Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Guntaka Showry, vs The State Of A.P., Rpe By Pp., on 18 April, 2022
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1571 ND 1716 OF 2006
COMMON JUDGMENT:-
Since Criminal Appeal No.1716 of 2006 was filed through a Legal Aid Counsel and Criminal Appeal No.1571 of 2006 was filed by engaging a private counsel, against the very same judgment of conviction and sentence, both these Criminal Appeals are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada on 30-08-2006 in C.C.No.20 of 2003, the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 filed the above Criminal Appeals before this Court.
3. The appellant/Accused Officer No.2 along with Accused Officer No.1 was charge-sheeted in the above Calendar Case. During pendency of trial, Accused Officer No.1 died on 28-02- 2005 and the case against him was abated. As such, Accused Officer No.2 alone faced trial.
4. The appellant/Accused Officer No.2 was tried and convicted by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada under Sections. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 ( for short "the Act") read with 34 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under two counts. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2
5. Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel representing Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 and Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor.
6. The case of the prosecution as seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:-
7. Accused Officer No.1 worked as a Lineman and the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 worked as Assistant Lineman in the office of the A.P. Southern Power distribution Company Limited, Kanchikacherla, Krishna District and as such the appellant is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Pw.1 is a resident of Vasantha colony, Kanchakacherla. He constructed a house with the funds of a Government sanctioned under MLA Scheme. In order to get the electricity supply connection to his newly constructed house, he obtained certificate from Serpanch and took demand draft for an amount of Rs.25/- along with connected papers including his application to the Electricity Office, Kanchakacherla. He gave all papers along with application to Accused Officer No.1 who ensured that he will take care of his service connection. Pw.1 also done wiring to his newly constructed house and furnished certificate to that effect. After few days, both the accused inspected the house of Pw.1 and verified the electricity wiring. After verification of wiring, Accused Officer No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.500/- for processing his application and to forward the same to the higher officers. Pw.1 expressed his inability. 3 After one week Pw.1 met Assistant Engineer at his office and enquired about his application. On that, Assistant Engineer informed him that his application has not reached his office. Then again Pw.1 met Accused Officer No.1 in the bazaar and enquired about the stage of the application. Then, he reiterated his earlier demanded bribe of Rs.500/-. As there is no alternative and as Pw.1 was reluctant to pay the demanded bribe amount, he approached the Inspector of Police ACB, Vijayawada. On 26- 04-2002 at about 10.00 A.M Pw.4-Inspector of Police received a written report-Ex.P-1 from Pw.1 and caused discreet enquiries against Pw.1 as well as both the accused officers and made endorsement to that effect. He registered Ex.P-1 as a case in Cr.No.8/ACB/VZA/2002 under Section 7 of the Act. Ex.P-8 is the original F.I.R. He instructed Pw.1 to come to his Office with intended bribe amount of Rs.500/- on 27-04-2002 during afternoon. He has taken steps to secure the presence of the mediators. On 27-04-2002 Pw.1 went to the office of Pw.6 along with the bribe amount. Pw.4 introduced mediators i.e., Pw.3 and another to Pw.1. Pw.4 gave copy of F.I.R to the mediators. Pw.1 gave Rs.500/- i.e., five(5) Rs.100/- denomination notes. Pw.4 prepared pre-trap proceedings-Ex.P-5 in the presence of Pw.3 and another. Pw.4 gave instructions to the mediators as well as Pw.1. At about 3.40 P.M trap laying party along with Pw.1 proceeded in a Car and reached Kanchikacherla at about 4.30 P.M. They came to know that both the accused are not available in the office and they were attending to a complaint at Pedda Bazar. Then the trap laying party along with Pw.1 went to Pedda 4 Bazar and stopped the vehicle at a distance. On instructions of Pw.4, Pw.1 proceeded to the spot where both the accused were attending to a repair work. Pw.1 approached both the accused and enquired about his application. On that both the accused demanded Pw.1 as to whether he has brought the demanded bribe amount or not, for which he gave an affirmative reply. When Pw.1 offered the tainted amount to Accused Officer No.1, he instructed Pw.1 to give the said amount to the appellant/Accused Officer No.2, since he was attending to a repair work. Immediately, Pw.1 gave the money to the appellant/Accused Officer No.2, who in turn received it with his right hand and kept the same in the left side shirt pocket. Pw.1 came and relayed pre-arranged signal. Immediately, Pw.4 along with trap laying party rushed to the said place and found both the accused working near an electricity pole. After disclosing his identity to the Accused Officers, he introduced the other members also to both the accused. He conducted phenolphthalein test to Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2. Phenolphthalein test conducted on Accused Officer No.1 proved negative and Accused Officer No.2 proved positive. On questioning, Accused Officer No.2 produced the tainted currency notes-Mo.3 from his shirt pocket. Pw.4 got verified the currency notes. Pw.4 conducted post-trap proceedings-Ex.P-7 in the presence of Pw.3 and another. Pw.2 is the owner of the house, at whose place the repairing work was going on.
8. During the course of post trap proceedings, Pw.4 enquired Accused Officer No.2 about the tainted currency for which 5 appellant/Accused Officer No.2 replied stating that on instructions of Accused Officer No.1 he received the tainted currency and he has nothing to do with the same. The said fact was incorporated in post-trap proceedings. Pw.4 questioned Accused Officer No.1 about the tainted currency for which Accused Officer No.1 replied stating that Pw.1 offered bribe amount of Rs.500/- to him as he was busy in repairing work, he asked Pw.1 to give the said bribe amount to the Accused Officer No.2. The said fact was also recorded in post trap proceedings. Pw.4 completed the investigation and after obtaining sanction, he filed the charge sheet.
9. Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel, representing Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 strenuously contended that sofar as the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 is concerned, Pw.1 has not stated anywhere about the demand. In Ex.P-1, it is specifically mentioned by Pw.1 that it is the Accused Officer No.1 who demanded Rs.500/- towards bribe for processing his application and forwarding the same to higher authorities for electricity meter connection to his newly constructed house. Sofar as the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 is concerned, he is only an Assistant Lineman and he is not the competent authority to process the application of Pw.1. It is the duty of Accused Officer No.1 to process the new electricity connection application and submitting the same to higher authorities for granting new meter connection.
6
10. As seen from Ex.P-1, Pw.1 has not stated the demand made by Accused Officer No.2. It is specifically mentioned in Ex.P-1 that it is the Accused Officer No.1 who demanded bribe of Rs.500/-, as such, there is no demand made by the appellant/Accused Officer No.2. Further, there is no official favour pending with appellant/Accused Officer No.2.
11. Coming to the acceptance by appellant/Accused Officer No.2, it is the specific case of appellant/Accused Officer No.2 that he received the bribe amount on the instructions of Accused Officer No.1. The said fact was also incorporated by Pw.4- Investigation Officer in post-trap proceedings-Ex.P-7. The explanation of Accused Officer No.1 also recorded in Ex.P-7 post- trap proceedings, which clinchingly show that Accused Officer No.1 stated that as he was busy in attending repair works, he asked Pw.1 to give the bribe amount to the appellant/Accused Officer No.2. The said fact was also recorded by Pw.4 in Ex.P-7 post-trap proceedings. In such an event, the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not able to establish either demand or acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 in the circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter, viewed from any angle, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada on 30-08-2006 in C.C.No.20 of 2003 and the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 is acquitted of the 7 charges leveled against him. Fine amount paid by the appellant/Accused Officer No.2, if any, shall be refunded to him. The bail bonds of the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 shall stand cancelled automatically.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 18-04-2022.
TSNR