Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P., Thru Inspector Of ... vs Sri M.Laxmaiah on 19 October, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.769 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:-
The challenge in this Criminal Appeal is made to the judgment, dated 12.02.2007 in Calendar Case No.23 of 2002, on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad ("Additional Special Judge" for short). The unsuccessful State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau ("A.C.B." in short), Kurnool Range, Kurnool, filed the present Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of the trial Court under which the learned Additional Special Judge found the Accused Officer ("A.O." for short) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act" for short) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short).
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3) The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, filed the charge sheet against the A.O. alleging in substance as follows: 2
(i) The A.O. Sri M. Laxmaiah worked as Junior Lineman in Power House Section, Distribution No.1, A.P. Transco, Kurnool, from 06.04.1999 to 17.02.2001. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988.
(ii) The complainant Sri Katika Rasool, S/o Hazi Hussain Miah who will be hereinafter referred to as P.W.1 is the resident of Gowligeri, Kurnool town. P.W.1 is residing in the ground floor of the house bearing No.42/17-A, situated in Gowligeri, Kurnool Town belonging to P.W.2 since 3 ½ years. P.W.2, the owner of the house, is staying in the first floor of the house. The electricity meter H.S.C.No.40848 of the house was installed in the ground floor of the house in which P.W.1 was residing.
P.W.2 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from P.W.1 and mortgaged the said house to P.W.1 under an agreement, dated 26.08.1989. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were using the electricity through the meter H.S.C.No.40848 and they were sharing the electricity bill equally. P.W.1 noticed that the electricity meter was stuck up and informed the same to P.W.2. On that P.W.2 lodged a complaint before P.W.7-Assistant Engineer, Power House Section, Distribution No.1, Kurnool, on 16.10.2000 to rectify the defects. As there was no action on the said complaint, P.W.2 lodged another complaint before P.W.7 in the first week of 3 January, 2001. On that the A.O. and another person visited the house on 30.01.2001 and replaced the defective meter with new one. At that time, the A.O. threatened P.W.1 and P.W.2 stating that they tampered the meter and that the A.O. would get a case booked against them unless he was paid bribe of Rs.5,000/-. After bargaining, the A.O. agreed to accept Rs.4,000/- i.e., Rs.2,000/- each from P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 agreed to pay the said amount after one week. On 03.02.2001 the A.O. visited the house of P.W.1 and demanded him to pay bribe. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe and requested time for one week. Again on 09.02.2001 the A.O. demanded P.W.1 to pay bribe of Rs.4,000/-. P.W.1 informed the A.O. that P.W.2 is not available in the house and promised to pay the bribe on 11.02.2001 i.e., on Sunday. P.W.1 unwilling to pay the bribe to the A.O., lodged oral complaint before P.W.10- the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Kurnool Range, Kurnool, on 10.02.2001 and the same was reduced into writing by P.W.12. The said statement of P.W.1 i.e., Ex.P.1 was registered by P.W.10, as a case in Crime No.1/ACB-KUR/2001 and laid a trap against the A.O. on 11.02.2001.
(iii) On 11.02.2001 at about 10-00 a.m., P.W.1 accompanied by the mediator-P.W.4 went to the house of the 4 A.O. and found that the A.O. was waiting at his house. On seeing P.W.1, the A.O. asked him whether he brought his share of bribe amount. P.W.1 gave positive reply. As per the instructions of the A.O., P.W.12 accompanied by P.W.4 proceeded to Sreerama Tiffin Center, where the A.O. demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.4. Both hand fingers of the A.O. when subjected to the chemical test, gave positive result. The tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the possession of the A.O. on production by the A.O. from his left side shirt upper pocket. Inner linings of the shirt pocket of the A.O. also yielded positive result to the chemical test. P.W.10-the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., seized the tainted amount recovered from the possession of the A.O. P.W.11-the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Kurnool, has accorded sanction proceedings for prosecution of the A.O. in a Court of law. The A.O. committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Hence, the charge sheet.
4) On appearance of the A.O., the learned Additional Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) 5 r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act against the A.O. and explained the same to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5) In order to establish the guilt against the A.O., the prosecution before the learned Additional Special Judge examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and M.O.1 to M.O.10. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the A.O. was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and filed a written statement contending in substance as follows:
The A.O. worked as Junior Lineman in Power House Section, Distribution No.1, A.P. Transco, Kurnool, from 06.04.1999 to 17.02.2001. The A.O. is not aware of the dealings in between P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding mortgage of the house.
