IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.66 of 2004 DATE:13.04.2011 Between: R.N.M.Raghuram …… Appellant And State – Dy.Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.66 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The appellant/accused was convicted by the Special Judge for A.C.B Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No.26 of 2000 (Old C.C. No.28 of 1994) by judgment dated 20.01.2004 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced on two counts separately to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The accused during the relevant period was working as Mandal Revenue Officer of Anandapuram Mandal of Visakhapatnam District. P.W-2 is brother of P.W-1. P.W-2 was occupying Ac.3.00 of Government land in S.No.308/1 (old S.No.276) of Anandapuram village as encroacher and raised Eucalyptus trees therein. It was Konda Poramboke land. There is no dispute that notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act was given to P.W-2 for that land and ultimately order of eviction under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act was also passed on 01.09.1993 and it was affixed to a tree in the land on 03.09.1993. As against notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, P.W-2 approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and filed W.P. No.12804 of 1993. This Court as per Ex.P-3 order dated 03.09.1993 disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider all the contentions raised by the encroacher in his explanation submitted to the impugned notice and to pass reasoned order on merits after giving due opportunity to the encroacher and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the letter dated 12.08.1993 of the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2) On 28.09.1993 enquiry was conducted in the matter. It has to be noticed that P.W-1 had been looking after affairs of P.W-2 and his other family members. It is alleged that on 15.07.1993 when P.W-1 handed over explanation of P.W.2 at the office of the accused for the notice issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- to avert further troubles to P.W-2 in the matter and that on 27.09.1993 one day earlier to the enquiry, P.W-1 met the accused and requested him to reduce the demand and in pursuance of that request, the accused reduced demand of bribe of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/- and wanted the amount to be paid at his house at Visakhapatnam. P.W-1 approached P.W-5 who is the trap laying officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B, Visakhapatnam on 29.09.1993 and gave Ex.P-1 report. P.W-5 registered Ex.P-1 as case in Crime No.18/RC.ACB.WLR/93 and issued Ex.P-12 F.I.R. P.W-5 arranged trap for the accused on 30.09.1993. P.W-3 and another were mediators for the trap proceedings. P.W-3 was the then Junior Assistant in the Irrigation Department at Visakhapatnam. The other mediator D.Prasada Rao worked as Assistant Executive Engineer in the same Department. Ex.P-7 pre-trap proceedings were prepared before trap in the office of A.C.B at Visakhapatnam. It is alleged that the accused was successfully trapped after demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/- from P.W-1 on 30.09.1993 at 8.40 A.M in his house at Shanthipuram of Visakhapatnam from P.W-1. Ex.P-9 contains post trap proceedings. After obtaining necessary sanction covered by Ex.P-10, charge sheet was laid in this case before the lower Court. The lower Court after trial, found favour with the prosecution case and recorded the above said convictions and sentences against the accused. It is primarily contended by the senior counsel for the appellant/accused that by the date of alleged trap on 30.09.1993 there was no official favour pending with the accused in as much as eviction notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act and eviction order under Section 6 of the same Act were issued by the accused much prior to the date of alleged trap and that therefore there was nothing in the hands of the accused to favour P.W-1’s brother P.W-2 with regard to the encroached land. It is further contended that P.W-1 is related to an office manager in A.C.B Department and that he has got history of involving another officer in A.C.B trap and that he is well versed with criminal litigation as he was involved in several criminal cases either as accused or as complainant and that therefore, the lower Court should not have placed reliance on evidence of P.W-1 in the absence of corroboration for his evidence with regard to the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe. P.W-1 admitted in cross examination that previously his father-in-law worked in A.C.B Department at Hyderabad as S.B.Manager, A.C.B. He further stated in cross-examination that in two other A.C.B cases also he introduced the complainants to A.C.B officials and that the said cases were filed against Head Constable of Anandapuram Police Station and Mandal Revenue Inspector of Anandapuram. He says that he was not cited as witness in the said two cases. He only encouraged two other victims of corruption to approach A.C.B officials and to pursue their remedies. P.W-1 further stated in cross-examination that he gave evidence as witness in crime No.59/1993 in an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bheemili and that by mistake it was recorded in the deposition of that case as if he belonged to Mukundapuram village. He denied the