IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.392 OF 2003 Between: T. Niranjan ..... Appellant/Accused AND The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Anantapur, Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor, ACB Cases. ..... Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 25.03.2003, in C.C.No.10 of 1999, on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the appellant/sole accused 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 also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months under each count, and both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: The Accused Officer worked as Village Administrative Officer, Udipirikonda Village, Kudair Mandal, Anantapur District from 10.02.1992 to 24.02.1997. P.W.1, resident of Jellipally Village, was having Ac.7.80 cents and Ac.2.80 cents of agricultural lands in Survey Nos.237/2 and 234/A. P.W.1 approached the Accused Officer, under whose jurisdiction the said lands were situated, about two months prior to 08.02.1997 seeking for issuance of Pattadar passbook, which is marked as Ex.P2 and title deed, which is marked as Ex.P3, in respect of the above lands. The Accused Officer has not responded, but P.W.1 went round his house for the said documents. At one time, the Accused Officer obtained the signature of P.W.1 in Register No.17, which is marked as Ex.P8, as if the Pattadar passbook and the title deed were delivered to him, yet did not tender the same with an ulterior motive. On 08.02.1997, when P.W.1 approached the Accused Officer for Exs.P2 and P3, he demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- and insisted, and unless that amount is paid, he would not give the Pattadar passbook and title deed. When P.W.1 pleaded inability, the Accused Officer reduced the amount to Rs.1,000/- and asked him to bring it on the next day. But P.W.1 was not willing to pay that amount and therefore, he approached P.W.6-the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, “A.C.B.”), at Ananthapur, at about 2.00 p.m., and gave Ex.P1-complaint. P.W.6, who is the Trap Laying Officer, asked P.W.1 to come with money on the next day. P.W.6 registered a case and issued Ex.P13-First Information Report against the Accused Officer on 09.02.1997. On 09.02.1997, P.W.1 went to the office of P.W.6 with proposed bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- at about 8.30 a.m. Meanwhile, P.W.6 had arranged the presence of two Mediators, one of whom is examined as P.W.2. Then Pre-Trap Proceedings were conducted and the same were scribed in Ex.P5 by P.W.2. P.W.6 instructed P.W.1 to give the money only when the Accused Officer demanded and later, to give a signal of wiping his face three times with a handkerchief. The trap party left for the Jallipally Village in a Government vehicle reaching there by 10.45 a.m. P.W.1 got down and proceeded by walk to the house of the Accused Officer followed by a Constable, while the remaining trap party took vantage positions. P.W.1 entered the house and stayed in the verandah as the Accused Officer was busy in writing something. On seeing P.W.1, the Accused Officer asked whether he brought the money and he nodded. Then, the Accused Officer called his wife and asked her to receive the money from P.W.1. After she went inside the house, P.W.1 asked the Accused Officer for Pattadar passbook and title deed, but the Accused Officer asked him to come in the evening. Then P.W.1 gave a pre-arranged signal. Meanwhile, the Accused Officer was going out of the house with a bag. The trap party took the Accused Officer into the house and disclosed their identify to him. When questioned, the Accused Officer stated that he did not receive the amount from P.W.1, but his wife received it. When Sodium Carbonate Solution Test was conducted on both the hand fingers of the Accused Officer, it gave negative result. Then, at the request of P.W.6, the wife of the Accused Officer came out of the kitchen and when she was questioned, she stated that the amount was in the kitchen and produced it from underneath the mixi, which was on a Cuddapah stone slab. The Sodium Carbonate Solution Test, when conducted to the right hand fingers of the wife of the Accused Officer, proved positive. Later, P.W.6 asked the Accused Officer to produce Pattadar passbook and title deed and the latter stated that they were already given to P.W.1. When questioned again, the Accused Officer produced and asked P.W.1 to pay the charges. P.W.1 went home and brought Rs.15/-, paid the amount and obtained receipt. Later, the Accused Officer explained that the amount paid to his wife by P.W.1 was towards the Life Insurance Corporation (for short, “L.I.C.”) Premium to be given to D.W.1, who is the brother of the Accused Officer and who is an L.I.C. Agent. Thereafter, Ex.P6-Post-Trap Proceedings were drafted. A rough sketch was prepared, which is marked as Ex.P7. P.W.6 recorded the statement of P.W.1 on the next day. The statement of the Accused Officer was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Munsif Magistrate on 13.02.1997, which is marked as Ex.P4. Later, investigation was handed over to P.W.7-Inspector of Police. P.W.7 made further investigation, obtained sanction and filed the charge sheet against the Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. 3. The learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, framed the following charges against the Accused Officer: “FIRSTLY: That you being a public servant working as Village Administrative Officer, Udiripikonda of Kudair Mandal on 8.2.1997 demanded Rs.2,000/- from M.Narayana Swamy R/o Jallipalli village as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, to do the official favour viz., to issue the pass books in respect of his lands in Sy.Nos.237/2 and 236/2A respectively admeasuring 7.80 acres and 2.80 acres at Jallipalli village and on his expressing inability to pay the same, you reduced your demand to Rs.1,000/- and in pursuance of the said demand, you demanded and accepted the sum of Rs.1,000/- from said Narayan swamy as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour to wit., to issue pass books in respect of his lands and thereby committed an offence punishable Under sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognisance. SECONDLY: That you being a public servant as mentioned in the charge No.1, at the time and place as mentioned in charge No.1, by corrupt or illegal means obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.1,000/- for doing the official favour as mentioned in charge No.1 and thereby committed offence of misconduct as defined under sec. 