IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.1548 OF 2004. Date:11.07.2011 Between:- State: A.C.B. rep.by Inspector of Police, A.C.B. Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar. ..Appellant/Complainant And K.Narayana .. Respondent/Accused officer THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.1548 OF 2004 JUDGMENT:- The accused/respondent was working as Additional Assistant Engineer (Constructions and Operation), Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (A.P.S.E.B.), Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. By judgment dated 05.01.2004 in C.C.No.29 of 1998, the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases, Hyderabad acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (in short, the Act). Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. 2. P.W.1 is Managing Partner of M/s.Jagan Stone Crushing Industry, Kannal Village of Kamanpur Mandal. He obtained sanction for 50 HP electric connection to his industry. On 22.10.1997, the accused installed new electric transformer at the industry of P.W.1. It is alleged that the accused gave electric connection with ordinary wire and that on 09.11.1996, when P.W.1 requested the accused to give 50 MM PVC wire connection to his industry, the accused demanded for bribe of Rs.7,000/- for the same and that after four or five days, when P.W.1 approached the accused and informed him about fixing muhurtham for opening the industry on 26.12.1996, the accused reiterated his demand for bribe, but after bargain, reduced the same to Rs.2,000/- and that P.W.1 purchased 50 MM PVC cable on 18.12.1996 and approached the accused at his residence at Peddapalli and requested him to give connection with the said cable, the accused reiterated his demand for bribe of Rs.2,000/-. With the said allegations, P.W.1 gave Ex.P-3-report to P.W.6-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.), Karimnagar on 27.12.1996. After registering the said report and issuing Ex.P-19-F.I.R., P.W.16 organized trap for the accused on 29.12.1996. It is alleged that the trap was successful and that the accused was caught red- handed while in possession of M.O.1-tainted cash of Rs.2,000/-. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found that the accused was not guilty of the charges. 3. In this appeal, the Special Public Prosecutor contended that EX.D-1-test report was brought into existence collusively subsequent to the date of trap and that the lower Court should not have placed reliance on it. Ex.D-1 is test report dated 27.12.1996. It shows that necessary 50 HP electric connection was given to Crushing Industry of P.W.1 by that date and it was successfully tested on that day. It is contended that there is correction in the year in the date put by P.W.1 therein from 97 to 96 and that the said connection shows that it was an antedated document. P.W.1 in cross examination admits that Ex.D-1 is the test report of the department containing his signature and that of Additional Divisional Engineer as well as the accused and it is dated 27.12.1996. In further cross examination by the Public Prosecutor who conducted trial in the lower Court, nothing could be elicited on Ex.D-1 to show that it is an antedated document. There is also no cross examination of P.W.1 by the Public Prosecutor that correction in the year in Ex.D-1 was made subsequently. Apart from signature of the consumer as P.W.1, Ex.D-1 contains signatures of the accused as Additional Assistant Engineer, P.W.3 as Additional Divisional Engineer and also the Line Inspector. P.W.3 deposed in cross examination that EX.D-1 is the test report given to P.W.1 on 27.12.1996 and that it bears his signature as well as P.W.1’s signature and that by 27.12.1996, service connection with all facilities was given to the industry of P.W.1. 4. Apart from the test report-Ex.D-1, the lower Court considered evidence of P.W.3 with regard to the consumption of electricity after the test report. P.W.3 in cross examination deposed that if the reading is ‘25’, it denotes power consumption of 500 units. He says that if number ‘1’ is reflected in meter, it denotes 20 units of power consumption. Unless necessary conductor from the transformer to the unit was installed, the question of drawing electricity to P.W.1’s industry will not arise at all. If only domestic service wire is installed instead of 50 MM PVC Conductor, there is no question of drawing electricity to P.W.1’s crushing industry. The said domestic service conductor cannot withstand passage of electricity of the magnitude of 50 HP. Simply because P.W.6 could not seize Ex.D-1 from office of the accused after the trap, it cannot be dubbed that Ex.D-1 is a subsequently brought up document. Ex.D-1 was summoned by the lower Court from proper official custody. I do not find any circumstances to disbelieve Ex.D-1 test report, which shows that electricity service connection for P.W.1’s crushing industry was given successfully by installing the necessary equipment including 50 HP service wire even by 27.12.1996. When 50 HP service wire was already installed, the question of pendency of official favour