THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1377 of 2003 BETWEEEN: W.S.Ranjeeth, S/o.W.Srihari … Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh … Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1377 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was working as Senior Cashier in the office of Assistant Pension Payment Officer, Malakpet, Hyderabad. The Principal, Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad in CC.No.23 of 1999 by judgment dated 10.12.2003 convicted the accused for 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 each count to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- 2. PW1 is a pensioner. She was drawing monthly pension from the office in which the accused was working. It is alleged that on 16.09.1998, when PW1 went to that office for drawing her monthly pension and approached the accused with a request to process her D.A. (Dearness Allowance) arrears bill, the accused demanded Rs.300/- as illegal gratification for doing the said official favour of processing her bill pertaining to D.A. arrears and that on 18.09.1999, when PW1 approached the accused with all the papers and paid tainted amount of Rs.300/-, the accused took her to the Assistant Pension Payment Officer and that during that time, the trap party consisting of officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and mediators went there and seized tainted cash of Rs.300/- from the possession of the accused. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. According to him, he was implicated in a false trap at the instance of one Sattaiah, who was working as Police Constable in ACB during that time. The lower Court after trial in which the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exs. P1 to P11 and MOs.1 to 8; and DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of the accused, found the accused guilty of the above two charges. 3. The appellant’s counsel at the outset stated that on superficial perusal of evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6, there may be case against the accused of he receiving illegal gratification of Rs.300/- from PW1, but the Court has to scrutinize their evidence in order to find out the truth underlying the case. There is no dispute that PW1 is a pensioner drawing her pension every month from the office of Assistant Pension Payment Officer, Malakpet, Hyderbad. It is PW1’s evidence that on 16.09.1998 as usual she went to Pension Payment Office, Malakpet, to receive her monthly pension and that the accused informed her about the Government increasing D.A. and that the accused asked her to bring Rs.300/- and appointment certificate from her office on the next day and that the accused also gave a form to her asking her to get it signed by her hospital authorities and bring back the same to him. She says that when she pleaded with the accused about her inability to pay Rs.300/-, the accused insisted for payment of Rs.300/- and stated that if the amount is not paid, he will not pay D.A. arrears and also pension. She says that having no other go, she took the form and went to her office clerk on the next day and requested him to issue appointment certificate and that the office clerk asked her to come on the next day morning for receiving the certificate. She says that she met the office clerk on 18.09.1998 and obtained the necessary certificate. PW1’s husband Rajaiah used to work as watchman in Osmania General Hospital and after the death of Rajaiah, PW1 was given compassionate appointment as sweeper in the same hospital. Presently she is working as Aya in that hospital. PW1 was drawing her family pension after the death of her husband. PW1 says that even though she pleaded with the accused about she being an elderly women having no capacity to pay money demanded by the accused, he did not listen to her and that therefore, she decided not to pay the demanded amount to the accused and to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB. She says that on 17.09.1998 at about 4:00 P.M, she met PW6 and informed him as to what happened in the pension office. PW6 recorded statement of PW1 as per Ex.P1 and obtained PW1’s signature therein. PW1 signed in Ex.P1 in Hindi. In Ex.P1, PW6 endorsed that contents of Ex.P1 were read over to PW1 in Telugu who admitted the same to be correct. In cross-examination, PW6 stated that he ascertained from PW1 whether she is capable of reading and writing Telugu and that he does not remember whether she stated that she can understand Telugu. PW1 deposed that PW6 has not explained contents of Ex.P1 to her before taking her signature. From this evidence, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is no evidence to show that Ex.P1 is in accordance with the version given by PW1to PW6. PW2 is one of the mediators in Ex.P6, pre-trap proceedings and Ex.P8, post- trap proceedings in this case. He was working as Deputy Registrar in the Registrar’s office at Hyderabad. It is his evidence that during pre-trap proceedings, when the mediators including himself confronted PW1 with the facts mentioned in Ex.P1, she admitted them to be true. Therefore, there can be no doubt of the fact that Ex.P1 contains true version of PW1 as stated by her to PW6. 4. On the basis of Ex.P1, PW6 registered case in Rc.No.21/ACB-CR/98 of ACB, City Range and issued Ex.P11 printed FIR. