THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 263 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.09.2002 in Calendar Case No.1 of 1997 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) and accordingly acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal may be stated as follows: The respondent worked as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, at Guntur from October, 1992 to 27.12.1993. P.W.1, who is defacto complainant, is resident of Chowdaripet, Guntur and he is proprietor of Sri Krishna Tulasi Gas Agencies, Guntur, which deals with supply of domestic gas connections to the consumers. On 2.12.1993, the respondent went to the shop of P.W.1 and demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe for showing official favour in writing a report on the petition stated to have been received by him against P.W.1. When P.W.1 pleaded his inability to pay such huge amount, the respondent reduced his demand to Rs.30,000/- and instructed P.W.1 to pay the said amount within a week during morning time at his residence. Though P.W.1 was unwilling to pay the bribe, he agreed to pay the same due to fear that the respondent would take action against him. As P.W.1 was unwilling to pay the amount, he lodged a complaint with P.W.9, who is Inspector of Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.), Guntur on 2.12.1993 at 6.00 P.M. After causing necessary enquiries about the antecedents of the respondent, P.W.9 submitted the complaint to P.W.8-who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Vijayawada. P.W.8 registered the complaint as crime no.16/ACB-VJA/93 on 8.12.1993 after observing necessary formalities. Thereafter, the respondent was successfully trapped on 9.12.1993 in his residence, when he demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.30,000/- from P.W.1 by directing him to place the tainted amount at wooden rack fixed to the wall of his private room which is located at northern side of the varendah, by lifting the box containing playing cards. The tainted amount was recovered from the wooden rack. The sodium carbonate solution test conducted on the portion of the playing cards box and the file which came into contact to the tainted amount proved positive. After obtaining sanction Ex.P3 from the competent authority and completion of investigation, P.W.9 laid the charge sheet. 3. The charges framed against the respondent are as follows: “Firstly, That you, being a public servant employed as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Guntur, on the 2nd day of December, 1993, at the shop of T.V.Prasad Chowdary at Guntur, demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- from T.V.Prasad Chowdary and reduced the same to Rs.30,000/- and again on 9th day of December, 1993 at your residence D.No.9-9-36, Prathapagirivari street, Railpet, Guntur, demanded and obtained Rs.30,000/- from the said T.V.Prasad Choudary, for yourself as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official act viz. forwarding a favourable report on the petition received by you against the said T.V. Prasad Choudary, who is proprietor of Sri Krishna Tulasi Gas Agencies, Guntur, and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. Secondly, That you, being a public servant working as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Guntur, on the 9th day of December, 1993 at your residence, by abusing your position as a public servant, obtained for yourself a pecuniary advantage of Rs.30,000/- from Tripurneni Venu Prasad, proprietor of Sri Krishna Tulasi Gas Agencies, Guntur, and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable under section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, and within my cognizance. When the charges were read over and explained to the respondent, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9, besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 8. 5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. On behalf of the respondent, D.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 6. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the respondent not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/State. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the respondent/accused for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ? 8. The learned counsel Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, appearing for the appellant/state, contended that, there is absolutely no reason for P.W.1 to foist a false case of this nature against the respondent; that, on 2.12.1993, the respondent went to the H.P. Gas Agency of P.W.1 and stated that he received a complaint with regard to certain irregularities in respect of gas connections and demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- to write a favourable report, and when P.W.1 refused to pay that amount, the amount was reduced by the respondent to Rs.30,000/-; that, P.W.8 registered the case on 8.12.1993, and on 9.12.1993 drafted pre-trap proceedings in the presence of P.W.7 and others duly noting down the numbers of M.O.1- currency notes, and that the cash was seized from wooden rack fixed to the walls of his private room located on northern side of verandah of the house of the respondent, and thereby the respondent was in the constructive possession of the tainted currency notes; that the reasons for not placing any reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 are not cogent and sufficient to discard his testimony; that, the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the respondent demanded and accepted the money and there was no scope or possibility for P.W.1 to keep the amount in the residential premises of the respondent; that in the absence of any enmity or grouse for P.W.1, false implication of the respondent cannot be accepted. Hence, he prays to set aside the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court and convict the respondent. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that, except the interested testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence; that, according to the prosecution case, the alleged demand is not to proceed with reference to the allegations in the complaint, but during the course of evidence, it is stated that the demand was to sign some registers maintained by the gas agency; that, P.W.1 cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable in view of his previous conduct; that, the respondent was in the habit of raiding the premises where irregularities were committed by several traders and that P.W.1 and other traders having failed to get the respondent transferred, resorted to file the false complaint; that, if the evidence of P.W.1 is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to show that the respondent demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes; that, since the cup board in the open rack in verandah of the house of the accused is accessible, there was possibility for P.W.1 to keep that amount in the open rack; that, there is discrepancy with regard to the person who had shown M.O.1 to the trap laying officer; that in view of these inconsistencies and discrepancies, the trial court has not rightly placed any reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, and that, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence of record, the trial court rightly acquitted the respondent and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 11. 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. 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. It is not in dispute that, P.W.1 was having dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Gas. The respondent/accused was working as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Guntur at the relevant point of time of the incident. It is the case of prosecution that, on 2.12.1993, while P.W.1 was in his office, the respondent came there and stated that a complaint was received against him with regard to certain irregularities. He also informed P.W.1 that he had to give a bribe of Rs.50,000/- to wipe off the complaint. When P.W.1 expressed inability to pay that amount, the respondent reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/-. On 2.12.1993, P.W.1 presented report to A.C.B. officials, and on 8.12.1993, a case was registered by the A.C.B. On 9.12.1993, as directed by the A.C.B. officials, P.W.1 took the cash of Rs.30,000/- and handed over to P.W.8. After applying phenolphthalein powder and noting down the numbers of the currency notes, pre-trap proceedings were drafted as in Ex.P5. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that he alone went to the house of the respondent and on seeing him, the respondent asked him whether he brought the money and took him into a room situated on northern side of his house and he was made to sit on the chair near cupboard; then he asked the respondent to sign in his registers, and the respondent was going out, and asked P.W.1 to give that amount; then, P.W.1 took out the currency notes and offered the same to the respondent; that the respondent took out playing cards box from cupboard and asked P.W.1 to keep the money in the cupboard at the place from where he took out that box; then, P.W.1 kept M.O.1 cash on a file in the cupboard and gave the pre-arranged signal. On receipt of the same, P.W.8, mediators and staff went to the room and conducted sodium carbonate test to both hands of the respondent and it gave negative result. Thereafter, the tainted currency notes were seized from the house of the respondent and the numbers of the notes were found tallying with the numbers of the notes as noted in Ex.P5. Then, Ex.P6-post trap proceedings were drafted. 13. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe. There is no other evidence to show that the respondent demanded and accepted Rs.30,000/- from P.W.1. When a case rests upon the evidence of a solitary witness, the law is well settled that it must be unimpeachable, true, trustworthy, free from doubt and must be put in the category of ‘wholly reliable’. Then only such evidence needs no corroboration. When the evidence of a witness is put in the category of ‘wholly reliable’, then there is no legal bar to base conviction on the solitary testimony of the witness. When the evidence of witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, then such evidence requires corroboration. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in VADVIVELU THEVAR V THE STATE OF MADRAS [1], wherein it was held thus: (para 10) “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 has to be seen whether P.W.1 is wholly reliable witness or not. 14. P.W.1 is a Commerce Graduate and also did Diploma in Personal Administration. It is not in dispute that he had joined in Master of Commerce course in Nagarjuna University and the University cancelled his admission on the ground that he forged marks lists of 1st and 3rd years of B.Com. It is also not in dispute that P.W.1 was prosecuted in C.C. No.147 of 1983 before the Munsif Magistrate Court, Mangalagiri for the offences of forgery and cheating, and after full fledged trial, he was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 471 and 420 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine vide judgment dated 8.10.1984. He admitted that, his name was recorded in the educational records as ‘Tripuraneni Venu Prasad’ P.W.1 is very assertive that he did not commit any irregularities and therefore there was no need for him to afraid of anybody, much less the respondent. It is also admitted by him that one Narasimha Rao filed a private complaint against him alleging that P.W.1 kidnapped him. 15. The earliest version as narrated by P.W.1 in Ex.P1 would go to show that the respondent came to his shop on 2.12.1993 and informed him that a petition was received by him with regard to gas connections given to his shop and demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- for giving a favourable reply. But, in the evidence, P.W.1 stated that he asked the respondent to sign in his registers. But, he did not state anything with regard to closing of the complaint received against him. At the threshold stage, it is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent had to sign on some registers relating to the gas agency of P.W.1 and in this connection he demanded the bribe. Further, P.W.1 is not a layman and he would have requested the respondent to give the copy of the complaint and would have verified from the complaint about the nature of irregularities allegedly committed by him. It is in the evidence that the respondent raided several enterprises relating to gas dealers, dall mills, rice mills, etc. with regard to certain irregularities committed by them. P.W.1 admitted that there was no need for the appellant to sign in the registers with regard to release of new connections. Such is the case, there was no need for P.W.1 to take the registers to the house of the respondent to obtain signatures on the registers. 