IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2003 Between: Anwar Aziz, Deputy Supervisor, Mandal Revenue Office, Kazipet Mandal, Adilabad District. - - - Accused/Appellant. AND The State of A.P. Rep. by P.P. of Anti Corruption Bureau, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Complainant/Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2003 JUDGMENT The Appellant herein who is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Special Judge’), dated 13-12-2002, in C.C. No.26 of 1998, filed this Appeal. The Appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For brevity ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months under both counts. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The Accused will be referred as referred in the lower Court for the sake of convenience. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The accused was working as Deputy Supervisor in Kazipet Mandal Adilabad District and he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) (i) of the Act. PW.1 S. Murali is resident of Peddannapalli village, Kazipet Mandal and Adilabad District. His father Rajaiah died on 05-11-1994 leaving behind him and two other sons. Sri Rajaiah was a tenant of an agricultural land measuring 0-11 guntas in Survey No.223 of Muttayapalli village. After the death of the said Rajaiah, PW.1 in consultation with his brothers on 08-08-1996 made an application to MRO Kazipet to survey the land and fix the boundaries. Ex.P1 is the application along with the enclosures. Four days thereafter, he approached MRO and MRO informed him that the application was forwarded to Revenue Inspector by name Ch. Padmaja Rani and then PW.1 met Ch. Padmaja Rani who in turn informed that his application was with the accused. On 22-10-1996 PW.1 met the accused in his office at Kazipet and enquired him about his application. Then, the accused directed him to pay Rs.86/- through challan and also shown him the heads of account in that slip which is Ex.P2. Then, PW.1 paid the amount on 24-10-1996 and submitted another application on 26-10-1996 enclosing the challan and copies of pahanies. Ex.P3 is the fresh application along with enclosures. Then, he obtained Ex.P4 acknowledgment from the accused. 3) According to PW.1 accused was postponing the survey of the land on some pretext or other and on 10-12-1996 he met accused at about 11-30 a.m. at his office and enquired him about the same. Then, accused has demanded Rs.5,000/- bribe for measuring the land and fixing boundaries. PW.1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, then accused reduced the said bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and told PW.1 that he would measure the land as soon as PW.1 pays the said amount of Rs.2,000/-. Since, PW.1 was not inclined to the bribe approached the ACB officials and presented complaint in Ex.P5 on 11-12-1996 at about 08-00 a.m. and the same was registered as case in Crime No.6/ACB-KNR/96 under Sections 7, 11 and 13(1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. PW.6 P. Ashok Kumar, who was working as DSP ACB Karimnagar District, having made discrete enquiries into the complaint registered the case as referred above and issued FIR Ex.P12, which is sent to the Court. PW.1 was directed to bring Rs.2,000/- towards proposed bribe amount, then PW.6 summoned the mediators PW.2 Shaik Shamshad Hussain and one M. Karunakar. After introducing PW.1 to the mediators and after explaining the usual procedure and after treating the currency notes with the phenolphthalein powder and after explaining the significance of the test and demonstrating the test, the first mediators report was prepared. Ex.P7 is the first mediators report. PW.2 was asked to follow PW.1 and to watch all the transactions and to give pre arranged signal after completing the first mediators report. Thereafter they proceeded to the office of accused. PWs. 1 and 2 and the trap party members went to the office of the accused in the jeep of DSP ACB at about 11-30 a.m., PW.6 and other trap party members took vantage positions. 4) Then, PWs. 1 and 2 went into the office of accused but accused was not in his seat, then they waited for about one hour for the accused. Then, they noticed the accused coming to office, PW.1 met the accused at the entrance of the office and enquired him about his work, then accused questioned whether PW.1 had brought the amount, then PW.1 answered positively, then he took PW.1 to his room and then went to a room which is opposite to his seat which was vacant and then demanded the amount. PW.1 took out the tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket with his right hand and handed over the same to the accused. The accused received the same with his right hand counted them and kept it in his right side pant pocket. Then, accused took PW.1 to nearby tea stall, there one stranger also met the accused they had tea in the said canteen, then PW.1 and the accused returned to the seat of the accused. While PW.1 was enquiring with the accused about his work, PW.2 went out and gave pre arranged signal to the trap party. After receiving pre arranged signal, PW.6 and other trap party members rushed to the seat of the accused, PW.6 disclosed his identity and then secured glass of water and prepared sodium carbonate solutions and asked the Accused to rinse his right hand fingers, then the said solution turned into pink colour, then another glass of sodium carbonate solution was prepared and accused was asked to rinse his left hand fingers and