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that in Ex.P11, two different dates and two different timings are mentioned as 17.09.1998 at 4:00 P.M. and 18.09.1998 at 10:30 hrs. as the date and hour when it was reported. On Ex.P1 as well as in Ex.P11, it was endorsed by PW6 to the effect that he recorded statement of PW1 on 17.09.1998 at 4:00 PM. It was also stated in Ex.P11 that the FIR was despatched from the police station on 18.09.1998. As per the endorsement of the Judge on Ex.P11, it was received by him on 18.09.1998 at 7:50 P.M. Thus, on total reading of various dates and timings mentioned in Ex.P11, there cannot be any dispute or doubt of the facts that PW6 recorded statement of PW1 as per Ex.P1 on 17.09.1998 at 4:00 P.M and registered the crime on 18.09.1998 at 10:30 hrs. and despatched the same to the Judge on 18.09.1998 and the Judge received the same on 18.09.1998 at 7:50 P.M. PW6 deposed that on 17.09.1998, when he was in the office at 4:00 P.M., PW1 came to his office and gave statement regarding demand of bribe by the accused and that he reduced the statement in writing and asked her to come next day and that he caused enquiries about the reputation of the accused and after ascertaining that his reputation was not good, he took permission of the superior officer and on 18.09.1998, he registered case in Crime No.21/ACB/CR-98 under Sections 7 and 11 of the Act and issued Ex.P11 FIR. PW6 further deposed that during pre- trap proceedings, the mediators ascertained the facts of the complaint from PW1. In view of the above evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6 and the clarifications received therein, there cannot be any doubt of the fact that Ex.P1 contains true version given by PW1 to PW6. 5. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that one ACB constable by name Sattaiah was responsible for this case, as he was having disputes with the accused. The said Sattaiah was examined as DW1 in this case. He categorically stated that he had not got the accused implicated in this case. He says that the accused is related to him and that he knows PW1 as she is also related to him from his mothers’ side and that PW1 never approached him for her pension settlement. He says that during the year 1999, there was quarrel between himself and his brother-in-law Yadagiri who is his neighbour with regard to plot of land and that at that time, Yadagiri brought the accused on his side. He says that since the date of the said quarrel, he was not in talking terms with the accused. He says that on the date of trap, he was standing outside the office of the accused near the jeep. There was no direct quarrel between DW1 and the accused. The accused is stated to have supported DW1's brother- in -law, Yadagiri in a quarrel between DW1 and his brother-in-law. There is no evidence to sow that DW1 was instrumental for laying the trap for the accused. Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that DW1 was instrumental in laying trap for the accused, even then the accused cannot escape from this case, in case it is proved that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.300/- from PW1 and accepted the same for doing official favour to PW1. So ultimately, result of this case depends on scrutiny of evidence on record with regard to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, and not on a trivial quarrel between DW1 and his brother-in-law, Yadagiri in which the accused came in support of Yadagiri. 6. As pointed out earlier, it is evidence of PW1 that on 16.09.1999, when she went to Pension Payment Office, the accused demanded Rs.300/- from her as illegal gratification for processing her application for payment of arrears of increased D.A. to pensioners to PW1. In Ex.P1 report given by PW1 to PW6, it is in her consistent version that on 16.09.1998, when she went to Pension Payment Office, the accused came out of the office and told her that she has to get D.A. arrears along with the pension, and that for receiving the same, she has to enclose appointment certificate from the department and for processing and for payment of pension along with arrears, the accused demanded Rs.300/- as bribe and that the accused went out and returned along with application form addressed to the Assistant Pension Payment Officer, Malakpet and handed over the same to her and instructed her to submit the said application duly signed by her enclosing the certificate issued by Osmania General Hospital authorities along with bribe amount of Rs.300/- Evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1 are consistent and corroborative of each other. 7. It is the prosecution evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 6 that during pre-trap proceedings covered by Ex.P6, the currency notes of Rs.300/- brought by PW1 were tainted with phenolphthalein powder and they were kept in a plastic cover and the plastic cover with tainted cash (MO.1) was kept by PW1 in her blouse. It is evidence of PW1 that she gave three Rs.100/- currency notes to PW6, who got some powder applied to those notes and kept them in a cover and gave it to her and that she placed the cover in her blouse. From this, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that it was PW6, who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and that therefore, PW6's hands were also tainted with the said powder. It is not PW1's evidence that "PW6 applied the powder." It is PW1's evidence that "PW6 got some powder to those notes." So it was not PW6 who