THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2435 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Appellant is the first accused in C.C.No.6/1995 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Vijayawada (trial court). Both the appellant and second accused were tried on charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short Act), and the trial court added Section 34 IPC also in both the charges. They pleaded not guilty. 2. The trial court after considering the evidence let in by both sides, has by its judgment dated 20.10.2004 has acquitted the second accused but convicted the appellant of both the charges and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years besides a fine of Rs.2500/- on each count and directed the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. It also imposed default clause prison sentences with regard to the fine amounts. The first accused i.e. the appellant filed this appeal questioning his convictions and sentences. It is represented that the prosecution did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the second accused. 3. At the relevant time the appellant was working as Assistant Engineer in the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP), Sub-Division-III, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and was admittedly a public servant within the meaning of the Act. P.W.1 Punukolu Parthasaradhi (de facto complainant) is a resident of Eluru and at the relevant time he leased out his jeep bearing No.AP-37-T-2697 to the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer mentioned supra on a monthly rent of Rs.5,950/- plus Rs.1.20 ps to be paid for each kilo metre towards diesel and driver maintenance charges and an agreement was also entered into for the above transaction of lease. P.W.2 Dattada Sriramaraju was also at the relevant time resided at Eluru and he was also in the business of hiring out cars and jeeps to the Government offices during the years 1993 and 1994. He purchased the aforesaid jeep bearing No.AP-37-T-2697 from P.W.1 in April 1994 but transfer of the vehicle and the registration certificate was not effected. The above facts are not in dispute. 4. According to the prosecution the office of the appellant i.e. where he was working as Assistant Engineer, paid the bills for the aforesaid jeep of P.W.1 up to February 1994 and amounts were due from March 1994 onwards and this aspect is also not in dispute. The plea of the prosecution is that on 01.08.1994 P.W.2 Sriramaraju met the appellant and requested him to process the bills of the above jeep belonging to P.W.1 and at that time the appellant demanded Rs.1000/- as bribe for processing and clearing the said bill and accordingly P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.1 on the same day. It is stated that again on 07.08.1994 both P.Ws.1 and 2 met the appellant in his office and again made the above request for the processing of the jeep bills and on that occasion also the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- for clearing the bills and on that day when P.W.1 pleaded his inability to pay Rs.1,000/- the appellant reduced his demand to Rs.800/- and told him to pay the bribe amount on the evening of 09.08.1994 in his office. 5. Thereafter it is the prosecution version that a case was registered on Ex.P.1 complaint of P.W.1 and P.W.15 M.Chandrasekhar Reddy the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Eluru Range, conducted a trap on 09.08.1994 at the office of the appellant at Bhimavaram, with due instructions to P.Ws.1 and 2 and with the help of mediators i.e. P.W.3 D.Satyanarayana and P.W.4 B.Krishna Murthy who were also public servants. The prosecution says that the trap was successful and the bribe amount of Rs.800/- was recovered from both the appellant and the second accused i.e. Rs.700/- from the appellant and Rs.100/- from the second accused. It is stated that the sodium carbonate solution – phenolphthalein powder test on the hands of both the appellant and the second accused proved positive. Ex.P.7 is the first mediator’s report for pre-trap proceedings and Ex.P.15 is the second mediator’s report for the post-trap proceedings. 6. The trial court after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.Ws.3 and 4 who are mediators and P.W.15 the Deputy Superintendent of Police concluded that their evidence regarding the demand for bribe from the appellant for processing the jeep bills and the trap proceedings is convincing and accordingly upheld both the charges brought against the appellant. The evidence of the above witnesses is discussed in detail by the trial court. 7. It must be mentioned here itself that the appellant who is admittedly a public servant has not raised any dispute regarding the validity of the sanction for prosecution and he also did not complain any irregularities in the trial. Before I proceed further it would be useful to note the defences taken in the cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. The first defence is that the appellant has spent a sum of Rs.1000/- already towards the fuel charges, grease and minor repair charges for the jeep in question from 04.06.1994 to 19.06.1994 and that P.W.1 did not repay that amount and when he demanded the same he brought and paid a sum of Rs.800/- on the evening of 09.08.1994 i.e. the trap date and when he questioned about the balance of Rs.200/- P.W.1 promised to pay the same later and both P.Ws.1 and 2 out of previous enmity implicated him in this case and he never demanded any bribe. In other words his defence is that P.Ws.1 and 2 made a ruse of the above repayment to implicate him in the case and the trap and he innocently believed them and received the amount as repayment and not as bribe. The second defence is that both P.Ws.1 and 2 did not submit the papers/ bills in proper form for processing the jeep bills and therefore the amount could not be paid in time or there was delay and he did not demand any bribe. Suggestions were made to P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.10 DSP and P.W.12 the Inspector who investigated the case to the above effect but they were denied by them. The other defence is that there are discrepancies in the dates relating to the demand for bribe also and that they therefore support the defence. 