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under sec. 13 (2) of the said At and within my cognisance.” When the above charges were read over and explained to the Accused Officer, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 8. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused Officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the Accused Officer, D.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.D1 & D2 were marked. Ex.X1 was marked through Court. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 & 6, coupled with the recitals in Exs.P5 and P6, found the Accused Officer guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced 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 against the Accused Officer 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 Senior Counsel, Sri Bal Reddy, appearing for the appellant contended that except the solitary testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to show that the Accused Officer demanded P.W.1 to pay bribe amount to show any official favour; that because the Accused Officer evicted P.W.1 from the land encroached by him, P.W.1 entertained a grouse against the Accused Officer; that the wife of the Accused Officer received the amount from P.W.1 towards the L.I.C. premium to be paid to D.W.1, who is the brother of the Accused Officer, who was working as L.I.C. Agent and he enrolled P.W.1 as a policy holder; that for that purpose, the wife of the Accused Officer received the amount; that spontaneous explanation given by the Accused Officer would clearly go to show that the amount was not taken by the Accused Officer for showing any official favour as a bribe, but it was taken by the wife of the Accused Officer towards the L.I.C. premium; that when the defence evidence is also equally probable, the benefit of doubt should be given to him, and therefore, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court against the Accused Officer. 9. On the other hand, Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.C.B. cases, contended that the Pattadar passbook and title deeds of various agriculturists in the Jallipally Village were made ready and handed over to the Accused Officer in the month of November, 1996; that without giving them to the concerned agriculturists, the Accused Officer kept the same with him; that two months prior to lodging of Ex.P1-complaint, dated 08.02.1997, P.W.1 was made to roam around his house; that ultimately on 08.02.1997, the Accused Officer demanded Rs.2,000/- in the first instance for issuing Pattadar passbook and title deed of P.W.1; that when P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay that amount, the Accused Officer reduced that amount to Rs.1,000/-; that on 09.02.1997, at the instructions of the Accused Officer, his wife received the bribe amount; that the Sodium Carbonate Solution Test conducted on the right hand fingers of the wife of the Accused Officer proved positive; that there is no animosity or grouse for P.W.1 to foist a false case of this nature against the Accused Officer; that the explanation that the wife of the Accused Officer received the amount towards the L.I.C. premium has not been substantiated with any other evidence; that as a matter of fact, when the Investigating Officer enquired with the concerned L.I.C. officials, it revealed that D.W.1 did not enroll P.W.1 with regard to any policy; that the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the Accused Officer and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court against the Accused Officer. 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. 11. 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. There cannot be any dispute that it is for the prosecution to establish that the Accused Officer received the amount towards illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing an official favour. With regard to the demand, the allegation is that the Accused Officer demanded P.W.1 to pay Rs.2,000/- on 08.02.1997. When P.W.1 expressed his inability, it was reduced to Rs.1,000/- and asked P.W.1 to pay that amount on the next day. Not willing to pay that amount, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1- complaint with P.W.6 who is the Trap Laying Officer. He summoned P.W.2 and others and applied Phenolphthalein powder and duly noted down the numbers of the currency notes in Ex.P5- Pre-Trap Proceedings. The trap party, lead by P.W.6, went to the house of the Accused Officer. P.W.1 went inside the house of the Accused Officer and when the Accused Officer asked him whether he brought the amount, P.W.1 nodded his head. Then the Accused Officer directed his wife to receive the amount from P.W.1. Accordingly, the amount was received by the wife on behalf of the Accused Officer. The law is well settled that when a case rests upon the solitary testimony of a witness, it must be unimpeachable, true, trustworthy and reliable. If the evidence of a solitary witness is put in the category of wholly reliable, then law does not require any corroboration and in such circumstances, the evidence of the solitary witness can form a basis for conviction. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Vadivelu Thever v. State of Madras[1], wherein it was held thus: “Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into these categories, namely: (i) Wholly reliable (ii) Wholly unreliable (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach on suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.” Bearing the above principles in mind, it is to be seen whether the evidence of P.W.1 can be put in the category of wholly reliable? 13. P.W.1 is a resident of the same village where the Accused Officer was working as a Village Administrative Officer. Except suggesting that P.W.1 occupied the land of one Swamy Das and the Accused Officer got evicted him from the land, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 as to why he has to foist a false case of this nature against the Accused Officer. There was absolutely no evidence to infer that P.W.1 has got a bitter enmity or grouse or animosity against the Accused Officer so as to foist a false case of this nature. 