The house belongs to P.W.2. P.W.2 resides in the upstairs and P.W.1 is staying in the ground floor. P.W.1 is not the owner of the house. Ex.P.3-application, dated 16.10.2000, addressed to the Assistant Engineer was signed by P.W.2. As per Ex.P.4, meter was replaced on 30.01.2001. P.W.1 tampered service connection No.31299 and he paid penalty of Rs.27,927/-. P.W.1 6 admitted that he tampered the meter in the shop. The evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy. The A.O. never demanded any bribe from P.W.1. The A.O. is not competent authority to book a case nor he can prevail on the officers from booking a case against P.W.2. P.W.2 has to oblige P.W.1 as he has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to P.W.1. P.W.2 was fined about Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/- for compounding the offence for tampering of meter No.40848. The A.O. received the amount as P.W.6 instructed him to receive it. The A.O gave spontaneous explanation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., that Chander Lineman gave instructions to him to receive Rs.4,000/- and it is not bribe amount. In order to save the Assistant Engineer, this case was foisted against the A.O. P.W.6 was with the Deputy Superintendent of Police at the house of P.W.1 and he had talked with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., after the trap incident. The A.O. is innocent of the charges framed against him.
6) In furtherance of the defence, the A.O. examined D.W.1 to D.W.3. Apart from this, the learned defence counsel during cross examination got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4, the relevant portions of Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. statements, recorded by the learned Magistrate.
7
7) The learned Additional Special Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the A.O. not guilty of the charges framed against him as stated above and accordingly, acquitted him under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful State, filed the present Criminal Appeal, challenging the judgment of acquittal through the learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor.
8) Before going to frame the points for determination, this Court would like to make it clear that there was no dispute before the trial Court that the A.O. was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the P.C. Act. In respect of the findings of the learned Additional Special Judge that the prosecution obtained a valid sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, the same is not challenged by the respondent in this matter in any way. Hence, the scope of the appeal is confined to the following aspects:
(1) Whether the prosecution before the learned Additional Special Judge proved that the official favour in respect of the work of P.W.1 was pending with the A.O. as on the date of report and as on the date of trap in the manner as alleged by the prosecution?8
(2) Whether the prosecution before the learned Additional Special Judge proved that the A.O. demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.5,000/- and later reduced it to Rs.4,000/- so as to do official favour in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and that pursuant to such demand, he accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/- within the meaning of Section 7 of the P.C. Act and whether he abused his official position, as such, as public servant? (3) Whether the judgment, dated 12.02.2007 in C.C.No.23 of 2002, on the file of Additional Special Judge, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal?
POINT NOs.1 TO 3:-
9) Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant/ State, would contend that P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the mediators to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. P.W.4 was accompanying witness to observe the events between P.W.1 and the A.O. and he supported the case of the prosecution. The tainted amount was recovered from the possession of the A.O. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 spoke about the demand made by the A.O. prior to the trap and on the date of trap, as the case may be. The learned Additional Special Judge erred in ignoring the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 with regard to the demand on the 9 date of trap. There is no inconsistency, as such, as pointed out by the learned Additional Special Judge. Both hand fingers of the A.O. yielded positive result when they were subjected to chemical test. The prosecution by virtue of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other official witnesses, proved the pendency of the official favour. The A.O. set forth contrary arguments before the learned Additional Special Judge as if the tainted amount was received towards compounding fee and that he accepted the amount at the instructions of P.W.6. The prosecution with consistent evidence proved the pendency of the official favour and demand made by the A.O. as alleged by the prosecution prior to the trap and on the date of trap and recovery of tainted amount from the A.O. In spite of convincing evidence adduced, the trial Court erred in disbelieving the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has the benefit of Section 20 of the P.C. Act, as such, the prosecution supplemented its case to any extent by relying on Section 20 of the P.C. Act. He would further contend that the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed by reversing the acquittal so as to convict the A.O.
