Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M.V.Mohan, vs The State , Rep.By Inspector Of ... on 23 September, 2020

Author: C.Praveen Kumar

Bench: C.Praveen Kumar

                                 1




       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                  Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

1) Heard Sri. C. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri. S.M. Subhani, Standing Counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau representing the State. With their consent, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of through BlueJeans video conferencing app.

2) Assailing the conviction and sentence, dated 01.03.2007, passed in C.C. No. 26 of 2002, on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused herein was tried for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [the"Act"] for demanding an amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration, on 25.06.2001, from one K.Sreeramulu, for doing an official favor, namely, preparing estimate for giving service connection to his wet grinder, which was accepted on 26.06.2001. By its judgment, dated 01.03.2007, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused, under both the counts, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three 2 months, under both the counts. The substantive sentence of imprisonment was directed to run concurrently.

3) The facts, as culled out, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under:

i. PW1 was running a cycle shop prior to 2001. As the business was not running properly, he decided to setup a wet grinder business in the said premises, for which he has to obtain permissions from Grampanchayat and District Industries Centre. He also needs to have an electrical connection for the new business. In order to obtain electrical connection, he went to A.P. Transco, Gooty, on 18.06.2001, met the Assistant Engineer [PW3] and submitted an application along with a sum of Rs.50/-, for which, a receipt was also issued. PW3 instructed PW1 to get an estimate prepared from the Foreman [accused officer] and accordingly asked him to meet him. But, as the accused officer was on camp, he could not meet him. On the next day, i.e., 19.06.2001, he again went to the office and met the accused officer outside the office. The accused officer asked him to meet him in the office. It is said that, subsequently, PW1 went to the office of the accused officer two or three times and requested him to give an estimate for category-IV electrical connection, but, the accused officer was evading the same, on one pretext or other.

ii. On 25.06.2001 at about 12.00 noon, PW1 again met the accused officer and requested him to prepare an estimate for category-IV connection and also an estimate for conversion of electrical connection of his house from category-II to category-I. The accused officer is said to have demanded Rs.500/- as bribe. According to him, if the said amount is paid, the work will be done by next day evening. Though, PW1 pleaded his inability to pay the amount, the accused officer demanded payment of the said amount. The accused officer is said to have told PW1 that he will do the work only if the demanded amount is paid by next day evening. Though, PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he agreed to pay. Since, he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the accused officer; he went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau at 4.30 P.M., met the D.S.P., [PW6] and presented a report [Ex.P1].

iii. On receipt of the said report, PW6 asked PW1 to come to his office on next day i.e., 26.06.2001 along with the proposed bribe amount and receipt. Meanwhile, PW6 verified the antecedents of the accused officer and also the genuineness of the report. He found the accused officer to be corrupt, and that there is no ill-motive between the informant and the accused officer. After obtaining necessary permission, PW6 registered a case in Cr. No. 4/ACB-ATP/2001 under Section 4 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, issued Ex.P16 FIR, and sent the FIR to the court.

iv. On the next day, i.e. 26.06.2001 at about 2.00 P.M., PW6 secured the presence of PW2 -mediator and also one T.Raghuram [LW3] for laying the trap. The staff along with the trap party assembled at the office at 2.00 P.M., and conducted pre-trap proceedings. A copy of the report given by PW1 was handed over to mediators. The mediators questioned PW1 about the contents of the report and on being satisfied with regard to the contents of the report endorsed the same. On the request made by PW6, receipt bearing no. 055931 [Ex.P3] issued by the Assistant Engineer, Distribution, A.P. Transco, Gooty, in favor of PW1 was produced by PW1, which was seized for the purpose of investigation. The proposed bribe amount was also produced by PW1, which contains notes of one hundred rupee denomination. The numbers of the currency notes were incorporated in the mediator report. He explained the importance of phenolphthalein test and the manner of its use in the trap. Thereafter, P.C.1215 was asked to receive the amount and apply phenolphthalein powder gently. PW1, PW6 and other mediators were asked to dip their hands in the sodium carbonate solution to ascertain that none of them has any traces of phenolphthalein powder on their 5 fingers. PW1 was searched and all papers from his pocket were removed, except handkerchief. On his instructions, Police Constable kept the tainted currency notes in the left side shirt pocket of PW1, thereafter, the Police Constable was also asked to rinse his fingers in the colorless sodium carbonate solution. After explaining the significance of sodium carbonate solution test, PW6 instructed PW1 to pay the tainted amount to the accused officer only on his demand and not otherwise. After accepting the money, PW1 was asked to give a signal by wiping his face with his handkerchief thrice. P.C.1162 was asked to follow PW1 at a little distance and take vantage position and relay the signal given by PW1. PW6 carried the sodium carbonate solution with him for further use. The pre-trap proceedings were concluded by 3.00 P.M. on 26.06.2002. Ex.P4 is the pre-trap proceedings.