16. The evidence of P.W.1 is full of contradictions and improvements. In his evidence, he stated that he was informed by P.W.2 that the respondent made a telephone call and asked him to meet. But, the said aspect has not been stated in the F.I.R. Similarly, in the first instance, he came forward with a version that the demand was made for sending a favourable report on the complaints of irregularities and if the demand was not fulfilled, he would seize the gas company. But, he came forward with the plea that for sending a favourable report and to wipe off the complaint and to make signatures on the registers, the respondent demanded the bribe. For the first time, P.W.1 introduced in his evidence the theory of demand of bribe by the respondent for signing in the registers. He has not stated the same either in Ex.P1-report or in Ex.P2-his statement before the Magistrate recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He admitted that, he did not mention in Ex.P1 that the respondent told him that he would not sign in register if he failed to give the bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- . He also admitted that, except himself and staff, no other person was present when the respondent visited his shop on 2.12.1993. But, the prosecution has not examined any of the staff members of the gas agency to show that the respondent visited the shop. Even on 9.12.1993 also, P.W.1 did not enquire with the appellant about the details of the complaint and the details of the favourable report which he was going to write. But, without asking those important aspects, he only testified with regard to signing of the registers. It is quite unnatural and improbable to belie that P.W.1 agreed to pay bribe amount without looking into the complaint allegations or without receiving copy of the complaint. 17. As a matter of fact, as seen from the evidence of P.W.3, no complaint was received against gas agency of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the then District Supply Officer, Guntur, who has to entrust the complaint, if any, received against P.W.1, to the respondent, and during the tenure of P.W.3, he had not received any complaint against the gas agency of P.W.1. Similarly, P.W.1 did not produce the registers before the A.C.B. officials during the pre-trap proceedings. If really, he had taken the registers for obtaining signatures of the respondent, they would have been found in the house of the respondent and in such a case, those registers would have been seized by P.W.8 during post-trap proceedings. Admittedly, registers relating to the gas agency of P.W.1 have not been seized by the investigating agency. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is not safe to place any implicit reliance on the solitary evidence of P.W.1 and he cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable. At best, he is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness. In such a case, his evidence requires corroboration. There is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 to show that the respondent demanded and received any amount from P.W.1, except recovery of M.O.1 from the house of the respondent. 18. There is also discrepancy as to who pointed out the place where the amount was kept. One version is that the respondent pointed the same and another version is P.W.1 pointed out the same, and the third version is that during search P.W.8 found M.O.1-currency notes. As seen from Ex.P6-post trap proceedings, on search made by P.W.8, the currency notes have been found. No doubt, the objective findings recorded in Ex.P6 can be accepted. Admittedly, when both the hand fingers of the respondent were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, it did not give positive result, and the colour of the solution remain as it is. In the earliest opportunity, the respondent pleaded ignorance when the trap laying officer questioned him about the finding of tainted currency notes. That shows that the respondent might not have any knowledge about the keeping of the tainted currency notes. 19. On the other hand, the defence came forward with the version that father of the respondent sustained injury when he fell in bath room and while he was attending to his father, the tainted amount was surreptitiously kept in the open rack in the verandah of the house of the respondent. That possibility also cannot be ruled out because the evidence of D.W.1-who was a servant boy in the house of respondent, is very clear that when the respondent was attending to his father, P.W.1 entered into the place where M.O.1-currency notes were found and asked about the respondent, and so, when he went inside the house to inform the respondent, at that point of time, there was scope for P.W.1 to keep the amount in the open rack in the verandah. As a matter of fact, one version shows that P.W.1 himself showed the amount to the investigating officer. Therefore, these circumstances would belie the case of prosecution. P.W.1, for the reasons best known to him, might have utilized the services of A.C.B. so as to implicate the respondent falsely in a case of this nature. No doubt, P.W.1 has no enmity or grouse against the respondent, but, at the same time, the traders and gas agencies within the jurisdiction of the respondent had grouse or enmity against the respondent for conducting raids. So, the other traders might have pressed P.W.1 into service for institution of this false case against the respondent. The trial court, after an elaboration consideration of the evidence on record, rightly has not placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 and acquitted the respondent. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 20. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 17.09.2002 in Calendar Case No.1 of 1997 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada. ------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 19.11.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 263 of 2003 Date: 19.11.2009 Between: State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti-corruption Bureau, Vijayawada range, Guntur district. …Appellant And J.V.R. Subrahmanyam …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 263 of 2003 19.11.2009 [1] AIR 1957 SC 614