THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.681 OF 2003. DATED: 16-12-2009. Between: R.Subba Rao … Appellant/Accused and State rep. by CBI Hyderabad. … Respondent/Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2003. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-accused under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment, dated 09-07-2003, in C.C. No.2 of 2001, on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the accused was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months under each count. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: The Accused Officer was working as Junior Telecom Officer (for short ‘JTO’) at Saidabad, Hyderabad since August, 1999 and the complainant is working as Dairy Assistant and was residing at Yakutpura. On 15-10-999, he applied for a new telephone connection under Ex.P1-application. He received intimation on 17-01-2000 that he was allotted telephone with provisional No.4516542. Then he went to Saidabad Telephone Exchange and met the Accused Officer. At that time, the Accused Officer demanded Rs.1,000/-for providing telephone facility, for which P.W.1 refused to give. Then the Accused Officer refused to give connection unless the demanded amount is paid. Subsequently, P.W.1 approached him for four to five times and the Accused Officer insisted him to get Residential Proof, Gas Connection, Bank pass book and finally obliged to give the connection if at least Rs.500/- is paid. Unable to pay the bribe, on 27-03-2000, P.W.1 approached CBI office and gave Ex.P3- complaint. Basing on Ex.P3, P.W.9 registered a case and issued Ex.P15-FIR. On 27-03-2000, he secured the presence of P.W.2 and another and they were introduced to P.W.1. P.W.1 produced the bribe amount and the currency note numbers and denomination were recorded in the mediators report and also explained the purpose and use of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate solution test and placed the tainted amount in the shirt pocket of P.W.2 and drafted Ex.P4-pre-trap proceedings. At about 15.40 hours P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office of the Accused Officer and the trap party took their vantage positions. P.Ws.1 and 2 approached the Accused Officer and asked him about the connection. On his demand, P.W.1 gave the amount and the Accused Officer counted the amount and kept the same in his shirt pocket. Then P.W.2 went out and gave pre-arranged signal. The trap party entered the room and P.W.9 disclosed his identity and questioned him about the bribe money and made his hands dip into sodium carbonate solution, which was prepared and the solution turned into pink colour. On search Rs.710/- was found in the shirt pocket of the Accused Officer and it was tallied with that of the note numbers as mentioned in Ex.P4-pre-trap proceedings. Thereafter, the shirt of the Accused Officer was also dipped in the solution, which tuned into pink colour. Then Ex.P5-post-trap proceedings were drafted. A search was made at the house of the accused, but no document was traced. Subsequent investigation was taken over by P.W.10 and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. 3. The learned Special Judge framed the following charges against the accused officer: FIRSTLY: That you the accused while functioning as a public servant to wit Junior Telecom Officer in the office of Junior Telecom Officer “C” Section, Saidabad, by abusing your official position of public servant demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration on 27-03-2002 from one Razzack Ali, working as Dairy Assistant in A.P.P.D.D.C.F. Lalapet, Hyderabad for the purpose of giving Telephone connection to the residence of said Razzak Ali at H.No.17-3-42/B, Yakathpura, Hyderabad and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. SECONDLY: That you being a public servant employed as Junior Telecom Officer in the office of Junior Telecom office, ”C” Section, Saidabad, Hyderabad, by corrupt or illegal means obtained for yourself a pecuniary advantage ofRs.500/- from Razzak Ali, Dairy Assistant on 27-03-2000 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988. When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused officer in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 besides case property, M.Os.1 to 5. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused officer, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined but no documents were marked. 6. The trial Court upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused officer as above. Challenging the same, the accused officer preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused officer of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial Court is legal, correct and proper? 8. Mr. C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused officer contended that the evidence of P.W.1 contained false statement, that Ex.P3-complaint does not contain the date on which the accused officer allegedly demanded P.W.1 to pay the amount, that the evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent with the evidence of P.W.2, that the defence version is also appears to be probable in view of the fact that D.W.4 categorically stated that the bribe amount was shoved in the shirt pocket of the accused officer, that the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 would go to show that there was no delay in providing the telephone connection to the house of P.W.1 and hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the accused officer. 9. On the other hand, Mr.T.Nianjan Reddy. learned standing counsel appearing for CBI cases contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is very clear that the accused officer demanded and accepted the money, that the evidence of P.W.9 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that the accused officer received the bribe amount, that when test was conducted, both hand fingers of the accused officer turned into pink colour, that there is no other reason for P.Ws. 1 and 2 to foist a false case against the accused officer, that after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused officer and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act are: a. that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; b. that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or dis-favour to any person. 11. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) that he should have been a public servant; (ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 12. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 applied for sanction of new telephone connection under Ex.P1-application to his residential premises. On 17-01-2000, P.W.1 received intimation letter that he was provisionally allotted telephone No.4516542. It is also not in dispute that the accused officer was working as JTO in Saidabad Telephone Exchange in whose jurisdiction the house of P.W.1 was located. After receipt of Ex.P2-intimation, P.W.1 went and met the Charminar Telephone Exchange, who in turn directed him to meet the accused officer who was working at Saidabad Telephone Exchange. But the accused officer demanded Rs.1,000/- for providing telephone facility. Thereafter, on several occasions, P.W.1 met the accused officer, but he was reiterating the same demand. Ultimately the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.500/-. As P.W.1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged Ex.P3 complaint to P.W.9. P.W.9 secured the presence of P.W.2 and drafted Ex.P4-pre-trap proceedings duly applying the phenolphthalein powder to the tainted currency notes and also noting down the numbers of the notes. Thereafter P.W.9 sent both P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the office at about 3.30 or 3.40 P.M. The accused officer was not present at that time. He came about five minutes later. Then again when P.W.1 requested the accused officer to provide telephone connection, the accused officer demanded the bribe. 13. P.W.1 is totally a stranger to the accused officer. There is no prior enmity or grouse against the accused officer. He narrated the sequence of events right from the applying for new telephone connection till demand made by the accused officer. It is suggested to him that the accused officer never demanded any amount and he did not met the accused officer on 17-01-2000, but the same were denied. Even after cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. There is every reason for P.W.1 to go to the accused officer in view of the fact that telephone connection has been sanctioned by the concerned authority and the accused officer is the person who has to provide new telephone connection to the premises of P.W.1. Admittedly, after the trap, the telephone connection was given i.e., on 28-03-2000. It is not in dispute that it is the duty of the accused officer to maintain working telephones and also providing new connections as per the seniority list. It is also not in dispute that on 27-03-2000, the accused officer attended the office and signed in the Attendance register. Therefore, official favour to be shown by the accused officer to P.W.1 was pending because admittedly JTO has to provide telephone connection. Though new telephone connection was sanctioned on 17-01-2000, for about two months connection has not been provided. Such is the case, there is every scope or possibility for P.W.1 to meet the accused officer now and then with a request to provide connection. Whenever P.W.1 met him, there was a demand to pay gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing official favour. Further the evidence of P.W.1 is completely in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.2 who is a accompanying witness. His evidence would go to show that on demand made by the accused officer, P.W.1 handed over Rs.500/-. Thereafter, the accused officer counted the money with his both hands and kept the same in the shirt pocket. He is also an independent mediator. He has no grouse or enmity against the accused officer. Except suggesting that the accused officer did not demand money from P.W.1 and P.W.1 forcibly shoved the money into the shirt pocket of the accused officer, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Practically the evidence of P.W.2 remained unchallenged with regard to demand prior to the trap. 14. The evidence of P.W.9 who is the Trap Laying Officer would go to show that on receipt of pre-arranged signal from P.W.2, he went there and conducted sodium carbonate solution test on both hands of the accused officer, which gave positive result. Similarly, the inner lining of the shirt pocket of the accused officer when subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, it also gave positive result. The tainted currency note numbers have been tallied with the numbers as noted in Ex.P4-pre-trap proceedings. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 9 coupled with the recitals in Ex.P5, it is clear that tainted currency notes was seized from the shirt pocket of the accused officer. Once the accused officer demanded and accepted the money, presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn. Though it is a rebuttal presumption, if it is not rebutted, the presumption is that the accused officer accepted the money towards illegal gratification for showing official favour. 15. To substantiate the case of the accused officer, he examined D.Ws. 1 to 4. D.W.1 simply stated that Ex.P2-advice note was received in the office on 24-01-2000 and he endorsed in ExP2 to piller No.70 and 71 and thereafter, no action has been taken. Therefore, his evidence is not much helpful to the case of the accused officer. D.W.2 is working as Telephone Mechanic. He maintain Ex.P21 diary. He gave connection to one Razak Ali as per work order. His evidence is also not much helpful to the case of the accused officer. D.W.3 is one of the persons who took new telephone connection on 11-02-2000. He stated that instrument was installed, but he did not give any money for the telephone office for getting connection. His evidence is also not helpful to the case of the accused officer. The other evidence available on record, is the evidence of D.W.4, who deposed that he went to the office for telephone connection of Smt.Asha Mathur. On 27-03- 2000 between 2.30 and 3.00 PM one person shoved some amount in the shirt pocket of JTO. Trap had taken place after 4.00 PM. Even assuming for a moment that the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 4 is to be believed, it is clear that the accused officer has not touched the tainted currency notes with his both hands. No explanation is forthcoming as to how he came into contact with the tainted currency notes. That is the reason why the trial Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 4. There is absolutely, no rebuttal evidence to show that the accused officer accepted the money not towards bribe. The trial Court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused officer and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 09-07-2003, in C.C.No.2 of 2001, on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderahad. Period of remand, if any, undergone by the appellant-accused officer during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 16-12-2009 Hsd