v. After concluding all the pre-trap proceedings, the raid party along with PW1 and others left the office in two government vehicles and reached market-yard Gooty at 4.15 P.M. PW6 reiterated the instructions to PW1 and P.C.1162. PW1 got down from the vehicle and proceeded towards the office of the accused officer. P.C.1162 also got down from the vehicle and followed PW1 at a distance. The remaining members of the trap party also got down from the vehicle and reached 6 near the vicinity of the office premises of accused officer at 4.25P.M. and took positions.

vi. PW1 went to the office of the accused officer and noticed that he was not in his seat. He came out of the office and stood there. About 10 minutes later, accused officer reached the office and on seeing PW1, asked him to come inside and accordingly PW1 went inside. At that time, no other person was present in the office. The accused officer asked PW1 as to whether he has brought the bribe amount, to which, PW1 nodded his head in affirmative. Then, accused officer demanded him to give the bribe amount. PW1 took the currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed over them to the accused officer. The accused officer received them with his right hand, counted them, and kept them in his purse. Thereafter, the purse was kept in his shirt pocket. Accused officer took out some papers, showed them to PW1 stating that he is attending to his work and requested PW1 to come out and have a tea with him. At that time, PW1 came out of the office, stood at the main gate of the office and gave the pre-arranged signal by wiping his face thrice with the handkerchief. On receiving the signal, the trap party rushed into the office. While entering the office, PW1 was asked to stay outside the office.

vii. On entering the office, PW6 found the accused officer sitting in his chair alone in the office. The trap party disclosed their identity and also ascertained the identity of the accused officer. The accused officer was then working as Foreman- Grade I, Office of the A.E., A.P. Transco, Central Distribution, Gooty.

viii. PW6 prepared sodium carbonate solution in two clean glass tumblers and on his request, the accused officer rinsed his right hand fingers in one of the sodium carbonate solution. On doing so, the solution turned into pink colour. Thereafter, he again asked the accused officer to rinse his left hand fingers in another glass tumblers containing colourless sodium carbonate solution. When the accused officer dipped his hand, the solution turned pink in colour. MO.3 and MO.4, the resultant solutions were seized. ix. When PW6 questioned the accused officer about the money received from PW1, he became panicky and after hesitation for a while, took his money purse from the left side shirt pocket voluntarily and produced a wad of currency notes from the purse. One of the mediators received the said currency notes and compared the denomination and serial numbers with those mentioned in pre-trap proceedings, which tallied. The currency notes, which were seized for investigation, are marked as Ex.P5. The inner lining of the 8 purse was also subjected to phenolphthalein test, which proved positive. The resultant solution is seized and produced before the court as MO.6. The money purse is placed on record as MO.7. The accused officer is said to have produced the paper pertaining to PW1, which he was writing when he entered in his office. On the table of the accused officer, a note book [Ex.P10] was found, in which rough sketch of the location pertaining to supplying of 3.0HP non- domestic supply to PW1 was drawn. All those documents were seized. When PW6 inquired about the application of PW1, the accused officer replied that it was kept in the table drawer of the casual labour Sri.Narayanaswamy, Office Assistant. The table was located in the same room but on the southern side facing north. The table drawer was found locked and said Narayanaswamy lineman was not in office by then. In the presence of PW4, the investigating agency broke open the lock of the right side table drawer of Narayanaswamy and took out the application form of PW1, and also the receipt book no. 560/81. The application with enclosures were placed on record as Ex.P2; while, the receipt is marked as Ex.P11. The explanation given by the accused officer, as to why and how the tainted amount came into his pocket, were incorporated in the post-trap proceedings. Ex.P13 are the proceedings, which were conducted in the office. The post-trap proceedings commenced at 5.30 P.M. 9 and concluded at 7.30 P.M. and a search list was prepared. Ex.P14 is the search list. Further, investigation in this case was transferred to Sri. V.Srinivasulu, Inspector, ACB, Ananthapur.

x. PW7 who took up investigation, received the case diary file for further investigation. He secured the presence of PW1 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 28.06.2001, he secured the presence of Sri. V. Narayana Reddy, Divisional Engineer, A.P. Transco, Gooty, and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 29.06.2001, he received proceedings from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantapur, nominating the J.F.C.M., Guntakal, for recording the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. On 02.07.2001, PW7 filed a requisition before the Court with a request to fix a date to record the statement of PW1. On 13.07.2001, he recorded the statement of P. Narayana Swamy under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, on 14.07.2001, the court recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1. After obtaining sanction, vide Ex.P15, PW7 submitted final report to Head Office, ACB, Hyderabad, and on his transfer, Sri. P. Venkatarama Reddy, filed the charge-sheet in this case, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 26 of 2002.