10) Miss B. Poonam, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is interested. They put forth a 10 case that the meter was stuck up for which they made an application. It is borne out by the record that even prior to the allegations of demand, the A.O. at the instructions of superior officer replaced the meter. Ultimately, it was found that P.W.1 and P.W.2 tampered the meter for which P.W.1 was directed to pay the compounding fee and he paid it. P.W.2 simply obliged the request of P.W.1 in support of the case of the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 alleges three dates of demand. P.W.1 and P.W.2 spoke about the date of demand prior to 30.01.2001. They did not speak about the demand, dated 29.01.2001 and subsequent thereafter. There was no evidence that the A.O. reduced the bribe amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/- on 30.01.2001. Apart from this, there was no question of making demand for bribe as the A.O. at the instructions of superiors duly attended the replacement of meter. The contention of the prosecution is that the A.O. demanded bribe from P.W.1 and P.W.2 for not booking case against them. The A.O. had no power to book any case. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the pendency of the official favour. The A.O. voluntarily during the post-trap put forth a version that at the instructions of P.W.6, he received the amount. P.W.6 during cross examination admitted this. The investigating officer ought to have booked a case against P.W.6. 11 There was inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4-the accompanying witness. Mere recovery of tainted amount from the A.O. is not sufficient to convict him. The learned Additional Special Judge with cogent reasons disbelieved the case of the prosecution, as such, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11) P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant. P.W.2 is the owner of the house in which P.W.1 was residing. The agreement between P.W.1 and P.W.2 in this regard is that P.W.1 paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to P.W.2 and that the said amount would not carry any interest and P.W.1 need not pay any lease. There is no dispute about this aspect. P.W.1 who is the defacto- complainant deposed in support of the case of the prosecution especially Ex.P.1-complaint on certain aspects. He supported the case of the prosecution insofar as Ex.P.5 is concerned. The prosecution examined P.W.2 also who was the owner of the house and he deposed about the agreement entered into by him with P.W.1 in respect of his house. The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is such that the electricity meter in the ground floor of the building was stuck up and he made Ex.P.3-letter on 16.10.2000 to the Assistant Engineer. Even he deposed about the so-called demand made by the A.O. 12
12) P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are the mediators to the pre- trap and post-trap proceedings, supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution also examined the owner of the hotel Sreerama Tiffin Center in Gowligeri, Kurnool town where the alleged trap was laid against the A.O. He testified in substance that on 11.02.2001 at 10-00 a.m., P.W.1 and two others came to his hotel. Turning to the evidence of P.W.6, in the month of January, 2001 P.W.1 met him with a version that his meter was stuck up and he advised him to present an application to the concerned Assistant Engineer. The prosecution examined P.W.7 to P.W.9, who are the officials of A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Kurnool, whose evidence is to the effect that there was tampering of electricity meter service No.40848 in the name of P.W.2. P.W.10 was the trap laying officer. The prosecution examined P.W.11-the Divisional Electrical Engineer to speak about Ex.P.16-sanction to prosecute the A.O. P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police, who assisted the trap laying officer in investigation.
13) Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the prosecution before the learned Additional Special Judge proved the pendency of the official favour. There is consistent evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the 13 agreement entered into between them and they spoke to the fact that the electricity meter is in the ground floor which was stuck up. This fact is also testified by P.W.7-Additional Assistant Engineer, Power House Distribution, APCPDCL, Kurnool. Ex.P.3 is the application in this regard. There is no dispute that P.W.7 deputed the A.O. to replace the stuck up meter with a new meter and the A.O. visited the house of P.W.2, removed the stuck up meter with new meter on 30.01.2001. According to P.W.2, Ex.P.4 bears his signature which reveals that meter was replaced on 30.01.2001. The fact that the A.O. was deputed to replace the so-called stuck up meter with the new meter which was deposed by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7. There is no dispute insofar as this aspect is concerned.
14) Ex.P.1 depicts that there was a demand made by A.O. on 29.01.2001 with a version that if that amount is not paid, he will book a case against P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no dispute that the A.O. had no power whatsoever to book a criminal case against P.W.1 and P.W.2 for allegedly tampering the electricity meter. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admittedly did not testify that there was a demand on 30.01.2001 as alleged in Ex.P.1. Of course, they spoke to the fact that the demand was made on 14 29.01.2001 and their evidence with regard to the subsequent demands is nothing but vague.
15) As seen from the evidence of P.W.8, he deposed that according to the procedure, the defective meters will be forwarded to MRT lab and accordingly, the meter of P.W.1 was forwarded to the MRT lab on 03.03.2001. P.W.9 testified the meter reading as 5500 units as on 07.07.2000 and the same reading was also shown on 02.09.2000 and on 09.11.2000. Thus, throughout the said period, the meter reading was shown only as 5500 units. As evident from the evidence of P.W.1 during cross examination after the trap he paid penalty for tampering the meter regarding HSC No.40848. So, the case of the prosecution is such that though it alleged that the electricity meter in the house of P.W.2 was stuck in the ground floor, but later it came on record, that in fact, the meter was tampered for which P.W.1 paid the penalty for tampering the meter after the trap incident. Therefore, the conduct of P.W.1 is to be looked into as highly doubtful.