it also turned into pink colour. Then accused gave spot explanation. The accused in his spot explanation stated that he has received the amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 towards the due amount to be paid by uncle of PW.1 Agaiah ex-contractor. He further stated that he had paid the amount for securing 10 zinc sheets to one Agaiah two years back and that the said Agaiah is uncle of PW.1 and that he received the amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 towards the due amount to be paid by Agaiah ex-contractor. When PW.1 was examined, he stated that he knows Agaiah ex-contractor but the said Agaiah is not related to him and that he belongs to Carpenter caste whereas the said Agaiah is goldsmith and that there is no relationship between them. According to PW.1 he also stated that he did not receive any amount from Agaiah for paying the same to the accused. After conducting usual procedure and observing the sodium carbonate solutions etc., and after seizing certain documents, the second mediators report was completed under Ex.P8. A rough sketch in Ex.P9 was prepared. PW.7 Ram Reddy who was working as Inspector ACB had taken up further investigation and examined some more witnesses and after completing investigation laid charge sheet in this case. 5) As the accused pleaded guilty for the charges framed under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.12 and Mos. 1 to 8 and on behalf of the accused DWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. D1 to D6 were marked. 6) The learned Special Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted the accused and sentenced him as referred supra. 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused Sri C. Praveen Kumar, submitted that the trial Court failed to observe that PW.1 is not a truthful witness and that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the learned Special Judge failed to notice that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe is self contradictory in nature. It is also submitted that the contents of Ex.P8 second mediators report falsify the version of PW.2 that he accompanied PW.1 to the office of accused and witnessed the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount from PW.1 by the accused. It is also argued that the learned Special Judge failed to notice that there were 24 existing houses on the land and therefore the land could not be measured and that no orders were passed by the MRO directing to measure the land. It is also argued that the learned Special Judge failed to notice that the version of accused is probable and completely corroborated by the evidence of DWs. 1 to 4 and Exs. D5 and D6. It is also argued that PW.2 was not examined after the post trap proceedings and this also shows that PW.2 did not see PW.1 handing over the money to the accused. It is also submitted that PW.1 during post trap proceedings admitted that the Agaiah when he was examined in the Court denied the same. It is also argued that if at all PW.2 was present, he would have given pre arranged signal immediately after the accused accepted the amount from PW.1. It is also argued that PW.3 who is the son of Agaiah could not deny the signatures of Agaiah and this shows that the version of accused is probable. 8) The learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused has relied upon a judgment in case between T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu[1] in support of his contention that where two views reasonably are possible from the same evidence, the view in favour of accused should be adopted. 9) As seen from the above, the point that arise for consideration is, Whether two views are reasonable possible in this case? 10) It is not in dispute that the accused was working as Deputy Surveyor in the office of MRO Kazipet Mandal, Adilabad District and that he is a public servant within the meaning of sub clause 1 of (6) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that PW.1 made an application Ex.P1 to the MRO Kazipet with a request to survey his land and to fix the boundaries. On enquiry he came to know that his application was forwarded to the accused for the purpose of surveying the land and fixing the boundaries. On 22-10-1996 he approached accused and thereupon the accused issued a slip asking him to pay Rs.86/- towards the challan. PW.1 paid the challan and submitted in the bank and made another application on 26-10-1996 in Ex.P3 along with all the required enclosures, Ex.P4 is the acknowledgment issued by the accused to PW.1. According to PW.1 on 10-12-1996 he met the accused at his office at about 11-30 a.m. and enquired him about his application and then Accused has demanded the amount of Rs.5,000/- bribe for measuring the land and fixing the boundaries. When PW.1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, the amount was reduced to Rs.2,000/-. According to him as he was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, he approached the ACB Officials and then the trap was laid. Since, it is not in dispute that the accused has accepted the amount, there is no need to discuss the other aspects in detail. 