with the accused in that regard does not survive by the date of trap on 29.12.1996. The lower Court is justified in holding that there was no official favour pending with the accused by the date of trap. 5. With regard to demand for bribe, P.W.1 speaks to the same. There is no corroboration for P.W.1’s evidence in that regard. Of course, corroboration cannot be sought as a matter of rule but the Court can seek corroboration as a matter of prudence, particularly when the de facto complainant’s evidence is otherwise not trustworthy. P.W.1 gives Ex.P-3 report to P.W.6 on 27.12.1996 by which date necessary 50 HP service wire was already installed. It shows that P.W.1’s evidence is not wholly trustworthy. In those circumstances, in the absence of corroboration for P.W.1’s evidence with regard to demand for bribe, I do not propose to rely on ipse dixit of P.W.1 in this regard. It appears that as P.W.1 could not inaugurate his industry on 26.12.1996 as per muhurtham fixed by him, he became aggrieved against the accused for the delay and gave Ex.P-3 report to P.W.6 on 27.12.1996 with an intention to malign him. Admittedly, brother-in-law of P.W.1 was then working as A.C.B. Inspector. P.W.1 took his assistance for arranging the trap through P.W.6. 6. With regard to trap, not only P.W.1 but also P.W.2 participated as accompanying witness during the trap. During pre trap proceedings covered by Ex.P-5 mediator’s report, there was tainting of M.O.1-cash with phenolphthalein powder. After tainting the cash, the Police Constable kept the tainted cash in shirt pocket of P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed that on the way to Peddapalli to the house of the accused, he counted the money given to him. P.W.1 further admits that as soon as the accused came into the room in which he and P.W.2 were sitting, he wished the accused saying ‘Namaskaram’ and shook his right hand with his right hand. It created the possibility of phenolphthalein powder on M.O.1 currency notes transferring to the hands of P.W.1 and in turn, transferring to right hand of the accused. During post trap proceedings covered by Ex.P-6 second mediator’s report, it was noted that only right hand finger rinses of the accused in sodium carbonate solution turned pink and not left hand finger rinses in sodium carbonate solution. P.W.1 in a designed manner, transferred traces of phenolphthalein powder of currency notes to the right hand fingers of the accused immediately after he met the accused. It made right hand finger rinses of the accused in sodium carbonate solution to turn into pink. 7. It is evidence of P.W.1 that at his house during trap, the accused enquired whether he brought the demanded bribe amount and that he stated in the affirmative and paid M.O.1-cash to the accused by taking it out from his shirt pocket and that the accused received the same with his left hand and placed the same on table in the same room. If P.W.1 received M.O.1-tainted cash with left hand, it is not known how right hand finger rinses in sodium carbonate solution turned pink and why left hand finger rinses in sodium carbonate solution did not turn pink. It is not P.W.1’s evidence that after P.W.1 receiving the amount with left hand, transferred the same to his right hand and thereafter placed the same on table in that room. P.W.2 deposed that the accused asked P.W.1 about the money which was demanded by him and that P.W.1 gave the tainted money taking out from his shirt pocket to the accused and the accused accepted the same and placed the same on a table in the same room. In cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that the accused stated during post trap proceedings that he accepted the money from P.W.1, who gave it voluntarily, and that the accused also pointed out a wad of currency notes which were placed on the table in the same room. In Ex.P-6-second mediator’s report relating to post trap proceedings, spot explanation given by the accused to the trap laying officer is given to the effect that the accused did not demand the amount but took the amount with his right hand and kept the same on table and immediately intended to return the amount to P.W.1, but P.W.1 refused to take back and as such, the accused presumed that P.W.1 intentionally offered the bribe amount, and after keeping the amount on table, the accused stood up and questioned P.W.1 as to why he was not taking the money back, and in the meanwhile, A.C.B. party entered into the room. On total reading of the entire material on record, I have no hesitation to accept finding of the lower Court that the trap was not successful. P.W.1 intended to involve the accused in a false trap as the accused was instrumental in not making electric installations ready by 26.12.1996 when he intended to start his industry as per muhurtham. There are absolutely no grounds in this appeal to interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 8. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _​__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 11th July, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.1548 OF 2004 Date:11.07.2011 AMD