appellant/accused was working as Senior Accountant in District Treasury Office, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad during the relevant period. The Principal Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 29-01-2004 in C.C.No.19 of 1995 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 on those two counts separately to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. 2. P.W.1 was working as Lower Division Clerk in Munsif Magistrate Court at Chevella during the relevant time. Originally, P.W.1 was appointed as Copyist in the Judicial department. There is no dispute that as per G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 27-03-1993, Copyists and Lower Division Clerks are given the same pay scale with effect from 01-04-1978. When pay fixation of P.W.1, during pay revision, arrear bill relating to P.W.1 was prepared and sent to the Treasury. Since the arrears related to a period of more than six months, the bill was sent by the Sub-Treasury Officer for pre- audit to the District Treasury Officer, Hyderabad along with Service Register of P.W.1. There is no dispute that arrear bill of P.W.1 was passed after pay revision, but Service Register of P.W.1 was kept in the District Treasury Office. In order to claim further arrears as per G.O.No.97 dated 27-03-1993 for the period when P.W.1 worked as Copyist, Service Register of P.W.1 was required for preparing the said arrear bill. The Munsif Magistrate (P.W.6), Chevella, addressed a letter to the District Treasury Office for returning of P.W.1’s Service Register. In spite of it, the Service Register was not returned by that office. It is alleged that on 30-07-1994, when P.W.1 met the accused at his office at 11:00 A.M, and requested the accused to send his Service Register, the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe. Thereupon, P.W.1 approached P.W.10-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad Range, and presented Ex.P-1-Report. After registering the said report, P.W.10 sent Ex.P-16-FIR and arranged trap for the accused on the same day. It is alleged that when P.W.1 approached the accused, the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- and it was complied with by P.W.1 and that the accused wrapped the same in a paper and gave the same to P.W.3 asking him to keep the said amount with him and to meet him after one hour. The said amount of Rs.1,000/- was seized by the trap party led by P.W.10 from P.W.3 under the cover of Ex.P-4-post-trap proceedings. The amount of Rs.1,000/- recovered from P.W.3 is the tainted cash M.O.1 to which Phenolphthalein powder was applied during pre-trap proceedings covered by Ex.P-3. P.W.2 who was then working as Junior Assistant in the Office of Irrigation department at Hyderabad is one of the mediators in Exs.P-3 and P-4. When hands of the accused were rinsed in Sodium Carbonate solution, resultant solution of both the hands turned pink. The plea of the accused is one of not guilty. Though he did not take up specific plea of defence in the lower Court, from the trend in cross examination of prosecution witnesses, it appears that it is his case that when P.W.1 came to the accused and left M.O.1- tainted cash of Rs.1,000/- on his table and left the place, the accused sent P.W.5 to call P.W.1 and that subsequently he gave M.O.1 wrapped in a paper to P.W.3 asking him to trace P.W.1 and to return the said amount to P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 5 are attenders in the same District Treasury Office, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad in which the accused was working. The lower Court accepted the prosecution case and disbelieved the defence version put forward by the accused and found the accused guilty of the offences with which he was charged. 3. In this appeal, it is contended that the case set up by P.W.1 is varying from stage to stage by way of improvements and that his evidence is not trustworthy and that there is no corroboration for the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to either demand or acceptance of the bribe amount and that therefore lower Court should not have placed reliance on P.W.1’s evidence. 4. In Ex.P-1-Report given by P.Ws.1 to 10, it was stated by P.W.1 that in spite of the Munsif Magistrate addressing a letter to the District Treasury Officer on 15-07-1994 with a request to return P.W.1’s Service Register at an early date, the same was not sent back in order to claim his arrears from 01-04-1993 onwards, DA arrears, two increments and Earned Leave salary claim. P.W.1 further stated in Ex.P-1 that he came to Hyderabad on duty and met the Auditor who is the accused on the same day i.e. on 30-07-1994 at 11:00 A.M., and requested him to send his Service Register and that for doing the same the accused demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-. In his evidence during the trial in the lower Court, P.W.1 deposed that in November 1993, his arrear bill was passed and the accused gave the papers to him by retaining his Service Register with him. The evidence of P.W.1 regarding payment of bribe of Rs.2,000/- to the accused by P.W.1 for passing the earlier arrears bill relating to pay fixation, is not relevant for the purpose of this case, as it is not the subject matter herein. The subject matter herein is the alleged demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/- as bribe for sending back P.W.1’s Service Register which was unnecessarily detained by the accused since November 1993. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that when he asked the accused to give Service Register, the accused asked him to give Rs.1,000/- bribe and that P.W.1 told the accused about his inability to pay any money to him and to return the same along with the passed bills. He further says that afterwards also on several occasions, he went to the accused at his office and requested him to give his Service Register and on every occasion, the accused was demanding bribe of Rs.1,000/- for giving his Service Register. It is contended that this portion of evidence of P.W.1 does not find place in Ex.P-1-Report and that it is a development in his evidence during trial. Ex.P-1 being first information report, it need not contain the entire narration of facts leading to giving the said report. It is sufficient that it contains necessary allegations in order to attract the offences for which it was registered. It is often said that FIR is not the encyclopaedia of the prosecution case. In cross examination of P.W.1, nothing was elicited as to whether the above portion of demand on every occasion of his meeting the accused, does not find place in his previous statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. There is no material before this Court to show this portion of evidence of P.W.1 as a subsequent development or was improved in P.W.1’s evidence. It is further evidence of P.W.1 that in spite of addressing the letter by Munsif Magistrate, there was no response from the District Treasury Office and that on 30-07- 1994 also P.W.1 went to the accused and requested him to give his Service Register and that the accused reiterated his demand of Rs.1,000/-. This portion of evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the averments in Ex.P-1-Report. 