THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1866 of 2004 BETWEEEN: G.V.Ramanaiah, Asst. Engineer … Appellant AND State of A.P. rep.by Inspector of Police. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1866 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Originally, this appeal was filed by the accused questioning judgment dated 13.08.2004 passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Nellore in CC.No.9 of 1994 by which the accused was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to imprisonment and fine on both the counts separately. Subsequent to filing this appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives who are the appellants 2 to 4 are pursuing this appeal. 2. PW1 is an agriculturist of Mypaud Village of Nellore District. He owns lands near Buckingham canal. He wanted to use Ac.3.00 of his agricultural land for prawn culture and intended to pump water from Buckingham canal into his land by pipes and let out surplus water into Buckingham canal. For the said purpose, PW1 filed Ex.P1 application to the Executive Engineer, Central Division, Nellore. The said application was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to PW7, Deputy Executive Engineer, Mypaud sub-division. PW7 in turn forwarded it to the accused for inspection and report. The accused was working as Assistant Engineer (overseer) Buckingham canal section, Mypaud during that period. Since PW1 did not receive any permission on his application, he is stated to have met the accused on 26.02.1994 for enquiry. It is alleged that on 26.02.1994, when PW1 met the accused at his residence in Balajinagar of Nellore and enquired him about the permission, the accused after verifying the file, informed about the Executive Engineer already signing the file and about the permission to be signed by the Executive Engineer and that the accused demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- to get the sanction signed by the Executive Engineer by 28.02.1994 and that when PW1 pleaded his inability to pay such bribe amount, the accused asked him to pay at least Rs.750/- as bribe by the evening of 28.02.1994. With the said allegations, PW1 gave Ex.P2 report on 27.02.1994 to PW8, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nellore. PW8 organized trap for the accused on 28.02.1994 after recording Ex.P3 pre- trap proceedings. But, on 28.02.1994, when PWs 1 and 2 went to house of the accused in Balajinagar of Nellore, the accused was not available in his house as he is stated to have gone to the house of his father-in- law for lunch. Therefore, the raid party put off their efforts on that day and closed the proceedings as per Ex.P4. Subsequently, on the next day i.e. on 01.03.1994, PW8 organized another trap for the accused in the presence of mediators, including PW3. PW2 was accompanying PW1 during the trap. Ex.P8 contains pre-trap proceedings, which took place on 01.03.1994 before proceeding for the trap. It is alleged that when PW1 met the accused in the office of the Executive Engineer, Nellore, the accused demanded and received MO.1 tainted cash of Rs.750/- from PW1 and that the trap was successful. Ex.P9 mediators report relating to post–trap proceedings which took place on 01.03.1994 was prepared. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. It was his contention that he neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount from PW1 and that PW1 without his knowledge, thrusted MO.1 tainted cash into his left pant pocket, which amount he took out with his left hand and in the meanwhile, PW1 slipped away and ACB raid party caught him. After full trial, the lower Court found favour with the prosecution case, rejecting the defence version and found the accused guilty of the charges. 3. In this appeal, the senior counsel for the appellant contended that the lower Court did not appreciate the evidence on record properly and that the lower Court should have accepted plea of the accused that the amount was forcibly thrusted into his pocket by PW1. It is further contended for the appellant that by the date of trap on 01.03.1994, there was no official favour pending with the accused as the accused had already sent his report. It is further contended that by the date of trap, the Executive Engineer had already granted permission to PW1 on his application for drawing water from and letting out water into Buckingham canal. 4. Ex.P11 is letter addressed by the accused to PW7, Deputy Executive Engineer, dated 07.02.1994. After giving details of application of PW1 and hydraulic particulars of Buckingham canal in between mile No.110/0 and mile No.111/0 near which the proposed prawn tank of PW1 is located, the accused recommended that permission can be granted for letting out surplus water into Buckingham canal and to draw required water from Buckingham canal between M.110/0 and M.111/0 subject to conditions set out therein. In Ex.P11, the accused gave list of ten conditions to be imposed on PW1 while granting permission. Thereupon, the Deputy Executive Engineer (PW7) sent Ex.P16 letter dated 07.02.1994 to the Executive Engineer on the same lines. The lower Court pointed out that Exs. P11 and P16 are carbon copies of each other. Except letter numbers and names of the persons who addressed and to whom addressed, Exs.P11 and P16 are one and the same. Both were typed at one and the same time with carbon paper and addresses were typed separately and letter numbers are written separately. PW7 deposed that he and the accused made joint inspection of the site before sending Ex.P16. 