8. It may be noted that P.Ws.1 and 2 and the mediators concerned and the trap laying officer i.e. the DSP spoke about the recovery of Rs.700/- from the appellant and Rs.100/- from the second accused on the evening of 09.08.1994 and the above suggestions relating to the first defence would show that the appellant in substance admitted that he received Rs.800/- on the evening of 09.08.1994 in his office and thus the prosecution case to the extent that P.W.1 paid Rs.800/- on 09.08.1994 and thereafter the trap party entered the office and seized it can be accepted as true as held by the trial court. The trial court rejected the defences of the appellant and upheld the charges against him while acquitting A-2. 9. Sri T.Bali Reddy the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that on the evidence brought on record the defences of the appellant have to be accepted. He relied upon the answers given by mediators and other witnesses who supported the version of the appellant and argued that their answers would probablise the defences of the appellant. He also relied upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court on the point in support of his contentions. On the other hand Sri Ghani A Musa the learned Standing Counsel –cum- Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB (Spl. PP) argued that the defences of the appellant are shallow and an after thought and cannot be accepted. He also relied upon a Supreme Court decision in support of his contention and argued that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. It has now to be seen whether the evidence on record establishes the charges brought against the appellant beyond doubt in the light of the above rival contentions and whether his defences can be accepted as probable. 10. The defence of the appellant based upon the payment made by him for fuel charges and repair charges for the jeep in question is first taken up. P.W.3 D.Satyanarayana the then DCTO, Eluru, and P.W.4 V.Krishna Murthy the then Executive Officer of the Vatluru Gram Panchayat acted as mediators. In their chief examination they gave a consistent account about the laying of trap and also the recovery of tainted money from the appellant and the second accused. However, when it came to cross examination on behalf of appellant both of them stated that in the post-trap proceedings the appellant told the DSP i.e. P.W.15 about his defence relating to the fuel charges of Rs.1000/- and that he accepted Rs.800/- as part payment of the same on the date of trap from P.W.1. Both were declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution. 11. In their cross examination on behalf of the prosecution both P.Ws.3 and 4 stated that the contents of Ex.P.15 mediators report for the post-trap proceedings are correct including the version of the appellant recorded therein and this version reads that the appellant did not disclose his above first defence before the DSP in the post-trap proceedings. Thus what should be noted is that P.Ws.3 and 4 who cannot be said to be rustic witnesses and who were Government servants in service on the date of the trap did not come up with any definite stand supporting the defence of the appellant. They did not explain why they stated that the contents of Ex.P.15 mediators report are true and correct when they already gave answers in favour of the appellant regarding his first defence in cross-examination. They did not say that the ACB DSP coerced them or terrorized them or otherwise influenced them to sign Ex.P.15 report which was against the defence of the appellant. In fact, P.Ws.3 and 4 being Government servants in the above situation would have turned against the DSP and refused to sign Ex.P.15 if it contained any material which was against what transpired in the post-trap proceedings. In such a situation their version in the cross examination made on behalf of the appellant cannot be treated as supporting the version of the appellant. 12. It may then be noted that P.W.10 P.Sampad has been examined by the prosecution as the person who was the driver of the jeep in question to show that when the jeep was attached to the appellant’s office the appellant was using it and the appellant used to spend amounts on certain occasions from his pocket to meet the expenses of repairs to the jeep and for its oil i.e. diesel oil. Then P.W.9 K.Swamy another driver of P.W.1 who was examined by the prosecution also stated that the appellant used to meet the diesel expenses of the jeep which was allotted to him. P.W.6 A.Gandhi is stated to be the Attender of the office in which the appellant was working at Bhimavaram and he even went to the extent of saying that on the date of the trap P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the office in the evening at about 5.00 PM and when the appellant was not available both of them told him that they came to pay the amount to the appellant which was spent earlier by him towards the jeep fuel charges and repair charges. P.W.5 G.Krishna who was earlier watchman in the office of the appellant also supported the defence of the appellant. The above witnesses were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Spl.PP but I must say that nothing could be elicited from them in favour of the prosecution. The only suggestion made to the above witnesses was that they earlier made or gave statements before the investigating officer supporting the prosecution case but resiled from those statements to support the appellant at trial and they were managed by the appellant but these suggestions were denied by them. The question now is whether on the basis of the above answers of P.Ws.3 and 4 and the above witnesses the first defence of the appellant can be accepted as probable. 