Telangana High Court
Jamparangi Radha Krishna vs The State Of A.P. on 11 July, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1363 OF 2008
Between:
Jamparangi Radha Krishna ... Appellant
And
The State Inspector of Police,
Central Investigation Unit,
Hyderabad, rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 11.07.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRLA. No. 1363 of 2008
% Dated 11.07.2023
# Jamparangi Radha Krishna ... Appellant
And
$ The State Inspector of Police,
Central Investigation Unit,
Hyderabad, rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.B.Thimma Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Vidya Sagar Chitneni
Standing Counsel for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192
2
2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 607 (AP)
3 AIR 2002 Supreme Court 486
4
2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC)21
5
AIR 1976 Supreme Court 739
6
(2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 220
7
AIR 1984 Supreme Court 63
8
(2000)8 Supreme Court Cases 571
9
(1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 46
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1363 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the conviction recorded under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and under both counts.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department of Bheemini Mandal, Adilabad District. The defacto complainant/P.W.1 was allotted the repair work of village tank in Mallaganikunta, Nayakampet village, Bheemini Mandal under proceedings dated 21.01.2002, which was marked as Ex.P2. The said work was completed by 31.05.2002, however, the appellant failed to record the measurements in the M.Book though requested several times. On 17.06.2002, P.W.1 went to Anupama Lodge, Mancherial where the appellant was staying and requested to record the measurements in the M.Book. The appellant asked for an 4 amount of Rs.30,000/- to be paid as bribe. However, the same was reduced to Rs.20,000/-. Rs.10,000/- had to be paid first and after recording the measurements, the other Rs.10,000/- had to be paid. On 05.07.2002, P.W.1 approached the ACB authorities at Hyderabad at 9.00 p.m, however he was asked to come on the next day. On 06.07.2002 at about 10.00 a.m, written complaint Ex.P3 was lodged by PW1. P.W.1 was asked to come at 2.00 p.m along with the bribe amount. Meanwhile, the DSP made enquiries about the genuineness of the compliant and arranged for the trap by calling for independent witnesses P.W.2 and another.
3. The 1st mediator's report Ex.P4 was drafted in the office of ACB in the presence of P.W.2/mediator, P.W.6/DSP and others and proceedings concluded at 4.30 p.m. Thereafter, the trap party went to Mancherial town by 9.30 p.m. P.W.1 entered into the hotel room while all the other trap party members stayed outside. Five minutes thereafter, P.W.1 returned and gave signal indicating that the amount was accepted by the appellant. The trap members entered into the 5 room and questioned about the amount and the appellant stated that the amount was kept in the back side pant pocket. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the appellant was asked to rinse his fingers separately in two glasses to ascertain whether the bribe amount was handled by the appellant. The appellant produced bribe amount from his pant hip pocket. He removed his pant and handed over to the ACB official, who conducted test on the inner line of the pant pocket. Tests proved positive. The hotel room was also searched and huge amount of currency was found along with one suit case. Since there was no satisfactory explanation for the amount found in the hotel room, the amount of Rs.2,07,580/- and other savings certificates etc., were seized. The post trap proceedings were drafted and after conclusion of the post-trap proceedings, the DSP handed over the investigation to the Inspector.
4. The prosecution examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the appellant, he examined D.W.1 in defence.
6
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was no demand on the date of trap and the consequent recovery was on account of the bribe amount being planted in the pant pocket which was hung to the wall. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that when he went inside the hotel room, the appellant was wearing a lungi and he asked PW1 to sit on the cot and went inside the attached bath room. After some time, appellant came out from the bath room and wore his pant. In view of the said admission coupled with the explanation given to question No.3 of Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, the defence of the appellant that the amount was planted is probable and same has to be considered. He further argued that since the complainant/P.W.1 insisted the appellant to make entries in the M. book, without completion of the contract work, there was an altercation. The same is evident from the fact that P.W.1 admitted that he received the contract amount of Rs.1,75,000/- after one year though the actual contract amount was Rs.2,44,000/-.
7
6. Learned counsel further argued that since the prosecution failed to prove the demand and there is any amount of suspicion regarding the prosecution case, presumption cannot be drawn under Section 20 of the Act. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments; i) K.Shanthamma v. The State of Telangana1; ii) G.Vishnuvardhan v. State of A.P2; iii) Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1803 of 2007, dated 30.08.2022; iv) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra3; v)B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh4 and vi) Shantilal Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan5.
7. Learned counsel argued on the basis of K.Santhamma's case that the demand was not proved as such the appellant is entitled to acquittal. Further, though explanation was not given at the initial stage as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192 2 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 607 (AP) 3 AIR 2002 Supreme Court 486 4 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC)21 5 AIR 1976 Supreme Court 739 8 Court in Panjabrao's case, even an explanation at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C examination can be considered.
8. On the other hand, learned Special Standing Counsel for the ACB would submit that the amount was recovered from the pant pocket of the appellant at his instance. It is further the case that the official work of recording the entries to be made in the M.Book was still pending. If at all, the case was one of false implication, the appellant would have given reasons at the inception when the 2nd mediator's report was drafted. The defence that the amount was planted is an after- thought and taken subsequently during the course of trial, which cannot be taken into consideration. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab6 . In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the witness turned hostile to the prosecution case, his evidence will not be completely effaced.
6 (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 220 9
9. He relied on the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple7. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found fault with the High Court acquitting the accused when a clear case of demand and acceptance of bribe was made out. The judgment reported in the case of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the prosecution established that the bribe was paid and accepted, presumption arises.
10. In Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no necessity for the public servant to be in a position to do a favour. However, on facts, if case is made out for demand and acceptance of bribe, public servant can be convicted.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant is banking on the admission made by P.W.1 during cross-examination that when 7 AIR 1984 Supreme Court 63 8 (2000)8 Supreme Court Cases 571 9 (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 46 10 he went inside the hotel room, the appellant was in a lungi and he went inside into the bath room and came out. After coming out, he put on his pants from which the amount was recovered. The said defence was taken for the first time during the course of trial. Though, it is not necessary that the defence is taken at the very inception while the 2nd mediator's report was being drafted, on facts and circumstances in a case, the Court can always draw conclusion about the defence being correct and whether the appellant was falsely implicated. It may be that the public servant would be perturbed and may not be in a normal state of mind when a trap party suddenly accosts him.
12. In the present case, it is not disputed that the work was given to P.W.1 to be executed. Entries in the Measurement Book had to be made by the appellant. Admittedly, no such entries were made. Though, it is claimed by the appellant that without doing any work, P.W.1 was insisting for making entries in the book as though work was done. The version cannot be considered for the reason of the appellant not 11 establishing the same. Only for the reason of getting Rs.1,75,000/- out of the total contract value of Rs.2,44,000/- one year after the contract, it cannot be assumed that no part of the work was done by the date of trap.
13. The aspect of demand was spoken to by P.w.1 both in the complaint and subsequently, during the course of trap proceedings. The money was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his pant pocket. The appellant was wearing pant when the trap party entered. Even in the cross- examination of P.W.1, it was admitted that the appellant came out of the bath room and put on his pants. The case of P.W.1 is that after wearing pant, money was accepted and kept in his pant. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Special Judge when the factum of demand and acceptance was proved by the prosecution.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence after giving set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 12 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.07.2023 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs 13 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1363 of 2008 Date: 11.07.2023.
kvs