THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1660 of 2004 BETWEEEN: State: rep. By Inspector of Police … Appellant AND Sri P.Rachappa … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1660 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The accused/respondent was working as Village Administrative Officer of AmradKalan and Kurd Villages, Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. By judgment dated 03.09.2003 in CC.No.24 of 1998, the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. 2. PW1 is barber by community and resident of the same village as that of the accused. It is alleged that he approached the accused for verification of Ex.P20 pattadar pass book and Ex.P1 title deed issued in his name and for correction of entries mistakenly noted in it and that on 08.04.1997, the accused demanded for bribe of Rs.200/- from PW1 for making correct entries in Ex.P1 title deed. With the said allegations, PW1 gave Ex.P2 report to PW7, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad. After issuing Ex.P5 FIR on the basis of Ex.P2, PW7 organized trap for the accused on 15.04.1997. It is alleged that the trap was successful and that the accused was caught red-handed with tainted cash of Rs.200/- (MO.7). Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found the accused not guilty of the charges. 3. In this appeal, the Special Public Prosecutor contended that the lower Court did not appreciate the evidence on record properly and that therefore, this Court has to scrutinize the entire evidence and arrive at proper conclusion in this appeal. The lower Court did not place reliance on PW1’s evidence on the ground that PW1’s evidence is highly discrepant with regard to lands held by him and his family and as PW1 was not definite on that aspect, in my opinion, evidence relating to extent of lands held by PW1’s family and the lands to which PW1 is entitled out of the family lands, may not be relevant in deciding the issue on hand. The lower Court further came to the conclusion that the alleged amount of bribe/MO.7 consisting of Rs.200/- was paid by PW1 to the accused towards inam land premium payable by PW1 and his family members for issuing pattas in their favour under Section 4(1) of the Inams Abolition Act. 4. Ex.P7 contains post-trap proceedings prepared at the spot in the presence of mediators including PW2. From the evidence of PWs 2 and 7, Ex.P7 and also plea of the accused before the trial Court, there is no dispute about recovery of Mo.7 tainted cash of Rs.200/- from possession of the accused during the post-trap proceedings. In Ex.P7 post trap proceedings, the accused took three different and inconsistent stands with regard to the events which happened during the course of trap. Initially, PW1 denied he having demanded and received bribe of Rs.200/- from PW1. After a while, the accused stated before the trap-laying officer that he received Mo.7 cash of Rs.200/- from PW1 towards repayment of loan by PW1, who borrowed the same previously. After the version of PW1 was confronted to the accused, the accused took a different stand by stating that PW1 paid MO.7 cash of Rs.200/- to him towards inam land premium payable by his family members. Though the above three stands taken by the accused during post- trap proceedings are mutually inconsistent with each other, finally, the accused elected to the final statement during trial to the effect that he received MO.7 tainted cash of Rs.200/- from PW1 towards inam land premium payable by his family. The accused is entitled to take up inconsistent pleas, but may have to elect one of the said inconsistent pleas during trial. 5. Though PW1 claimed that he was entitled for Ac.3.24 guntas of land in his village in different survey numbers, the Criminal Court in this corruption case is not much interested to go into details of land held by PW1 and his family. PW3 is the then Senior Assistant in Mandal Revenue Office, Moinpet Mandal. PW3 recorded Ex.P4 statement from PW1 and his family members for grant of Ryotwari patta in respect of land in S.No.117/a, aa measuring Ac.1.02 guntas and Ac.1.02 guntas respectively, which originally belonged to ancestors of PW1. Ex.P4 is the joint statement of PW1, his elder brother Ramakrishnaiah and his paternal uncle’s deceased son’s wife Hanumamma. After making preliminary enquiry, PW3 sent Ex.P14 preliminary enquiry report in respect of application of PW1 and his family members and it was forwarded by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division along with Ex.P17. PW3 deposed in cross- examination that enquiry covered by Ex.P14 was conducted on 03.04.1997. PW3 admits that as per his panchanama, PW1 and his two joint applicants are entitled for patta and each of them has to pay Rs.67/-. As per the preliminary enquiry report, out of total extent of Ac.2.04guntas of inam land, each of the applicants was entitled to 0.28 guntas. 6. PW5 is the then Superintendent in Revenue Divisional Office, Vikarabad. He speaks about Exs. P11 and P12. Ex.P11 is notice dated 08.05.1997 given to several persons including PW1, Ramakrishnaiah and Hanumamma, calling upon them to pay inam land premium. As per Ex.P11, PW1, Ramakrishnaiah and Hanumamma have to pay inam land premium of Rs.67/- each in respect of 0.28gts. of inam land each. Ex.P12 is challan under which PW1’s share of Rs.67/- was remitted in bank on 10.07.1997. Ex.P13 is the patta in Form III issued under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division in favour of PW1 for 0.28gts in S.No.117. The said patta was issued on 21.08.1997. Exs.P11 to P13 are subsequent to the date of trap which took place on 15.04.1997. PW5 in cross-examination deposed that Mominpet Mandal was declared as model mandal for completing ROR work in a record time for distribution of patta books and title deeds. He admits that Village Administrative Officers collected inam land premium after the preliminary enquiry, by which time, it will be known to them as to how much premium has to be paid before receipt of final proceedings. Thus, by 03.04.1997, when preliminary enquiry was conducted, the accused became known as to the quantum of premium payable by PW1 and his family members. PW1, Ramakrishnaiah and Hanumamma had to pay Rs.67/- each, totaling Rs.201/- towards inam land premium for 0.28gts of land each in S.No.117. It is defence of the accused that he received Mo.7 tainted cash of Rs.200/- from PW1 towards inam land premium payable by PW1 and his family members. The lower Court accepted the said contention of the accused. 7. It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that the lower Court failed to see that liability of PW1 was only Rs.67/- and that when PW1 had bitter feelings with his elder brother Ramakrishnaiah, he would not have paid the amount payable by Ramakrishnaiah also. PW1 in cross-examination stated that he was not in talking terms with this brother Ramakrishnaiah. Even though PW1 was not in talking terms with Ramakrishnaiah, Ramakrishnaiah joined as joint applicant with PW1 claiming Ryotwari patta in respect of inam land. Further, Ramakrishnaiah gave joint statement with PW1 to PW3 as per Ex.P4 during preliminary enquiry held on 03.04.1997. Inspite of hard feelings between the two brothers, both of them were sailing with each other in respect of claim before the Revenue authorities for Ryotwari patta. Therefore, there was no surprise in PW1 paying total amount of inam land premium not only on his behalf but also on behalf of his elder brother and sister-in-law. Admittedly, the portion of land of Hanumamma was in possession of PW1. Therefore, it cannot be said that the lower Court erred in accepting version of the accused that he received Rs.200/- from PW1 towards inam land premium payable by PW1 and his family members in pursuance of Ex.P14 preliminary enquiry report held on 03.04.1997. I am also of the opinion that this version of the accused is probable in the circumstances of the case. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 8. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:12.07.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1660 of 2004 DATED:12.07.2011 ysk