suggestion that he is a professional litigant. He admits that he gave evidence as witness in a murder case relating to Anandapuram Police Station before the Metropolitan Sessions Court, Visakhapatnam. He admits that he was an accused in Crime No.60/1999 of Anandapuram Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 447, 379, 506, 437, 352/34 I.P.C. He says that he was acquitted in that case by the Magistrate. He admits that he was also an accused person in Crime No.38/2000 of Anandapuram Police Station relating to offences under Sections 354, 324, 323, 509 I.P.C. He says that he was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalli in that case. He admits that he is an accused person in Crime No.20/2003 registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of Anandapuram Police Station. He claims that it is a false case filed against him. He admits that he is A-3 in Crime No.78/2002 of Anandapuram Police Station relating to offences punishable under Section 498- A, 494, 506/34 I.P.C. He says that the said case was closed by the police. He denied the suggestion that he won over witnesses in the criminal cases and for that reason he was acquitted in the criminal cases. He denied the suggestion that he is a professional land grabber and encroaches lands in the names of his family members and harasses revenue officers in case they propose action against him and his family members. The trap in the present case was on 30.09.1993. All the crimes viz., Crime Nos.60/1999, 38/2000, 20/2003 and 78/2002 are long subsequent to the date of offence in the present case. Therefore, the said crimes cannot have any bearing on assessing P.W-1’s evidence. As P.W-1 had experience as complainant in the present A.C.B case, he might have encouraged two other victims or complainants also to pursue his path of starting prosecutions of corrupt officers. There was no instance of P.W-1 figuring as an accused person prior to 30.09.1993. Giving evidence as witness in Crime No.59/1993 in a case relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C cannot have any bearing on truthfulness or otherwise of P.W-1’s evidence in the present case. There is no dispute about P.W-2 who is the brother of P.W-1 encroaching into Ac.3-00 of Government land and about the accused as Mandal Revenue Officer taking steps against P.W-2 for his eviction from the said encroachment by following the procedure prescribed by the Land Encroachment Act and there is also no dispute about P.W- 1 preparing representations on behalf of P.W-2 and submitting the same to the accused as Mandal Revenue Officer and about P.W-1 participating in the open enquiry made by the accused as Mandal Revenue Officer at the encroached land on 28.09.1993. In that view of the matter, the only question to be addressed is whether the prosecution has made out demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from P.W-1. It cannot be said that after issue of notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act and passing of order under Section 6 of the said Act, there was no official favour pending with the accused. Even when the eviction order under Section 6 of the said Act was being served on 03.09.1993, this High Court passed Ex.P-3 order on the same date in W.P. No.12804 of 1993 directing the accused who was Mandal Revenue Officer, Anandapuram Mandal to consider objections of P.W-2 stated in his reply to notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act in detail and to pass a reasoned order thereon. Therefore, even after service of order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act on 03.09.1993 by affixture, the accused made further enquiry in the matter of encroaching Ac.3-00 of Government land by P.W-2 by going to the land in question and making open public enquiry at the land. Therefore, the contention that there was no official favour pending with the accused by the date of trap on 30.09.1993, is not sustainable. In Ex.P-1 report given by P.W-1 to P.W-5 it was stated that on 15.07.1993 he went to M.R.O Office and met the accused in this matter and submitted explanation of P.W-2 to the accused and that the accused after going through the said explanation stated that if they go to the High Court they have to incur nearly Rs.3,000/- as expenditure, and saying so the accused informed him that if the said amount of Rs.3,000/- is paid to him as bribe, he would see that no land grabbing case is booked against his brother and Section 6 notice is not issued to his brother. P.W-1 deposed that notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act was served on P.W-2 during July, 1993 through subordinates of the accused and that on behalf of P.W-2 he (P.W-1) submitted reply to the said notice signed by P.W-2 to the accused and that after receipt of the said reply, the accused told him that if the case is filed in Court, his brother has to incur Rs.3,000/- as expenditure and that the accused further informed that if the said amount of Rs.3,000/- is paid to him he would see that no case is filed against P.W-2, and that he expressed his inability to pay the said amount to the accused and left his office. P.W-1 further says that in August, 1993 he came to know about notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act was going to be prepared against P.W-2 in the office of the accused and so P.W-2 filed a case in the High Court and obtained directions to the accused. It is evidence of P.W-1 that on 06.09.1993 he went to