4) On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished. On appearance of the accused, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16, beside MO.1 to MO.8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied. The accused officer filed his written statement and got examined DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

6) Relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and others, the trial court found that, there was a demand and acceptance of money. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed, the present appeal came to be filed by the accused.

7) Sri. C. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, there was neither any demand nor acceptance of bribe amount by the accused officer. He pleads that, the money was collected for purchase of an electrical meter, which fact stands established not 11 only through the evidence of PW1, but, also the suggestions given to the prosecution witness. In other words, his plea is that, the amount was paid to the accused officer for arranging a meter to new connection through Guru Swamy, son of the accused officer, who was working under a electrical contractor. According to him, in good faith, the accused officer took the money from PW1, assuming that it was paid towards the cost of the meter and service wire required for new connection. He further pleads that, the work of preparing the estimate was handed over to P.Narayana Swamy by PW3, as the accused was not present in the office, on 18.06.2001, which fact is evident, as the application was found in the drawer of P.Narayana Swamy. It is urged that, as the estimate was not correct, the accused officer was asked to prepare the estimate. Therefore, the question of he demanding the money and accepting the same, when the work was entrusted to P. Narayana Swamy, would not arise. He further pleads that, PW1 had quarrel with them, on 25.06.2001, and thereafter lodged a report with false allegation of demand of money. As P. Narayana Swamy, was not examined by the prosecution, he would submit that, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.

8) Sri. S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for Anti Corruption Bureau, representing the State would contend that, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused officer, on 12 26.06.2001. It is his case that the work was entrusted by PW3 to the accused officer and also to P.Narayana Swamy and some of the papers relating to the service connection of PW1 were found on the table of the accused officer at the time of trap, which is evident from the evidence of investigating officer. He further pleads that, even as per the evidence of PW1, PW3 requested him to meet the accused officer for getting the estimates prepared. Probably for that reason, he was regularly meeting the accused officer from 19th onwards and ultimately, on 25.06.2001, he demanded the amount stating that unless the amount is paid by next day evening, his work would not be done. Therefore, it is pleaded that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that, there was no demand and acceptance, cannot be accepted. According to him, there was an official favor pending before him and the demand and acceptance made was only for doing an official favor. Further, as the test proved positive, it is to be presumed that the money was accepted for doing an official favour. In view of the above, he would contend that, the findings arrived at by the trial court requires no interference.

9) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the trial prosecution was able to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

10) Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that, pending appeal, the accused officer died and his legal representatives were brought on record, and it is their version that, they are pursuing the appeal for monetary gain, if any.

11) To appreciate the rival contentions, it would be useful to refer to the contents of the First Information Report and the evidence on record.

12) In the First Information Report given by PW1, it was stated that, as the cycle shop was not running properly, he thought of setting up a wet grinder business and accordingly obtained permission from the Grampanchayat. He intended to install a 3HP motor for electrical service, for which, he gave an application to Assistant Engineer, Transco, Gooty, on 18.06.2001, along with a challan of Rs.50/-. The Assistant Engineer asked PW1 to meet the accused officer, who was a Foreman. Thereupon, PW1 met the accused officer and asked him to prepare an estimate, who asked PW1 to come afterwards. According to him, on 25.06.2001, at about 12.30 P.M., PW1 met the accused officer in his office and enquired about application made for change in connection from Category II to Category I and the estimates to be prepared, for which, the accused officer demanded Rs.500/- as bribe by next day evening. As PW1 was not prepared to pay the bribe amount, a report was lodged and trap was laid.

13) From the contents of the First Information Report, it is evident that, PW1 met the Assistant Engineer and requested for a service connection to install 3HP motor and submitted an application to him, on 18.06.2001, along with a challan of Rs. 50/-. On 25.06.2001, PW1 met the accused officer and enquired about the change in connection from Category-II to Category-I and also the estimate to be prepared for installing 3 HP motor. The word 'estimate to be prepared' is now sought to be interpreted as for conversion of electrical connection of his house from Category- II to Category-I. Thus, taking into consideration the admissions in the evidence of PW1 and the evidence of the investigation officer that, there is no specific reference to demand of bribe for conversion of service connection and to install 3HP motor, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contend that, the entire fabric of the case has collapsed.