applied the powder, but at the instance of PW6, some other person applied powder to those notes. As per evidence of PWs 2 and 6, one police constable applied the powder to the currency notes and kept the same in a plastic cover and gave the same to PW6, who kept the same in her blouse. It is further contended by the appellant’s counsel that it is not a case where a lady police constable was employed for keeping plastic cover containing tainted currency notes in the blouse of PW1 and that since PW1 herself received the plastic cover containing tainted currency notes and kept the same in her blouse, there is every possibility of PW1's hands also tainting with phenolphthalein powder. It is not evidence of PW1 or PW2 or PW6 that phenolphthalein powder was also applied to the plastic cover in which tainted currency notes were placed. In the absence of applying phenolphthalein powder to the plastic cover, there is no question of PW1 contacting phenolphthalein powder to her while keeping the plastic cover containing tainted currency notes in her blouse. Therefore, there is no possibility of PW1 transmitting any phenolphthalein powder to Exs. P2 to P5 while handing over those papers to the accused. 8. It is evidence of PW1 that on the date of trap, she went to office of the accused and that one officer, who came along with her, stopped at the gate of that office and that she alone went inside to the seat of the accused but he was not in his seat and that she enquired other clerks in the office about the accused and they told her about the accused in the office itself. She says that thereafter, she came out and saw the accused telephoning nearby the office and that she waited for him there itself for some time and that after the accused finished his call, he came out and that she met him and enquired him about her pension. She says that she told the accused that she brought the necessary certificate and form and gave them to the accused and that stating that there is some error in the certificate, the accused corrected it and that the accused asked her whether she brought the amount demanded by him and that she told the accused about she bringing Rs.300/- and that she removed the currency notes from her blouse and took out them from the cover and gave the same to the accused with her right hand and that the accused received the same with his left hand and kept the same in his left pant pocket and that the accused asked her to follow him into the office and that while accompanying the accused, she gave pre-arranged signal by combing her hair with her hand-fingers and that immediately PW6 and other staff who were in the vicinity of that office, rushed into that office. It is evidence of PWs 2 and 6 that when they entered into office room of PW4, who is the Assistant Pension Payment Officer and tested both hands of the accused by dipping his fingers in two glasses containing Sodium Carbonate solution, there was no change in colour when the accused dipped his right hand fingers and the solution turned pink when the accused dipped his left hand fingers in it and that subsequently, the accused produced MO.1 tainted cash from his left pant pocket and that PW6 seized the same. 9. PW4 deposed that PW1 is entitled for arrears of D.A. from 25.05.1998 as per G.O.Ms.No.89 and that PW1 gave Ex.P2 application to the accused directly for the said arrears. It is his evidence that on 18.09.1998 at about 12:40 P.M., the accused brought PW1 to his room when he was attending to his work and that the accused introduced PW1 to him as pensioner and that at that point of time, ACB officials rushed into his room and that the DSP, ACB recovered the bribe amount from the accused under the cover of panchanama. In cross-examination, PW4 deposed that the accused was removing Ex.P2 from his pocket and meanwhile, ACB officials entered into his room and that the ACB officials made the accused to remove Ex.P2 along with its enclosures and that when the papers were taken out, he noticed money inside the papers. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that PW1 kept the tainted cash in between the bunch of papers consisting of Exs.P2 to P5 and handed over the same to the accused without informing him about the bunch containing the tainted currency notes. DW2 is Junior Accountant working in the same office. He was incharge of inward and outward section. He was only a dispatch clerk. It is his evidence that at about 12:00 Noon, PW1 came to the office and enquired him about the accused and that he informed PW1 about the accused in his room and that she went inside and found the accused not there in his seat and that PW1 went out of the office and again came to the office and talked to the accused and that they both went to the officer after talking with each other and that in the meanwhile, he saw DSP and others entering into the office and that he also went inside room of the officer and that the accused was handing over an application to PW4 and the application fell down and there were some currency notes in it and that the DSP enquired him (DW2) as to what happened in the room and directed him to appear before him whenever required by him and that he was sent out from the room. This version of DW2 about currency notes falling from the application even before PW6 entered into PW4's room, is totally divergent from the version given by PW4 in his cross-examination that when the accused was removing