IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.435 OF 2002 Between: Sri G.S.Nair ..... Appellant/Accused AND The State, Rep. by CBI, Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 18.04.2002, in C.C.No.16 of 1998, on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the appellant was found guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under Section 7 and was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to pay fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: The Accused Officer was working as an Enforcement Officer in the Office of Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad. He was empowered to issue summons, record statements of witnesses/persons under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and to investigate cases under the said Act. P.W.1 was doing cloth business near Mahankali Temple, Secunderabad, under the name and style of “Mohit Distributors”. In the month of September, 1997, the Accused Officer came to the shop of P.W.1 and informed that he has to attend the Office of Enforcement Directorate for facing an enquiry and prepared Ex.P7-summons and served on him. Along with the Accused Officer, one Suresh Jain, who was the distant relative of P.W.1, also came to his shop. Suresh Jain was working in a private bank. They all went to the Office of Enforcement Directorate, situated at Kendriya Sadan building in Koti, Hyderabad. When the Accused Officer enquired about Suresh Jain, he informed that Suresh Jain was his relative and mediated to the disputes between Suresh Jain and third party. Then the Accused Officer threatened P.W.1 that the amount alleged to have been paid by Suresh Jain was Rs.8,00,000/- and he has to give in writing to that effect, otherwise he will be prosecuted. He refused to write such undertaking. As stated by him, he was beaten and threatened to kill him in the event of failure to give in writing to the effect that Suresh Jain has paid him Rs.8,00,000/-. In view of the beating and threat of being killed, P.W.1 agreed to write such an undertaking. On the next day morning, P.W.1 was allowed to leave the Office of Enforcement Directorate and the Accused Officer asked him to meet next day morning. Accordingly, P.W.1 visited the Office of the Accused Officer on the next day at about 11.30 a.m. The Accused Officer asked him to bring Rs.50,000/- if he is interested in avoiding his involvement in the case and also threatened him to involve him in the Income tax case, if he fails to pay Rs.50,000/-. The Accused Officer asked P.W.1 to come on the next day. On the next day, when P.W.1 again visited the office of the Accused Officer, P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay Rs.50,000/- in cash. Thereafter, the matter was settled for Rs.25,000/- which the Accused Officer wanted P.W.1 to deliver him on the next day. P.W.1 was asked to meet the Accused Officer with Rs.25,000/- at about 5.30 p.m., near Haridwar Hotel, Koti, Hyderabad. Unwilling to pay the said amount, P.W.1 approached P.W.4 who is the Trap Laying Officer and lodged Ex.P1-complaint. On the same day, P.W.1 produced an amount of Rs.25,000/-. P.W.4 called P.W.2, who is an independent witness. After applying Phenolphthalein powder, sequences of events have been incorporated in Ex.P2-Pre-trap proceedings. The currency note numbers have been duly noted in Ex.P2. Thereafter, P.W.1 and trap party went to the Haridwar Hotel, Hyderabad. The Accused Officer came to the Haridwar Hotel at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m. P.W.1 purchased two tokens for coffee and cool drinks in the Haridwar Hotel and they consumed the cool drinks. The Accused Officer asked P.W.1 whether he brought the cash. He informed the Accused Officer that he has brought the cash. The Accused Officer told him to bring some more cash. The Accused Officer did not accept the cash at that time in Haridwar Hotel. They went towards the temple complex situated next to the Haridwar Hotel. Near the temple, the Accused Officer demanded the cash. The Accused Officer opened the zip bag and asked P.W.1 to keep the amount. When P.W.1 tried to hand over the cash, the Accused Officer did not accept, insisted him to keep the cash in the bag. Accordingly, P.W.1 did so. On receipt of pre-arranged signal, the trap party consisting of P.W.4 and others rushed to the place and took him to the sweet shop of P.W.6 and conducted Sodium Carbonate Solution Test on both hand fingers, which turned into pink colour and thereafter, the inner lining of the bag was also subjected to Sodium Carbonate Solution Test. The currency notes were seized from the bag of the Accused Officer and the tainted currency note numbers were tallied with the numbers as noted in Ex.P2-Pre-trap proceedings. Thereafter, P.W.8 took up further investigation and examined the witnesses. P.W.7 gave Ex.P10-sanction to prosecute the case. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. The learned Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad, framed the following charges against the Accused Officer: “Charge U/S. 7 of P.C.Act, 1988 That you being a public servant employed as Enforcement Officer, Office of Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, had demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 3.10.97 from Sri D.C.Jain, Proprietor, Mohit Distributors, Secunderabad for not taking any action against him in connection with a case of suspected Hawala dealings against MP group of Companies, Hyderabad and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S. 7 of P.C.Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. Charge U/S. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988 That you being a public servant employed as Enforcement Officer, Office of Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad on 3.10.97 by corrupt or illegal means obtained for yourself a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 25,000/- from Sri D.C.Jain, Proprietor, Mohit Distributors, Secunderabad and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988.” When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 besides case properties M.Os.1 to 6. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the demand and acceptance by the Accused Officer to show official favour to P.W.1 and also accepting the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 with regard to the seizure of the tainted currency notes from the bag, found the Accused Officer guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable 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? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that no official favour to be shown to P.W.1 was pending with the Accused Officer; that P.W.1 was summoned to the Enforcement Directorate to record his statement as a witness in the Hawala case of M.P. Group of Industries; that P.W.1 was not at all shown as an accused in the Hawala transaction; that as the Accused Officer summoned P.W.1 to his office, he, at the instance of one Suresh Jain, foisted a false trap; that the prosecution has not explained how both the hand fingers of the Accused Officer turned into pink colour; that it is not the case of P.W.1 that the appellant received the amount from P.W.1; that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the manner of receiving the money; that when the Accused Officer went to wash the hands in the Haridwar Hotel, P.W.1 kept the M.O.1-tainted currency notes in the zip bag of the Accused Officer without the knowledge of the Accused Officer so as to take vengeance against the Accused Officer; that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable with regard to the demand and acceptance and therefore, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the Accused Officer. 9. On the other hand, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for CBI cases contended that inspite of the suspected Hawala case, P.W.1 was admittedly summoned by the Accused Officer and he recorded the statements-Exs.P4 and P5 on 29.09.1997 and 30.09.1997 respectively; that till the trap was laid, no action has been taken in pursuance of Exs.P4 and P5; that the Accused Officer threatened P.W.1 to involve him for the offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and as such, there was a scope or possibility for the Accused Officer to demand some money; that Rs.25,000/- of tainted currency notes were seized from the bag of the Accused Officer; that there was no evidence to show that the Accused Officer went to wash his hands and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly go to show that the amount was kept in the bag of the Accused Officer with his knowledge; that therefore, the Accused Officer has accepted the same; that once the Accused Officer receives the money other than legal remuneration, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn; that there is no reason for P.W.2 to speak false against the Accused Officer and similarly, there was no reason for P.W.1 to foist a false case of this nature against the Accused Officer; that the trial Court after considering the evidence on record rightly found him guilty and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. 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. 11. It is not in dispute that the Accused Officer was entrusted with the investigation by P.W.3 relating to the complaint received against one Suresh Jain at Hyderabad office regarding Hawala transaction. Suresh Jain is the relative of P.W.1. It is also not in dispute that Ex.P7-summons, dated 29.09.1997, had been issued to P.W.1 directing P.W.1 to appear in person on the same date at about 5.30 p.m. in his office. In pursuance of the summons, P.W.1 went to the office and gave Ex.P4-statement on 29.09.1997 and Ex.P5-statement on 30.09.1997. But the case of P.W.1 is that under threat, he was made to give those two statements. There was no evidence to show that P.W.1 was made to write those two statements to the dictation of the Accused Officer. If really they were obtained by force, or threat, or coercion, P.W.1 would have complained to the police or the higher officials stating that those two statements were obtained by force. As seen from those two statements, it is clear that Suresh Jain, who was a relative of P.W.1, was an employee in the M.P. Group of Industries. He approached P.W.1 in March, 1997, and requested him to settle some disputes which he had with his clients and he agreed to do so as per the agreement. Suresh Jain gave an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- to P.W.1 to be given to the clients of M.P. Group of Industries for settling their disputes. Therefore, from those statements, it is clear that P.W.1 received Rs.7,98,000/- cash from Suresh Jain to be given to the clients of M.P. Group of Industries who were given by way of cheques. So, for that reason, it is alleged that the Accused Officer asked P.W.1 to bring Rs.50,000/-, if he was interested in avoiding his involvement in the case. No doubt, P.W.1 stated that the Accused Officer threatened him that the amount alleged to have been paid by Suresh Jain was Rs.8,00,000/- and that he has to give in writing to that effect. 