16) As seen from the evidence of P.W.7 as pointed out, absolutely, the A.O. was alleged to have replaced the meter on 30.01.2001 itself with new meter. Thus, even as on 30.01.2001, there was nothing to be attended by the A.O. As pointed out, 15 the A.O. had no power whatsoever to book criminal case against P.W.1 or P.W.2 for allegedly tampering the meter. Having regard to the above crucial aspects, the prosecution before the trial Court failed to prove that the A.O. was capable of booking a case against P.W.1 and P.W.2 either prior to the trap or subsequent to the trap. Hence, when he had no power to book any criminal case, it is improbable to assume that the A.O. demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.5,000/- for doing any official favour. This Court is of the considered view, the evidence is lacking absolutely that there was official favour pending prior to Ex.P.1 or as on the date of Ex.P.1 or subsequent to Ex.P.1 or as on the date of trap laid on 11.02.2001.
17) Now coming to the crucial aspects of the demand as contemplated under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, Ex.P.1 alleges the demands as on 29.01.2001. Absolutely, according to the case of the prosecution on 29.01.2001 itself, the A.O. came to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and replaced the new electric meter in the place of old one. Another date of demand is immediately after 29.01.2001. Another date of demand was on 03.02.2001 and 09.02.2001. When it comes to the evidence of P.W.1, his evidence in chief examination is that on 29.01.2001 the A.O. came to his house 16 and removed the old meter and fixed a new meter in its place. The A.O. alleged that they committed theft of energy and that a case will be booked unless they paid Rs.5,000/-. He did not speak about the demand on 30.01.2001. Even he did not speak about the subsequent date of demands. The prosecution version is that it was on 30.01.2001, the A.O. replaced the meter in the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2. That aspect is not testified by P.W.1 and P.W.2. So, with regard to the demands immediately after 29.01.2001 and also in the first week of February, 2001, absolutely, P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not testify anything in this regard. Their evidence in this regard is nothing but vague. It is altogether a different aspect that P.W.1 testified about the demand on the date of trap. Thus, the evidence is lacking substantially with regard to the demands immediately after 29.01.2001, during first and second week of February, 2001. The prosecution failed to prove the same with any consistent evidence.
18) As this Court already pointed out that the A.O. was not capable of doing any official favour subsequent to his replacing of meter. It is not the case of the prosecution that for replacing of the meter with new one in the place of so-called stuck up meter, the A.O. demanded bribe and it is never the 17 case of the prosecution. Therefore, when the A.O. was not capable of doing any official favour for not booking case against P.W.1 and P.W.2, the allegations in Ex.P.1, as if the A.O. demand bribe for not booking case is very weak in nature. The fact that there was no official favour pending as alleged by the prosecution is coming in the way of the prosecution to contend that the A.O. demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe. The evidence of P.W.1 is such that on 29.01.2001 itself, the A.O. reduced the bribe to Rs.4,000/-. It is contrary to the allegations in Ex.P.1. Thus, it is very difficult to believe the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the demand on 29.01.2001. If that is excluded from consideration, there is no substantive evidence that on 30.01.2001 or subsequent thereto prior to the post-trap also the A.O. demanded P.W.1 or P.W.2.
19) With regard to the allegations of the prosecution, the A.O. demanded P.W.1 on the date of trap to pay the bribe of Rs.2,000/- and accepted the same, the evidence of P.W.1 is that he went to the house of the A.O. on the date of trap and the A.O. asked him „emaiah naa dabbulu istava‟ and he replied that he would pay the amount. The A.O. asked him to come to Sreerama Tiffin Center, which is near to his house. Then he, mediators and the A.O. went there where they had tea. The 18 A.O. asked him to pay the bribe amount and he took out the amount and gave the same to the A.O. The A.O. counted it and kept the same in his left hand shirt pocket. The A.O. promised that case will not be booked. Then he came out and gave pre arranged signal. P.W.3 was not accompanying witness. The evidence of P.W.4-the accompanying witness is that on 11.02.2001 he and P.W.3 proceeded to the house of P.W.1. They reached to the vicinity. He and P.W.1 proceeded to the house of the A.O. The A.O. was present. The A.O. asked P.W.1 whether he brought the demanded bribe amount and P.W.1 said that it is in his pocket. Then, they went to Sreerama Tiffin Center and had tea. The A.O. asked money to P.W.1. P.W.1 picked up it and gave to the A.O.
20) It is to be noted that there is inconsistency, admittedly, between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. According to P.W.1, the A.O. asked him „emaiah naa dabbulu istava‟. According to P.W.4, the A.O. asked P.W.1 whether he brought the demanded bribe amount. The learned Additional Special Judge found clearly this inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. Apart from this, it is very difficult to assume that the A.O. ignoring the presence of P.W.4 along with the A.O., asked P.W.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.2,000/-. In 19 the considered view of this Court there is every doubt as to the manner in which P.W.4 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. If really P.W.4 accompanied P.W.1 and observed the events between P.W.1 and the A.O., he would have supported the version of P.W.1 that the A.O. asked P.W.1 as to whether „emaiah naa dabbulu istava‟. As this Court already pointed out there was no pendency of the official favour. Looking into this type of inconsistency coupled with the fact that the pendency of the official favour was not proved by the prosecution, it is very difficult to believe the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 that during post-trap, the A.O. demanded him to pay the bribe of Rs.2,000/-.
21) The prosecution strongly relied upon the circumstances that the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of the A.O. As seen from Ex.P.12-post trap proceedings, there was a spontaneous version of the A.O. to the effect that at the instructions of P.W.6, he received the amount. There is no dispute about this version recorded by the mediators in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in post- trap. During cross examination, he denied that as he apprehends that the A.O. may impose penalty, he filed a false trap against the A.O. As seen from the evidence of P.W.3 and 20 P.W.4, they admitted about post-trap version of the A.O. As seen from the evidence of P.W.6, the so-called Chandra Sekhar at whose instance the A.O. was claimed to have received the amount, during cross examination he deposed that the Inspector asked him whether the A.O. was due any amount to him and whether he instructed the A.O. to take that amount from P.W.1. He did not question C.I why he was asking him about money which was given by Rasool to Lakshmaiah. It is to be noted that during further cross examination he admitted that he stated before ACB Inspector that he informed Rasool to pay Rs.4,000/- to Lakshmaiah, Junior Lineman for the meter not being stuck up and to see that no case is made out.
22) It is to be noted that when the investigating officer got recorded such a version from P.W.6 as to why he did not think over to investigate into the allegations against P.W.6 shrouded in mystery. Therefore, when the investigating officer recorded the statement of P.W.6 which is to the effect that he informed to P.W.1 to pay Rs.4,000/- to the A.O., why the investigating officer did not contemplate to look into the allegations against P.W.6 is not known. It throws any amount of doubt about the bonafide in the investigation. 21
23) Apart from the above, in furtherance of the defence, the A.O. got examined D.W.1 to D.W.3. Insofar as the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 is concerned, it is supported the case of the prosecution that no official favour was pending. According to D.W.3, on 30.01.2001 he went to the house of P.W.1 for replacing the meter. He was physically present during that time. The A.O. removed the meter and handed over to him. The A.O. did not ask P.W.1 any amount. There was no quarrel between P.W.1 and the A.O. at that time. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence is lacking that the prosecution proved the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by the A.O.
24) It is well settled that mere recovery of the tainted amount from the A.O. is not sufficient to convict him. There is no doubt that the amount was recovered from the possession of the A.O. There was a spontaneous version of A.O. that at the instructions of P.W.6, he received the amount. The investigating officer recorded the statement of P.W.6, as if he instructed the A.O. to receive the amount from P.W.1. The investigating Officer did not think over to look into the allegation against P.W.6.
25) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Additional Special Judge rightly 22 looked into all these aspects and extended benefit of doubt to the A.O. In the considered view of this Court, as the prosecution did not prove the foundational facts as regards the demand and pendency of the official favour, it had no benefit of presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The learned Additional Special Judge on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record rightly found the A.O. not guilty of the charges and extended benefit of doubt rightly in favour of the A.O. Hence, in the considered view of this Court that the prosecution before the learned Additional Special Judge failed to prove the above aspects, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Special Judge.
26) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, as such, the judgment, dated 12.02.2007 in C.C.No.23 of 2002, on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, shall stand confirmed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.19.10.2023.
PGR 23 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. APPEAL NO.769 OF 2007 Date: 19.10.2023 PGR