Ex.P2 from his pocket and in the meanwhile, ACB officials entered into his room and during that time, he noticed money inside the papers. Thus, the divergent versions given by PW4 and DW2 with regard to the point in time when the currency notes fell from the application form, demonstrates incorrectness of their versions. It is evident that as PW4 and DW2 are from the same office as that of the accused, PW4 tried to accommodate the accused in his cross- examination and DW2 came forward to depose straightaway in support of the accused as defense witness. Assuming for a moment for the sake of arguments that MO.1 tainted currency notes fell from bunch of papers being taken out by the accused from his pocket, even then, it cannot be presumed that PW1 handed over bunch of papers to the accused without informing him about the bunch containing tainted currency notes. As per PW1's evidence, when she took out MO.1 tainted currency notes from the plastic cover kept in her blouse and gave them to the accused, the accused kept them in his pant pocket. On a combined reading of evidence of PW1 and PW4, it emerges that the accused kept MO.1 tainted currency notes as well as bunch of papers containing Exs. P2 to P5 in his pocket and while the accused was taking out Exs. P2 to P5 from his pocket after ACB officials entered into PW4's room, the tainted cash also fell from the papers, which were taken out from the same pocket. 10. Though PW2 was sent by PW6 as accompanying witness along with PW1, PW2 has chosen to remain outside the office when PW1 entered into office of the accused. When PW1 and the accused were talking to each other near telephone pole, PW2 was watching them from a distance. PW2 was not able to follow the conversation between the accused and PW1 as he was at some distance. PW2 deposed that in the first instance, PW1 went inside the office and came out within two or three minutes and that along with her, she brought one person and both of them went to the telephone pole which is near the office and that both of them talked for some time and that PW1 gave papers to that person and that he had gone through those papers and had written something on those papers and that he heard them talking to each other for some time and that PW1 removed the plastic cover containing tainted amount from her blouse, picked out the currency notes and gave them to the accused and the accused received them with his left hand and kept them in his left side pant pocket and that both of them started going into the office and that at that juncture, PW1 gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party by combing her hair with hand-fingers. In cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he could not hear details of their conversation as he was away from them. Evidence of PW2 corroborates evidence of PW1 with regard to payment of bribe of Rs.300/- to the accused, who accepted the same from PW1. 11. In Ex.P8 post-trap proceedings, it was noted that when PW6 questioned the accused about his possession of tainted cash of Rs.300/-, the accused stated that PW1 gave the same to him immediately prior to it outside the office main gate and that he received the same, but he did not demand the same. Apart from this portion of Ex.P8, there is evidence of PWs.1 and 2 about the accused receiving and accepting Rs.300/- from PW1 outside the office. With regard to the demand, as pointed out earlier, evidence of PW1 shows that the accused demanded for the said illegal gratification of Rs.300/- from PW1 on 16.09.1998 as well as on the date of trap i.e. on 18.09.1998 before PW1 making the said payment of tainted cash to the accused. 12. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6 with regard to PW2 entering into the office of the accused along with PW1 and coming out of the office. The Special Public Prosecutor placing reliance on Kishan Chand Mangal Vs. State of Rajasthan[1] a n d State of Maharashtra Vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple[2] of the supreme Court contended that discrepancies on trivial aspects of the details of the case cannot disprove the prosecution version which was otherwise established substantially. 13. Placing reliance on Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana[3] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is not sufficient in the absence of proof of demand of bribe by the accused. As pointed out earlier, the prosecution is successful in this case in proving demand of bribe amount of Rs.300/- by the accused from PW1 as well as acceptance of the same by the accused from PW1 on the date of trap. Further, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused was in conscious possession of the tainted cash MO.1 and that it was removed from his pocket and produced by the accused. After having scrutinized the evidence on record at length, I have absolutely no hesitation to conclude that the lower Court came to a right conclusion in favour of the prosecution and that there are no grounds either on facts or in law to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded by the lower Court. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 16.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1377 of 2003 DATED: 16.03.2011 ysk [1] AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1511 [2] AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 63 [3] AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1589