THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.657 of 2004 BETWEEEN: State: Dy. Superintendent of Police. … Appellant AND 1. Vasamsetti Satyanarayana & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.657 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal against acquittal. The Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam by judgment dated 13.10.2003 in CC.No.53 of 2000 (old CC.No.91 of 1995) acquitted A1 of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and acquitted A1 and A2 of the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. 2. A1 was working as Line Inspector in A.P.S.E.B (Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board) in the office of Additional Assistant Engineer(Operations), Annavaram. A2 was a private helper and was not a public servant. PW1/defacto complainant applied for Electricity service connection to his borewell located in his land in A.Kothapalli Village. He paid necessary registration fees as per Ex.P4. His name was included in the priority list in March, 1993 onwards and continued in the list of 1994 also. A1 was deputed to inspect the site and collected particulars to prepare estimation. Since service connection was not given even after 1 ½ months after inspection by A1, PW1 met A1 at his office on 25.02.2004. It is alleged that A1 demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe to process his file to get sanction and to release new agriculture electricity service connection to PW1 and that when PW1 pleaded with A1, he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.4,000/- and directed PW1 to pay Rs.1,500/- as part of the bribe within a week and to pay balance amount after the work was completed. PW1 gave Ex.P1 report to PW4, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Rajahmundry. PW4 arranged trap for A1. PW3 is one of the mediators for the trap. Ex.P5, pre-trap proceedings were prepared. It is alleged that on 01.03.1994 at about 5:45 PM, A1 was successfully trapped at his office when he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1,500/- covered by MO.7. It is alleged that A1 called A2 and gave tainted cash of MO.7 to A2 for safe custody. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. During trial in the lower Court, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and Mos 1 to 12. Exs.D1 to D4 were marked on behalf of the accused. 3. It is the contention of the accused/respondent that he received MO.7 tainted amount from PW1 and handed over the same to A2 and that PW1 gave the said amount to him and promised to bring remaining amount of Rs.2,500/- for the purpose of obtaining Demand Drafts. It is specific case of A1 that he never demanded any bribe amount from PW1. 4. During trial in the lower Court, PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution. PW1 says that he went to electricity office at Annavaram and met A1 and asked him as to what happened to his service connection and that A1 stated that he has to send some money for getting the service connection to his borewell and that when he enquired A1 about quantum of money required, A1 informed him that about Rs.5,000/- was required towards expenditure and that when he (PW1) expressed his inability to pay the said amount, A1 after making some calculations informed him that if he gives Rs.4,000/- to him, his work will be done. It is PW1’s evidence that A1 said that he has to pay the said amount in the shape of Demand Drafts to the higher authorities. Thus, according to PW1, he made payment of tainted cash of MO.7 to PW1 towards part of Rs.4,000/- to be remitted by him by way of Demand Drafts to A.P.S.E.B. authorities for giving service connection to the borewell in his lands. This evidence of PW1 is in accordance with the defence statement of A1. The lower Court pointed out that PW1 gave the same version to the Magistrate when his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.D3 notice shows that subsequently a notice was given to PW1 by A.P.S.E.B on the same lines to the effect that he should remit Rs.4,000/- to the department for erection of electricity service connection to his borewell. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence of demand of any bribe by A1 from PW1 and about acceptance of any bribe by A1 from PW1. In the absence of such evidence before the Court, the question of drawing presumption under Section 20 of the Act in favour of the prosecution may not arise (Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana[1]). The prosecution thoroughly failed to prove its case of A1 demanding and receiving any illegal gratification from PW1. The lower Court is justified in finding A1 and A2 not guilty of the charges. When there is no proof of charges against A1, the question of A2’s liability under Section 201 I.P.C. will never arise. 5. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 28.04.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.657 of 2004 DATED: 28.04.2011 ysk [1] AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1589