11) Now the points that arise for consideration are : 1) Whether the version of the accused is probable? And 2) Whether the evidence of PW.1 can be relied upon? 12) The specific case of M.A. Vaheed DW.1 is that he wanted to sell zinc sheets and anglers and that one Agaiah agreed to purchase 80 zinc sheets and 20 anglers for Rs.28,000/- His further case is that Agaiah paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- as advance and promised to pay the remaining amount within three months and as Agaiah could not pay the amount within three months, requested him to extend the time, but time was not extended and in the above circumstances Agaiah could not purchase 80 zinc sheets and 20 anglers. The specific case of accused is that he intended to purchase11 zinc sheets from Agaiah and that accused paid an amount of Rs.1,300/- once and subsequently Rs.1,000/- to Agaiah and that Exs.D5, D5A are entries showing amount paid by the accused to Agaiah and that as the agreement between DW.1 and the said Agaiah could not materialize, the said Agaiah could not supply zinc sheets to the accused and subsequently while the accused insisted Agaiah to pay the amounts, the said Agaiah executed a letter under Ex.D6 in the presence of DW.3 and others promising to pay the amount and promising to sent the amount through PW.1 or through his son. In support of his case, the accused has examined DW1. The evidence of DW.3 shows that the accused informed him that one Agaiah agreed to sell zinc sheets and that he paid Rs.1,300/- once and Rs.1,000/- on second occasion and noted in Ex.D5 and D5A but subsequently Agaiah could not supply the zinc sheets and that when the accused approached him, he had sent for Agaiah and Agaiah executed Ex.D6 promising to pay the amount and further promised to send the amount through his son or PW.1. DW.4 has been examined to show that the hand writing in Ex.D5 and D5A is that of Agaiah. It is contended by the learned special public prosecutor Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, appearing for ACB cases, that on behalf of the prosecution the son of PW.3 has been examined and that according to PW.3, his father never sent any amount through PW.1 to the accused and that PW.1 and his father are not related. It is also argued that the proposed bribe amount is Rs.2,000/- and that amount due to the accused by Agaiah according to defence witnesses is Rs.2,300/- and when the total due amount is Rs.2,300/- Agaiah would not have sent only Rs.2,000/- to accused and this improbablises the case of the accused. It is also argued that no date is mentioned when the signature of Agaiah in Exs.D5, D5A and D6 was obtained. It is true that according to PW.1 accused demanded Rs.2,000/- towards bribe and he had handed over the proposed bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to the accused. As seen from the contents in Ex.D5 it is clear no date is mentioned below the signature of Agaiah, it will only show that Agaiah paid an amount of Rs.1,300/- towards advance for the sale of 11 zinc sheets. Ex.D5A also shows that no date is mentioned below the signature. However, it is mentioned that in Ex.D5A that the transaction with regard to the date 17-02-1993 an amount of Rs.1,000/- was received by Sri Agaiah. If at all the accused wanted to fabricate Exs.D5, D5A, he would have prepared a valid receipt and he would have taken care to show that dates are mentioned below the signature of Agaiah. Exs.D5, D5A are just endorsements made in the diary. It appears that they are genuine and prepared during the course of real transaction. Of course Ex.D6 appears to have been prepared on 09-08-1996, it contained endorsement that Agaiah had taken an amount of Rs.2,300/- from the accused and stated that the said amount would be sent through his son or through PW.1. It has to be seen that Ex.D5, D5A and D6 contain the signatures of Sri Agaiah. If at all the accused wanted to fabricate the documents, he would have mentioned the amount as Rs.2,000/- and not as Rs.2,300/-. 13) Now, let us examine the evidence of the son Agaiah. PW.3 is the son of Agaiah. PW.3 was examined to show that no amount was sent by his father to the accused through PW.1. However, his evidence shows that his father was a civil contractor and that his father is not doing any contract works and suffering from paralysis and that his father was completely bedridden. Thus, it is clear that Agaiah was bedridden and he is unable to move, when he was specifically asking with regard to the agreement entered between his father and DW.1, DW.3 simply denied the same, he says that he has no knowledge with regard to the agreement entered between his father and DW.1. Similarly, he says that he dos not know whether his father had taken an amount of Rs.1,300/- on 03-02-1993 and Rs.1,000/- on 17-02-1993 from the accused. Ex.D5A shows that on 17-02-1993 an amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid towards purchase of zinc sheets. Similarly, when he was asked with regard to the transaction entered between the accused and his father, he simply stated that he has no knowledge about the same. When he was shown the signatures of his father and handwritings of his father, he says that he cannot say whether the handwritings and signatures shown to him are that of his father. It is most unnatural to say that PW.3 who is well educated and who is working as a teacher and who signed in English says that he cannot identify the signatures of his father. This clearly shows that PW.3 is not speaking truth. It is the specific case of the accused that Ex.D5 and D5A are in the handwritings of Sri Agaiah. Unfortunately Agaiah could not be examined, as he was sick. In the above circumstances, it appears that Ex.D5 and D5A are in the handwritings of Agaiah. Thus, it is clear that Ex.D6 bears the signature of Agaiah. These three documents clinchingly establishes that Agaiah had taken an