V. Venkata Subbarao vs State Represented By Inspector Of ...

Appellant herein was working as a Surveyor in the Mandal Revenue Office. He was a military personnel.

Admittedly, a demand was made by a Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) of P. Bhemavaram village of Butchayyupate Mandalam in Vishakhapatnam District for allowing P.W.3 (M. Subrahmanya Raju) to cut and remove casurina trees. P.W.2-Amaraneni Ammarao sold the land in question to P.W.3. He made a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau alleging that he had purchased 4 acres of land with casurina growth and the same was being objected by the MRO on the premise that a part thereof belonged to the Government.

The MRO, allegedly, wanted determination of the said question and restrained him from lifting any casurina growth. He met the said MRO on the next day informing him that no part of the Government land was mixed up with his land. Allegedly, a demand for a sum of Rs.5,000/- was made from him by the MRO. While the talks were going on, the appellant, allegedly, intervened and asked him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-. When he again met the MRO, he was informed that he would not be permitted to remove the casurina trees until the demanded amount was paid. On the basis of the said complaint dated 11.12.1988, a purported pre-trap proceedings started at 3 p.m. on 12.12.1988. The trap party consisting of 8 persons, allegedly, started for the village of which Appellant was a resident. They reached the village in the evening. The informant did not know the location of the residential house of the appellant. According to P.W.2, an unknown person had led them thereto. The said person examined himself as D.W.1 being Yannamsetti Appalanaidu and not by the prosecution. Offer of the said sum of Rs.2,000/- was, allegedly, made to the appellant by way of gratification, which he allegedly accepted. He is said to have been caught red handed.

Apart from usual pleas, the appellant categorically took the plea of false implication stating that he had animosity with the local M.L.A. Shri Yeeri Naidu and one Shri Rama Murthy, the Surpanch of P. Bhimavaram village. Admittedly, son of the appellant was working as an assistant to Shri Yeeri Naidu. The said Shri Ram Murthy nurtured grudge against the appellant for not granting D-Form pattas to him and his family members. The raid was conducted at the instance of Shri Ram Murthy.

The learned Special Judge analysed the evidences brought on record by the prosecution in great details. In his judgment, the learned Trial Judge considered the matter from various angles, viz., (i) peculiar facts of the case;

(ii) nature and conduct of P.W.2-the complainant (who was held to be wholly untrustworthy); (iii) the manner in which trap proceedings were undertaken by the Anti Corruption Bureau and which were, thus, held to be not reliable as it was brought on records that Shri Ram Murthy also indirectly participated in the said trap proceedings and, in particular, P.W.2 was brought by him to the village; (iv) Although, the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that the appellant, upon acceptance of the tainted amount, counted the same with both of his hands, only fingers of one of his hand turned pink; (v) the trap party came in and asked the A.O. to produce the amount, which he denied to have accepted; and allegedly, at that time three more people entered the house and stated that the amount was available in one of the rooms; (vi) In Exhibit P.7 post trap panchanama, the words 'from bed room corner, the cash has been picked up by A.O. and handed over to the Inspector', has been interpolated; and (vii) there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, vis-`-vis, their statements before the Investigating Officer.

P.W.2 had sold away his land to P.W.3. The casurina growth was being cut by its owner, namely, P.W.3. The purported obstruction in his activity came from the Mandal Revenue Officer and not from the appellant. A complaint was made against four persons, the MRO being one of them. Indisputably, it was the MRO who had asked for the said sum. P.W.2, although, went to the said MRO continuously for a few days, no attempt was made by him to offer the sum to the said officer himself. The complaint was made 15 days after the alleged demand. In the meanwhile, the casurina growth was cut and removed by P.W.3 without any further hindrance purported to be relying on or on the basis of the assurances made by P.W.2 that the dispute had been settled. The complaint was made to the Inspector of Police after a period of fifteen days from the date of original demand.

It is a mystery as to why no offer was made to the M.R.O. directly or why the raiding party did not visit his house? The prosecution witnesses even did not know in which village the M.R.O., Surveyor and Revenue Inspector had their respective residences. A short intervention made by the appellant was purported to be in relation to the quantum of amount. The offer, therefore, should have been made to the M.R.O. directly. He was named in the complaint, but along with him and the appellant, two others were also named. Why no action had been taken as against three other persons, is not known. Why M.R.O., who had made a demand, on whose behalf the appellant had accepted the amount, had escaped prosecution has not been explained.

Moreover, the High Court recorded a judgment of acquittal. The High Court should not have dealt with a detailed judgment of acquittal in such a slipshod manner.

{See also Samghaji Hariba Patil vs. State of Karnataka [2006 (10) SCALE 283]; and Umrao vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [AIR 2006 SC 2152].} For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the bail bonds.