5. Ex.P18 is draft temporary permission to be accorded by the Executive Engineer in this regard. In Ex.P18, the Executive Engineer proposed to impose total of fifteen conditions. PW4 is Draftsman Grade –III working in the same office. He says that he received Ex.P1 along with Ex.P16 covering letter of PW7 on 18.02.1994 and that on 19.02.1994, he prepared office copy of the proceedings as per Ex.P18 and sent the file to the Executive Engineer through head draftsman for approval and that he did not receive back the file to his seat till 01.03.1994. So, even though the draft was prepared on 19.02.1994, until 01.03.1994, the draft was yet to be returned by the Executive Engineer with this approval. It is only after the Executive Engineer approves the draft permission and initials in the office copy of fair order, fair order cannot be dispatched to the party after its preparation. So, PW1 was waiting for the permission and in that connection, met the accused. It is evidence of PW1 that on 26.02.1994, he met the accused at his office and asked him about the permission and that after verifying the file, the accused stated to him that the Executive Engineer already signed the file and the Executive Engineer has to sign the permission. Even though note file was approved, fair permission was not prepared and was not signed by the Executive Engineer. PW1 further says that the accused demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.1,000/- to get sanction order signed by the Executive Engineer and asked him to pay the bribe before evening of 28.02.1994 and that when he expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, the accused asked him to pay at least Rs.750/-. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no official favour pending with the accused. Even though report of the accused was already sent, final permission was awaited from the Executive Engineer, and for getting the final permission signed by the Executive Engineer, the accused demanded Rs.750/- as bribe. 6. It is contended that except evidence of PW1, there is no corroborating evidence for the alleged demand for bribe made by the accused on 26.02.1994. Even though there is no corroboration, evidence of PW1 is not liable to be rejected on that sole ground. Corroboration is a matter of prudence and cannot be a matter of Rule. If evidence of PW1 is otherwise reliable, there is no legal impediment to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW1. There is no previous motive between PW1 and the accused or any grudge or grouse for PW1 towards the accused. It is contended that since the accused recommended for imposition of 10 conditions while according permission in his report, PW1 bore grudge against the accused. Till then, PW1 was not aware of the recommendation of the accused for imposition of ten conditions, much less was aware about the Executive Engineer imposing total of fifteen conditions for according permission to PW1 on his application for drawing water from and letting out water into Buckingham canal from his proposed prawn tank. Neither Ex.P11 nor Ex.P16 nor final order on the basis of Ex.P18 was served on PW1 by the date of PW1 giving Ex.P2 report to ACB. 7. On the date of trap, PW2 was accompanying PW1. PW2 is a childhood friend of PW1 and both belong to the same village Mypaud. It is evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that subsequent to pre–trap proceedings, they and trap party went towards PWD office at Nellore and that PWs 1 and 2 entered into that office at 11:00 A.M when others were waiting outside at vantage positions and that the accused was with the Executive Engineer along with others and that after seeing PW1, the accused asked him to wait in the varandah and that at 1:00 P.M., the accused came out and asked PW1 as to whether he brought the bribe amount demanded by him and that when PW1 answered in the positive, the accused asked him to pay the bribe amount and that PW1 handed over MO.1 tainted cash of Rs.750/- to the accused who received the same with left hand and kept the same in left side pant pocket. PW1 says that after receiving the amount, the accused went into the room of the Executive Officer and came with file and informed him that he gave the sanction order for typing and asked him to come after 5:00 P.M. for taking the order. Meanwhile, after receiving signal from PW1, ACB trap party entered into office of the Executive Engineer. According to PWs 3 and 5, when hand fingers of the accused were rinsed in Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution turned into pink insofar as the left hand fingers rinse is concerned and not in respect of right hand fingers rinse and MO.1 tainted cash was seized from his left pant pocket. Ex.P9 post-trap proceedings were prepared in the same office. In Ex.P9, it is noted that when PW8 questioned the accused about the tainted cash with him, the accused gave a statement. Since it is in the nature of a confession which was given to a Police Officer, it is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 26 of the Evidence Act. Ex.P9 post- trap proceedings become relevant to the limited extent that immediately after the trap, the accused did not plead that MO.1 tainted cash was either forcibly or clandestinely put into left pant pocket of the accused by PW1. 8. During trial in the lower Court, the accused examined two contractors as DWs 2 and 3 to speak to the fact that the accused rushed into the room of the Executive Engineer with currency notes in his left hand and in confused state. PW7 also in cross-examination deposed to the said fact. The accused also examined two more contractors as DWs 4 and 5 to speak that PW1 thrusted currency notes into left pant pocket of the accused in varandah of that office. PW7 was not a witness to the alleged thrusting of currency notes by PW1 into pant pocket of the accused in varandah. Even as per PW7’s evidence in cross-examination, ACB trap party entered into room of the Executive Engineer behind the accused and caught hold of him. PW7 did not say that the accused informed him about PW1 thrusting the tainted cash into his pocket. It is evident that theory of thrusting tainted cash into pocket of the accused was developed by the accused during trial as an after-thought in order to wriggle out of his possession of the tainted cash, MO.1. On scrutiny of entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the lower Court properly appreciated evidence on record and came to proper conclusion in favour of the prosecution. There is evidence of PW1 with regard to demand for bribe by the accused on 26.02.1994. There are no circumstances to disbelieve evidence of PW1. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the events happened on 01.03.1994 shows that the accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.750/- as per MO.1 from PW1. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the finding of guilt of the accused recorded by the lower Court. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:30.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1866 of 2004 DATED:30.06.2011 ysk