13. It may be noted here that when a Government office hires a private vehicle such as a jeep in a case like this for Government purposes normally on certain occasions a contingency may arise for the officer using it to meet fuel charges or minor repair charges for such a vehicle when the owner of the vehicle is far away from the place where the needs for fuel or repairs may arise and in such a situation it can be said to be normal for such an officer to meet such expenses and recover them from the owner/ hirer later. This is probable also and it is clear that the appellant is pleading that probability now. Some of the officers/Engineers examined by the prosecution spoke on this aspect but were declared hostile but since I myself agree with regard to the above contingency, the evidence of the said witnesses is not referred to. However in my opinion the above probability cannot be accepted in the present case for the following reasons. 14. It should be noted that in the course of trap proceedings, when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office of the appellant at Bhimavaram on the evening of 09.08.1994 at about 4.30 PM or 5.00 PM the appellant was not available at his office. In this connection P.W.8 Saripalli Vasu the driver of a jeep belonging to P.W.2 stated that that at the office P.W.2 instructed him to go to the house of the appellant and inform him about their (P.Ws.1 and 2) arrival and accordingly he went to the appellant’s house and called him and subsequently appellant came to the office and thereafter it is the prosecution case that the appellant received a sum of Rs.800/- in his office in the course of trap proceedings and this receipt is admitted by the appellant but he explained this receipt by his first defence which is already mentioned. 15. Now where was the need for the appellant to come to the office and receive the amount of Rs.800/- towards repayment of the jeep’s expenses from P.W.1 that too after office hours i.e. beyond 5.00 PM. He could have received that amount even at his house if what the other drivers and the watchman have said is true on that day or even on the next day. The appellant did not explain this aspect. Then there is another reason which weighs against the appellant and that is this. After receiving Rs.800/- the appellant himself stated that he paid Rs.100/- out of it to the second accused and informed him to keep Rs.50/- for himself and spend the other Rs.50/- for taking out Xerox copies of the longer sheets of the log extracts of the jeep and the log books of the jeep were admittedly in the office of the appellant. This is mentioned by the appellant in his statement dated 19.09.1994 also which is given by him before the investigating officer and which is made part of the record. 16. What should be noted is that if the appellant’s defence in this behalf is right the whole amount of Rs.800/- belonged to him and still a sum of Rs.200/- was due from P.W.1 and consequently there was no need at all for the appellant to pay Rs.100/- to the second accused out of that amount of Rs.800/- and direct him to keep Rs.50/- for himself and use the other amount of Rs.50/- for getting the log sheets of the jeep Xeroxed. It may be noted that the log sheets of the jeep were necessary for preparing the bills. The above two circumstances, in my opinion, cut across the above defence of the appellant. Here it should be noted that the definition of the expression “proved” occurring in Section 3 of the Evidence Act says that a court should take into account all matters placed before it to decide about the proof of a fact. The words “all matters” occurring in the above provision would show that the court should not only go by the evidence but also the other circumstances found in the case to decide about it. Thus in my opinion the above two circumstances found in this case outweigh the evidence of the witnesses who have supported the first defence of the appellant and show that appellant has taken it as an after thought taking advantage of the contingency which I mentioned supra. 17. Sri Bali Reddy in his endeavour to show that the above first defence of the appellant should be accepted relied upon three decisions of the Supreme Court one given in Punjabrao vs. State of Maharashtra[1], the second given in Shantilal Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan[2] and the third given in T.Subramanian v. The State of Tamil Nadu[3]. In all the three cases on the evidence therein it was held that the defences of the accused public servants therein were probable. There is no dispute about this proposition which is that where the defence of the accused is probable in a trap case that he received the amount not as a bribe but as given for some purpose unconnected with the discharge of his duties the same should be accepted and the accused need not prove it strictly but if it is found that it is a plausible defence proved by preponderance of possibility it should be accepted. It may be noted that appreciation of evidence and the defence depends upon the facts and circumstances of the each case and there can be no rule of universal application and only the general principle needs to be applied. In the present case the above two circumstances which heavily weigh against the appellant in my opinion show that his defence cannot be accepted. 18. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 the mediators and P.W.15 the DSP who laid the trap would show that the appellant received the amount of Rs.800/- but he did not keep it for himself which would have been the normal course if the money had belonged to him as the one paid in repayment of the money owed to him but he chose to give Rs.100/- to the second accused who was the Senior Assistant and directed him to get the log sheets of the jeep Xeroxed with a sum of Rs.50/- and to repeat the said log sheets were necessary for preparation of the bills. The appellant would not have given Rs.100/- to the Senior Assistant for the above purposes unless he has taken the amount towards bribe. It was argued that relying upon the above two circumstances would amount to misreading the evidence and straining to support the prosecution case. It may be noted that the above two circumstances are evident from evidence and no convincing reasons were put forward by the appellant’s counsel to ignore them. Thus this cannot be said to be a case where the evidence permits two possible views one in favour of the appellant and the other against him in which case alone benefit of doubt can be given to him. For these reasons the first defence of the appellant is rejected. 19. That takes me to the second defence relating to the date of demand and its proof. It may be noted that P.W.1 Pardhasaradhi in his chief examination first stated that he instructed P.W.2 to meet the appellant on 07.03.1994 requesting him for payment of the bills and thereupon P.W.2 returned and informed him about the bribe demand of the appellant for Rs.1000/- and that he even met the Inspector of Police, ACB, in April 1994 itself. He again stated that on 07.08.1994 himself and P.W.2 Sriramaraju approached the Inspector of Police, ACB, Eluru and informed him orally about the demand made by the appellant. He further added that on 07.08.1994 the Inspector informed them orally to approach the appellant again and thereafter they approached him again on 08.08.1994 on which date the appellant made the demand for Rs.1000/- but reduced it to Rs.800/- on the representation of P.Ws.1 and 2. 20. On the other hand P.W.2 Sriramaraju however stated that P.W.1 sent him to the office of the appellant during the first week of August 1994 i.e. on 1st or 2nd August of 1994 to enquire about the stage of the jeep bills and that when he met the appellant he has informed him that he has sent the log book of the vehicle but they have to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as bribe for clearing the bills and that he went and informed the same to P.W.1. What should be noted is that P.W.2 did not corroborate the version of P.W.1 about the date of demand on 07.03.1994 and P.W.1 approaching the Inspector of Police in April 1994 itself. Sri Bali Reddy basing on the above discrepancy argued that P.W.1 has come up with a falsehood before the court about the demand of bribe on 07.03.1994 and therefore the whole case should be rejected. 21. Sri Ghani A Musa pointed out that it is the admitted case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that jeep bills were due from March 1994 onwards and therefore the question of P.W.1 approaching the appellant for jeep bills on 07.03.1994 cannot arise at all and I think he is right in making this submission. It appears that P.W.1 may have mentioned about the above date 07.03.1994 by mistake or out of over anxiety but the mention of the above date 07.03.1994 or the P.W.1’s version that he approached the ACB police in April 1994 itself need not be a ground to reject his entire evidence. It was also pointed out by Sri Bali Reddy that P.W.15 the DSP in cross examination at one stage stated that on 08.08.1994 before deciding to lay the trap P.W.1 did not state before him that the appellant has reduced the bribe demand from Rs.1000/- to Rs.800/- and he criticized the prosecution case on this aspect also. On this aspect a perusal of Ex.P.1 report given by P.W.1 to the ACB police shows that on 07.08.1994 when P.Ws.1 and 2 again approached the appellant he reduced the bribe demand from Rs.1000/- to Rs.800/- and that the appellant told them to bring that amount on or before the evening of 09.08.1994. Hence this Ex.P.1 report cures the above defect in the evidence of the DSP. 22. Now coming to the demand for the bribe it is mentioned in Ex.P.1 that the bills of the jeep in question were due from March 1994 to P.W.1. It is also stated in Ex.P.1 that particulars of the mileage of the jeep were entered in the log book and handed over to the appellant from March 1994 and P.W.1 also mentioned in Ex.P.1 that he sold the jeep to P.W.2 some time after March 1994. P.W.2 admitted this and though the registration of the jeep was not transferred in his name. It is not the version of the appellant that he refused to pay the jeep bills to P.W.1 because he already sold it to P.W.2 and it is seen that the arrangement was that P.W.1 alone should receive the amount and that was the understanding between P.Ws.1 and 2 and this is not in dispute. Now in Ex.P.1 it is mentioned that a week prior to 08.08.1994 i.e. the date of Ex.P.1 P.W.1 sent P.W.2 to the appellant and that was the date on which the first demand was made for bribe and P.W.2 came and reported that to him. The words “a week prior to Ex.P.1” would indicate that it could be around 1st or 2nd of August 1994 and this is confirmed by P.W.2