5. P.W.10 sent P.W.2 as accompanying witness with P.W.1 to the accused at the time of the trap. But, evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 reveals that in the first instance, the accused asked particulars of P.W.2 and the languages known by him and asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to go away and wait at some distance and that subsequently the accused sent one attender to bring P.W.1 alone to the accused. In spite of it, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the accused when the attender called P.W.1 alone to the accused. Even on the second time, the accused asked P.W.2 to go away. Therefore, P.W.2 had to necessarily move away from the accused and P.W.2 could not witness any demand or payment of bribe by P.W.1 to the accused at that time. It is evidence of P.W.1 that the accused asked him to give the amount to the attender Hafeez (P.W.5) and that when he did not show inclination to give the amount to P.W.5, the accused insisted him to give the amount to P.W.5, but he refused and that thereupon the accused asked him to give the amount to himself and that accordingly he gave the tainted currency notes to the accused and that the accused kept those currency notes in a paper and gave them to another attender Veeraiah (P.W.3) and asked him to give to him after one hour and that the accued asked P.W.5 to take out P.W.1’s Service Register from the almirah and give the same to P.W.1. and that when the accused pointed out P.W.1’s Service Register, P.W.5 gave the Service Register to P.W.1. After coming out of the room of the accused, P.W.1 gave pre- arranged signal when P.Ws.2, 10 and others rushed to the accused and questioned him about the cash given by P.W.1 to him. It is evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 that the accused denied having any cash with him and asked the raid party to verify the same from his possession. When P.W.1 informed P.W.10 about the accused handing over the tainted cash to P.W.3, P.W.10 deputed his staff to catch P.W.3 with the help of P.W.1. When P.W.3 was produced before P.W.10 and the mediators, tainted cash of Rs.1,000/- covered by M.O.1 was recovered from his possession. Though originally P.W.3 was shown as the second accused, after investigation, P.W.3 was deleted from the array of the accused and was cited as witness for the prosecution. 6. P.W.3 turned hostile to the prosecution in the lower Court. P.W.3 says that the accused called him and gave some amount to him and asked him to give that amount to P.W.1 by saying that P.W.1 was in the ground floor. P.W.3 says that accordingly he went to the ground floor, but P.W.1 was not there and that when he was coming back to the accused, at the steps he was caught by ACB officials who enquired him and that he informed them that the accused gave the amount to him. In cross examination by the defence counsel, P.W.3 stated that the accused told him that P.W.1 kept the amount on the paper on the table and the accused wrapped the amount in the same paper and gave the same to him and asked him to go and give the amount to P.W.1. P.W.5 also turned hostile to the prosecution to some extent and supported the prosecution to some extent. It is his evidence that when he came to the table of the accused, he found some amount on the table and that the accused directed P.W.1 to give that amount to P.W.5, but P.W.1 refused for the same and that when another attender Pratap Reddy (P.W.4) came there, he and P.W.4 were going to the downstairs when the ACB officials came there and took them to the seat of the accused. In cross examination by the Special Public Prosecutor in the lower Court, P.W.5 deposed that in the first instance, P.W.1 came to the seat of the accused and that when he (P.W.5) told P.W.1 about the accused calling him, P.W.2 also came there and that P.W.2 sat on a bench at some distance from the seat of the accused and that the accused asked his particulars and also about languages known by him and asked P.W.2 to go and wait outside and that P.Ws.3 and 4 also came there. He admits that the accused enquired P.W.1 whether he brought the amount and that P.W.1 refused to give the amount to P.W.5. He says that he did not observe the accused receiving the amount from P.W.1 and wrapping the amount in paper. In cross examination by the defence counsel, P.W.5 deposed that he stated before the Magistrate (in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C) to the effect that he took out Service Register of P.W.1 and showed the same to the accused and that then P.W.1 took out currency notes and kept the same on paper which was on the file on the table. P.W.4 deposed that the accused directed P.W.5 to take out Service Register and give the same to the person who was sitting there. In cross examination by the Special Public Prosecutor in the lower Court, P.W.4 deposed that the accused demanded and asked the amount from P.W.1 in his presence and that after receiving the amount only, the accused directed P.W.5 to take out the Service Register from the almirah and give the same to P.W.1 and that the accused called P.W.3 and gave the amount wrapped in a paper and asked him to keep the amount and give back to him after one hour. In further cross examination by the defence counsel, P.W.4 deposed that he was at a distance of 20 feet from the table of the accused and that he was not in a position to hear the conversation at the table of the accused and that he did not hear the conversation between the accused and P.W.3 as the same was not audible to him. In spite of it, P.W.4 was definite to the extent of the accused demanding and taking money from P.W.1 in his presence, though the conversation was not audible to him. 7. The above pieces of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 undoubtedly disclose demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/- by the accused from P.W.1 for handing over his Service Register to him and also acceptance of the said bribe from P.W.1. It is evident that the accused suspected the presence of P.W.2 along with P.W.1 at that time and therefore the accused asked P.W.2 to go out when he demanded and received the bribe amount from P.W.1. Even after receiving the bribe amount covered by M.O.1, the accused further entertained certain suspicion and therefore wrapped the money in a paper and gave the same to P.W.3 asking him to keep the amount with him and give to him after one hour. In the meanwhile, after receiving pre-arranged signal from P.W.1, the raid party rushed to the spot and even though the accused pretended as if he was ignorant. Though he was not having any cash with him, the raid party traced M.O.1-tainted cash from P.W.3 with the help of P.W.1. The evidence on record which was believed by the lower Court, undoubtedly proved the prosecution case. I do not find any reasons to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. I accept finding of guilt of the accused recorded by the lower Court. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 23rd March, 2011 KSM