amount of Rs.2,300/- from the accused in 1993 and that he could not pay the amount and subsequently executed Ex.D6 on 09-08-1996 promising to pay the amount. It is argued that the accused would not have kept quiet for such a long period when Agaiah demanded to repay the amount. It is true that normally nobody would wait for such a long time but it has to be seen that Agaiah was suffering from paralysis and he was bedridden. In such circumstances there is every possibility of accused not insisting Agaiah to pay the amount. When once Ex.D5, D5A and D6 are accepted as true and genuine documents, it appears that on the date of trap the said Agaiah was indebted a sum of Rs.2,300/- to the accused. At the time of trap and at the time of drafting mediators report in Ex.P8 accused at the spot categorically stated that the amount received by him from PW.1 is the amount to be paid by Sri Agaiah towards the due amount to be paid by Sri Agaiah. Thus, on the spot the accused has given explanation. 14) Now, it has to be seen whether there is any possibility of PW.1 representing the accused that the amount paid by him is the amount sent by Sri Agaiah and whether the amount paid by him is towards the bribe? 15) As far as the paying of amount by PW.1 to the accused is concerned, it is an admitted fact but what transpired between them and what discussions had taken place between them assumes importance. Whether there is any corroborating evidence to the evidence of PW.1. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.2. According to PW.2, he accompanied PW.1 and he says that when PW.1 approached accused and asked him about the survey work, the accused questioned him whether he had brought the amount and then the accused took him inside his room and there he received the amount from PW.1 and that the accused kept it in his right side pant pocket after counting it. He says he was only a distance of one meter from them. Admittedly, PW.2 did not give pre arranged signal immediately. It is an admitted case PW.1 and accused went to a nearby tea stall and had tea. It is also an admitted case that another person accompanied accused to the tea stall. During the cross- examination PW.2 admitted that as per the recitals of Ex.P8, the trap party including himself came to know about the receipt of the money by accused through PW.1. He has also admitted that Ex.P8 shows that it is PW.1 who had stated that himself and accused went to tea stall. Thus, it is clear that PW.2 did not see Accused and PW.1 going to the tea stall. It has to be seen that admittedly, PW.2 was not examined at the time of Ex.P8 second mediators report. The admitted case of the prosecution that PW.2 did not give pre arranged signal immediately after the accused received the amount from PW.1. The above circumstances clearly establish that PW.2 had not witnessed when PW.1 handed over the amount to the accused. Thus it is clear that PW.2 was not eyewitness to the incident of PW.1 paying the amount to the accused. 16) Now remains the evidence of PW.1 alone. It has to be seen whether PW.1 is a truthful witness? Admittedly PW.1 is an accused in C.C. No. 46 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 290 of I.P.C. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of charge sheet filed against him. He has also admitted the Court imposed a fine of Rs.1,100/- on him in that case. He says that he was arrested in another case in S.C. No.440 of 1998 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad. He has also admitted that there was a publication of news in Vaartha Telugu news paper about the seizure of bombs. It was suggested to him that he was a member of ‘Shikasa’ and that he used to threaten the villagers. Now it has to be seen whether he is a truthful witness? According to PW.1 he does not know Agaiah ex- contractor and his son Sri T. Krishnama Chary. He denied the suggestion that before joining as bill collector, he was working as Carpenter and electrician under Agaiah ex-contractor. The contents of Ex.P8 shows that PW.1 informed that he knows Agaiah ex-contractor but he was not related to the said Agaiah. Thus, PW.1 though admitted that he knows Agaiah at the time of second mediators report, denied the same before the Court. Thus, it appears that PW.1 is not a wholly reliable witness and it is not desirable to convict the accused on the sole testimony of PW.1. Admittedly, except the evidence of PW.1, there is nothing on record to show that the amount received by the accused is towards the proposed bribe amount. Even if the evidence of prosecution case is accepted but a reading of entire material gives an impression that the version of accused is also probable and that the either view is also reasonably possible. The last point that is argued is when the accused has accepted the amount a presumption has to be drawn in favour of the prosecution. In support of his contention learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the following judgments : In case between State of A.P. Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao[2], it is observed as follows: The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 4 is that during trial it should be proved that the Appellant has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the Appellant has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. It was further observed as follows: “Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of it having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him. It was further observed as follows: