IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2325 of 2004 DATE:29.07.2011 Between: State : A.C.B City Range, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Hyderabad …… Appellant And Anil Chavan ...Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2325 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The 1st accused/A-1/respondent was working as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Road Transport Authority(R.T.A), West Zone, Hyderabad. A-2 is stated to be unauthorised broker in that R.T.A office. By the date of trial in the lower Court, A-2 died. A-1 alone faced trial in the lower Court. By judgment dated 12.01.2004 in C.C. No.11 of 1999, the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Hyderabad, acquitted A-1 of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. 2) P.Ws 1 and 3 are owners of rig mounted vehicles. Alleging that those vehicles were loaded with rigs of over weight, A-1 seized registration certificates (R.C) and other documents relating to those vehicles bearing Nos.AP 28 F 8155 and AP 28 C 9279. P.W-4 is driver of one of the said vehicles. P.W-3 is brother of P.W-1. It is alleged that when drivers requested A-1 for return of R.C. Books and other documents seized from the vehicles, A-1 demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- for each vehicle and that on 06.09.1997 when P.W-1 went to office of the A-1 and requested for return of R.C. Books, A-1 demanded total bribe of Rs.4,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per vehicle and also demanded monthly mamool of Rs.500/- for each rig. With the said allegations, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-7 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Hyderabad on 10.09.1997. After issuing Ex.P-10 F.I.R on the basis of Ex.P-1, P.W-7 organised trap for A-1 on 11.09.1997 in the presence of mediators including P.W-2. P.W-2 was working as Junior Assistant in the office of District Registrar of Assurances, Hyderabad. Before proceeding for the trap, pre- trap procedures were conducted under the cover of Ex.P-4 mediators’ report. It is alleged that during trap, A-1 directed P.W- 1 to pay the bribe amount to A-2 and that the trap laying party recovered M.O-1 tainted cash of Rs.2,000/- from possession of A-2. Plea of A-1 is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found that A-1 is not guilty of the charges. 3) In this case, P.Ws 1, 3 and 4 turned hostile to the prosecution in all respects. P.W-3 except being owner of one of the vehicles, was not a witness to either demand for bribe by A-1 or payment of bribe by P.W-1. P.W-3 says that the rigs were not seized at any time by R.T.A officers. P.W-4 deposed that two rig mounted vehicles being driven by himself and Bhaskar Reddy were stopped and that Exs.P-2 and P-3 R.C. books of both the vehicles were seized by some transport officials. He did not speak about anybody muchless A-1 demanding for bribe for return of those R.C. Books. It is evidence of P.W-1 that his agent who is a muslim asked him to bring Rs.4,000/- saying that the matter will be settled. P.W-1 did not speak to he approaching A- 1 for return of seized R.C. Books and about A-1 demanding for any bribe. According to P.W-1, he gave report to P.W-7 when his union leaders advised him to give report to A.C.B so that he would get return of the seized R.C. Books. Though P.W-1 says that he gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-7 in his own hand writing, P.W-1 did not subscribe to the version contained in Ex.P-1 during trial. P.W-1 further says that when he went to office of A-1 he enquired about R.C. Books of their vehicles and that a small boy who was there removed those R.C. Books from a rack and gave them to him. He says that since there were several persons in that room, there was no opportunity for him to pay the money. P.W-1 further says that A-2 was in the neighbouring room and that A-2 was known to him and that he gave the tainted amount to A-2 and asked him to retain the money with him and he would come and collect the amount from A-2 on the next day. He says that immediately thereafter, he came out and gave pre-arranged signal to A.C.B party. After receiving pre- arranged signal, raid party including P.W-2 mediator and P.W-7 trap laying officer entered the scene and recovered M.O-1 tainted cash of Rs.2,000/- from possession of A-2 under the cover of Ex.P-7 mediators’ report relating to post-trap proceedings. P.Ws 2 and 7 speak to the contents of Ex.P-7. Neither the tainted cash was recovered from possession of A-1 nor at his instance. It is stated in Ex.P-7 that when P.W-7 questioned A-1, A-1 pointed out A-2 standing in the said room. Except pointing out A-2, A-1 did not do anything else nor gave any statement to the trap laying officer. As per evidence of P.W- 1, A-2 was his own agent and a known person and therefore, he gave M.O-1 tainted cash to A-2 and asked him to retain the same. 4) P.W-5 is another Motor Vehicle Inspector working in the same R.T.A office at Gudimalkapur during the relevant time. He did not support the prosecution version about what happened in the room in which he and A-1 were sitting during the trap. He totally turned hostile to the prosecution. In the absence of any proof of demand for bribe by A-1 and proof of acceptance of bribe by A-1 or by any person on behalf of A-1, it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to make out the case under Section 7 or under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Having regard to the evidence on record, the lower Court rightly recorded acquittal against A-1. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the said finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 5) Hence, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 2, 2011 ksh