14. The evidence of P.W.4, who is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mudigubba, Anantapur District, would go to show that he handed over all the Pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the Accused Officer for distribution to the agriculturists in whose names those documents were standing. But the Accused Officer did not distribute the Pattadar passbooks and title deeds to various agriculturists in whose names they were issued. There is no other reason for P.W.4 to speak false against the Accused Officer stating that those documents have been given to the Accused Officer in the month of November, 1996. As a matter of fact, several Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were available with the Accused Officer as on the date of trap also. Therefore, P.W.6 gave a complaint to P.W.4 who inturn sent P.W.3 to the house of the Accused Officer and seized the Pattadar passbooks and title deeds relating to the other agriculturists. Accordingly, they were distributed after the trap. There was no explanation as to why the Accused Officer was keeping those Pattadar passbooks and title deeds with him for over a period of three months. 15. There must be some reason for P.W.1 to foist a false case of this nature against the Accused Officer. P.W.1 was visiting the house of the Accused Officer several times for taking his Pattadar passbook and title deed, but the Accused Officer has not given it. Ultimately, when P.W.1 met the Accused Officer on 08.02.1997, he demanded Rs.2,000/-, but later, he reduced it to Rs.1,000/-. In the entire cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 can be put in the category of wholly reliable. In the first instance, when P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-complaint, it is specifically stated that on 08.02.1997, the Accused Officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and later, it was reduced to Rs.1,000/- for issuance of Pattadar passbook and title deed to P.W.1. Similarly, in Ex.P4, which is the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, would also go to show that the Accused Officer demanded Rs.2,000/- for issuing the Pattadar passbook and title deed to P.W.1. So, there was an official favour to be shown by the Accused Officer to P.W.1 was pending by the date of trap. The official favour to be shown is to release the Pattadar passbooks and title deeds which were handed over to him by P.W.4 in the month of November, 1996. Therefore, for that reason, there is every scope or possibility for the Accused Officer to demand certain amount and accordingly, when P.W.1 paid that amount, the Accused Officer directed his wife to receive that amount. 16. The receipt of the amount is not in serious dispute. According to the prosecution, the amount was given towards bribe for releasing of Pattadar passbook and title deed of P.W.1. As a matter of fact, the originals of Exs.P2 and P3, which were in the custody of the Accused Officer, were handed over to P.W.1 immediately after the trap. So, by the date of trap, it is clear that the Accused Officer was in the custody of the originals of Exs.P2 and P3. Once the prosecution established its case that the Accused Officer demanded illegal gratification for showing an official favour, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn. Of course, it is a rebuttable presumption and the Accused Officer can show it by adducing necessary evidence or he can elicit in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to the effect that the amount was not received towards bribe, but for some other purpose. 17. To substantiate the case of the Accused Officer, he examined D.W.1 who is no other than his brother. Admittedly, D.W.1 was working as an L.I.C. Agent. According to him, P.W.1 has taken a policy for a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 10.01.1997. Exs.D1 and D2 are the signatures allegedly signed on the L.I.C. application form by P.W.1. If really, P.W.1 has taken the policy from D.W.1, certainly there should be a correspondence with the Divisional Office or Regional Office of the L.I.C. The Investigating Officer made enquiries with the Branch Manager of L.I.C., Ananthapur, and ascertained that D.W.1 did not enroll P.W.1 as a policy holder. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 can be said to be an after thought because enrolling P.W.1 with regard to L.I.C. policy has not been substantiated with any other evidence. 18. No doubt, the Accused Officer has given a spontaneous explanation to P.W.6-the Trap Laying Officer as well as the Mediator to the effect that he received the amount towards L.I.C. premium that was to be paid to D.W.1. But at the same time, mere explanation is not sufficient to discharge the burden. There must be some evidence. No doubt, the burden on the Accused Officer is not heavy as in the case of the prosecution, but he can show it by proving the preponderance of probability. If really, Exs.D1 and D2 were signed by P.W.1, the Accused Officer should have sent those documents along with the admitted signatures of P.W.1 to the expert for comparison and opinion. 19. As seen from the signatures in Exs.D1 and D2 with that of the other admitted signatures of P.W.1, there is lot of variation. Therefore, it can safely be said that the signatures in Exs.D1 and D2 appear to have not been signed by P.W.1. Except the interested testimony of D.W.1, there is no other evidence to show that P.W.1 has taken a policy from D.W.1 who is no other than the brother of the Accused Officer. Immediately after taking the policy, what a prudent L.I.C. Agent would do is to submit the proposals to the branch office of the L.I.C. When it is a specific case of D.W.1 that he has enrolled P.W.1 as a policy holder one month prior to the trap, the documents with regard to taking of policy by P.W.1 would be available in the branch office of L.I.C. No steps have been taken to summon those documents to show that P.W.1 has taken a policy from D.W.1. Therefore, the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly found the Accused Officer guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act and the said order needs no interference by this Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 25.03.2003, in C.C.No.10 of 1999, on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 3rd December, 2009 KL [1] 1957 Supreme Court 614