12. P.W.8, who is the Investigating Officer, admitted that P.W.1 has not stated that he was threatened to give in writing that Suresh Jain has paid Rs.8,00,000/- to him and that in view of the threat of kill, he executed the document. So in view of the improvements made by this witness, it cannot be said that Exs.P4 and P5 were obtained under threat or coercion. 13. Under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, any person can be summoned by a Gazetted Officer of Enforcement to give evidence or to produce a document and the said proceeding under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of IPC. Therefore, in view of these two statements made by P.W.1, there is a possibility for the Accused Officer to demand money in not involving him in the suspected Hawala case. Therefore, the contention that there was no official favour to be shown to P.W.1 by the Accused Officer is not tenable. The earliest version as stated in Ex.P1 would go to show that the Accused Officer would lodge a case against him on some pretext or the other with regard to the Hawala transaction of one Suresh Jain, who is relative of P.W.1 and demanded him to pay Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the recitals in Ex.P1 are completely in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the purpose of demand of Rs.25,000/- towards bribe amount made by the Accused Officer. 14. In pursuance of Ex.P7, P.W.1 was not prosecuted. The suggestion given to P.W.1 was that he had persuaded the case through CBI officials for not prosecuting him and he failed to persuade them and a false case is foisted against the Accused Officer. There is absolutely no evidence to show that P.W.1 persuaded the Accused Officer through CBI Officials for not prosecuting him or not to take any further action in pursuance of Exs.P4 and P5. Therefore, there is absolutely no grouse for P.W.1 to foist a false case against the Accused Officer. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show that he entertained a grouse or enmity against the Accused Officer so as to implicate him in a case of this nature. 15. No doubt, P.W.1 cannot be termed as wholly reliable witness in view of the fact that he made some improvements in the evidence which he did not state before the Investigating Officer. P.W.8 admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him that he was beaten by the Accused Officer and the persons accompanied in the office threatened P.W.1 to give in writing that Suresh Jain has paid Rs.8,00,000/-, that in view of the threat of kill, P.W.1 agreed and executed the document and that the Accused Officer asked him to bring Rs.50,000/- if he was interested in avoiding his involvement in the case. That the Accused Officer threatened him to involve in the income tax case, if he failed to pay Rs.50,000/-. P.W.1 requested the Accused Officer to reduce the bribe from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, but the Accused Officer did not agree. The above improvements made by P.W.1 during the course of trial cannot be said to go to the root of the case. By these improvements, the main substratum of the prosecution case in any manner cannot be affected. Those improvements or omissions are bound to occur even in a case of a truthful witness who was made to depose about the incident after lapse of few years. When the improvements or omissions affect the main substratum of the prosecution case, they cannot be ignored as insignificant. The main substratum of the prosecution case as depicted by P.W.1 is the Accused Officer demanded some amount not to prosecute P.W.1 in pursuance of Exs.P4 and P5-statements. Therefore, an official favour to be shown to P.W.1 by the Accused Officer was pending and in such a case, there is every possibility for the Accused Officer to demand some amount. 16. Coming to the receipt of money, Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on M.O.1-tainted currency notes and the numbers were duly noted down in Ex.P2-Pre-trap proceedings. P.W.2 was an independent witness who was called by the CBI Officials and he was asked to follow P.W.1. With regard to the receipt of money, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the manner of taking the amount. P.W.1 stated that as if he kept the amount in the bag of the Accused Officer. He did not specifically state that the Accused Officer received M.O.1-tainted currency notes with his hands. Whereas, P.W.2 stated that the Accused Officer received the amount through his right hand and kept the same in the bag. 17. It is not in dispute that as per the evidence of P.W.4 and the recitals in Ex.P3, both the hand fingers of the Accused Officer were rinsed in two separate glass tumblers. The Sodium Carbonate Solution turned into pink colour, thereby suggesting that both the hand fingers of the Accused Officer came in contract with the currency notes. Similarly, when the inner lining of the bag was subjected to the Sodium Carbonate Solution Test, it turned into pink colour. It is also not in dispute that M.O.3-bag belongs to the Accused Officer, from where M.Os.1 and 2-cash were also seized. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is very clear that the amount was kept in the bag of the Accused Officer. Though there is a discrepancy with regard to the receipt of money by the Accused Officer and keeping the same in the bag, but that discrepancy will not affect the main fabric of the prosecution case. The main case of the prosecution is that the amount was seized from the bag of the Accused Officer. 18. No doubt, the prosecution has to explain as to how both hand fingers of the Accused Officer were subjected to the Sodium Carbonate Solution Test, which gave positive result. But that does not mean that the prosecution has to prove the case with conclusive proof. It is enough if the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. These two witnesses were testifying in the Court after a lapse of four years from the date of trap. Therefore, some variations with regard to the handing of the cash by P.W.1, or whether the amount was kept by P.W.1 in the bag, or whether the Accused Officer touched the currency notes or not, are bound to occur even in a case of truthful witnesses who were made to depose about the incident. Human memory is not a videograph so as to reproduce the sequence of events as it is. Whether the Accused Officer received the tainted currency notes from P.W.1 or not, whether P.W.1 put the cash in the bag, it makes no difference because the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.8 would clearly go to show that M.O.1-tainted currency notes were seized from the bag of the Accused Officer. 19. No doubt, it is suggested to P.W.1 that he put the currency notes when the Accused Officer went to wash the hand in the wash basin at Haridwar Hotel, but the evidence of P.W.2, who is an independent witness, would clearly reveal that the Accused Officer did not go to the wash basin and from Haridwar Hotel, they both went to the nearby temple and at that place, the Accused Officer received the cash. Though P.W.1 has not stated that the Accused Officer touched the currency notes, the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that the Accused Officer received the cash with his right hand. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Accused Officer must have received the amount with his both hands because it was a huge amount and thereafter, he kept the same in the bag. Perhaps that is the reason why the Sodium Carbonate Solution turned into pink colour. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, this was the only inference that can be drawn that after receipt of tainted currency notes with his both hands, he kept the same in the bag. Once the Accused Officer accepted the amount other than legal remuneration for a motive or reward to show an official favour, the burden shifts to the Accused Officer. Though it is a rebuttal presumption, but the Accused Officer has not adduced any evidence to show that the cash was planted by P.W.1 in his bag without his knowledge. The burden can be discharged not only by adducing evidence, but also the Accused Officer can show in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is no such evidence elicited from the witnesses to show that P.W.1 had inimical towards him and he planted M.O.1-cash in the bag without the knowledge of the Accused Officer. Therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn. If it is drawn, it shall be presumed that the Accused Officer committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Similarly, the amount has been seized from the bag of the Accused Officer which is a huge amount and it was received by the Accused Officer illegally from P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the receipt of money by the Accused Officer and keeping the same in the bag. P.W.2 is an independent witness and he has no other reason to speak false against the appellant. The trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly found the Accused Officer guilty. None of the findings is shown to be incorrect or illegal. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the convictions recorded by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. 20. With regard to sentence, considering the facts that shortly after the trap, the Accused Officer retired from service, that he was suffering with some ailments, that he was aged more than 70 years and the case is pending for a decade, a lenient view can be taken. Hence, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of two years as imposed under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act can be reduced to one year. 21. In the result, the convictions recorded by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.16 of 1998, dated 18.04.2002, against the appellant/Accused Officer of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act