office of the accused and submitted copy of the High Court order to the accused and that the accused asked him to meet him after 10 days and that accordingly when he and his brother met the accused in his office, the accused informed him that he can either evict P.W-2 from the land or can manage and permit P.W-2 in possession of the land by helping him, and that the accused asked them to meet him in his house at Visakhapatnam to solve the problem. P.W-1 further says that after the accused sent notice directing P.W-2 to attend for enquiry scheduled on 28.09.1993 at the land, on 27.09.1993 at about 8.30 A.M he (P.W-1) went to house of the accused at Shantipuram of Visakhapatnam and met the accused and requested the accused to do justice in the matter as they were poor and that the accused again demanded him to pay Rs.3,000/- as bribe so that he would not take steps for evicting P.W-2 from the land and that when he expressed his inability to pay such amount as bribe, the accused reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and wanted him to pay the amount on 28.09.1993 at his house and that on 28.09.1993 he went to house of the accused in the morning and informed him about he not securing Rs.2,000/- to pay the same as bribe and that the accused asked him and his brother to attend the enquiry on the same day. P.W-1 says that enquiry was conducted at the land on the same day and that in the same evening the accused sent word to him to come and meet him at his office and that when he went to office of the accused, the accused again asked for Rs.2,000/- as bribe or else he would see that P.W-2 is evicted from the land, and that in such circumstances though he was reluctant to pay bribe, due to fear that the accused would evict P.W-2 from the land he agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- as bribe and that the accused asked him to bring the said money on 30.09.1993 to his house. At this stage there is no dispute about the trap on 30.09.1993, during which both the hands of the accused turned pink when rinsed in Sodium Carbonate solution and about recovery of M.O.5 tainted cash of Rs.2,000/- from possession of the accused. It is evidence of P.W-1 that on 30.09.1993 he along with raid party consisting of P.W-3, P.W-5 and others went towards house of the accused and that he got down vehicle at a distance from the accused and proceeded towards house of the accused and that one of the mediators followed him upto a distance and that he (P.W-1) entered into house of the accused and that he was asked to wait as the accused was inside the house and that for 15 minutes he sat in a sofa in the house of the accused and that the accused came to him and sat opposite to him and asked him to come nearer and asked whether he brought the demanded bribe amount and that when he replied positively, the accused demanded him to pay the said amount to him and that accordingly he took out tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from his shirt and gave the same to the accused who took it and counted the same and kept the same in his right side lalchi pocket and that subsequently he came out of the house of the accused and relayed the signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief, when P.W-5 and others rushed to the house of the accused. It is evidence of P.Ws 3 and 6 as well as it is stated in Ex.P- 9 post trap proceedings that the accused stated that P.W-1 placed the currency notes in his hands stating that the amount would be required for treatment of his wife and that P.W-1 gave the money without he asking for the same. It is the version of the accused during post trap proceedings that P.W-1 thrusted the money into his right side shirt pocket. There is inconsistency in the version of the accused in post trap proceedings about P.W-1 thrusting the money into his right side shirt/lalchi pocket at one stage and about P.W-1 placing the currency notes in his hands, at another stage. Not only both the hands of the accused, but also inner lining of right side shirt/lalchi pocket of the accused turned into pink when rinsed in Sodium Carbonate solution. Therefore, it is evident that the accused received the tainted cash M.O-5 from P.W-1 with one hand, counted the same with both hands and kept the same in his right side shirt pocket; or otherwise the question of finger rinses of both the hands and inner lining of right side shirt pocket turning pink in Sodium Carbonate solution will not arise at all. Simply because there is no accompanying witness for P.W-1 on the date of trap, evidence of P.W-1 about the accused demanding and obtaining bribe of Rs.2,000/- covered by M.O-5 tainted cash cannot be disbelieved. Evidence of P.W-2 may not throw any light on demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from P.W-1, as the accused did not make any demand for bribe when P.W-2 was accompanying P.W-1. As per evidence of P.W-1, the demands for bribe were made by the accused when P.W-1 alone met him. Evidence of P.W-2 is only with regard to the P.W-1 conveying the information of the accused demanding for bribe. Evidence of P.Ws-1, 3 and 6 proved demand as well as acceptance of bribe of Rs.2,000/- by the accused from P.W-1 on 30.09.1993. The lower Court properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion in favour of the prosecution. I do not find any reasons or circumstances to come a different conclusion in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 13, 2011 ksh