14) But, a perusal of the First Information Report itself would show that, when PW1 met the Assistant Engineer [PW3], A.P. Transco, on 18.06.2001, he asked PW1 to meet the accused officer and get the estimates prepared. The word 'estimates prepared' could only mean installing of 3HP motor, because, PW1 never gave an application seeking change in his residential service connection from Category-II to Category-I, nor did he requested PW3 for such conversion. The request before PW3 was for a new connection to install 3HP motor in Category-IV, for which estimates are required 15 to be prepared. Accordingly, PW3 asked PW1 to meet the accused officer to get the estimates prepared.

15) The evidence-in-chief of PW1, in short, is that, for setting up a wet grinder business, PW1 gave an application to PW3, on 18.06.2001, for supply of 3HP electrical connection. PW1 also paid Rs.50/- and a receipt was issued. PW3 asked PW1 to meet the accused officer to get the estimates prepared. Since, the accused officer was on camp, on that day, PW1 met him on 19.06.2001, outside the office. Later, PW1 met the accused officer two to three times and requested him to furnish estimates for Category-IV electrical connection, but, to no avail. On 25.06.2001, at about 12.00 noon, PW1 met the accused officer and requested him to prepare an estimate under Category-IV for the wet grinder, and also an estimate for conversion of electrical connection to his house, from Category-II to Category-I. Then, the accused officer replied that, he will do the work, if Rs.500/- is paid and that he will complete the work by next day evening. Though, PW1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe, the accused officer insisted that he will do the work only if the demanded amount is paid. Reluctant to pay the amount, PW1 gave a written report to PW6, on 25.06.2001 at 4.30 P.M. Accordingly, on 26.06.2001 at 4.50 P.M., PW1 approached the accused officer, who reiterated his demand and accepted the tainted bribe amount of Rs.500/- from PW1, counted the same, kept the currency notes in his money 16 purse and the purse in his shirt pocket. Then, the accused officer took out some papers showing them to be that of PW1 and asking him to have a tea, both of them come out. As instructed by A.C.B., officials, PW1 gave the pre-arranged signal of wiping his face with the handkerchief. On receiving the signal, the trap party rushed into the office and found the accused officer sitting in his chair. Thereafter, post-trap proceedings were conducted. Two hours later, the D.S.P., A.C.B., called PW1 and on his narration of happenings, the same was noted down in the mediators report. On 16.07.2001, Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 was recorded by the Magistrate.

16) In cross-examination, PW1 stated that, by the time he submitted Ex.P2 application, for a new service connection for 3HP motor, he had a service connection at his house. PW1 admits that, he did not give any application seeking a change in service connection from Category-II to Category-I. PW1 categorically admits that, he gave only one application, i.e., Ex.P2, for a new service connection of 3HP motor for Category-IV. It may be true that, PW1 admitted in his complaint that, he did not refer specifically for Category-IV connection, but, as stated earlier, in the First Information Report, PW1 categorically stated that, he met PW3 along with an application and challan of Rs.50/- for Category-IV connection to run wet grinder business. 17

17) The admissions elicited, in my view, are with specific reference to Category-IV service connection only. This finding of mine, get support from the evidence of PW3, who was working as Assistant Engineer in the Office of A.P. Transco at Gooty. In the evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of PW3, it has been elicited as under:

On 18.06.2001 Sri K. Sreeramulu [PW1] submitted an application for electrical supply for his wet grinder industry under Category-IV. Ex.P2 is the said application. I put my initial on it.

It is true the PW1 already got service connection prior to Ex.P2 application. Only one service connection will be given to a house.

PW1 did not give any application to convert the service connection from Category-II to Category-I. Conversion will be done by the E.R.O. No estimate is required for conversion of the service connection from one category to another category before permitting the conversion by the E.R.O. Before granting the permission the officials of the E.R.O. will inspect the service connection. Only after satisfying themselves, they permit the conversion of connection from one category to another category. PW1 gave the application only for issuance of fresh service connection.

18) From the evidence of this witness, it is very much clear that, no estimate is required for conversion of the service connection from category-II to category-I. Further, before such conversion, the officials of the E.R.O., will inspect the service connection and only after satisfying themselves, permit such conversion. Therefore, the accused officer has no role to play in changing the domestic 18 service connection and the word 'estimate prepared' referred to in the report relates only for installation of new service connection for 3HP motor Category-IV, for which an estimate is required.

19) At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that, in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it has to be established that the accused officer demanded and accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1 to do an official favor. In the absence of any evidence, with regard to the demand and acceptance, he pleads that, the prosecution has failed to prove its case for the offences with which the accused is charged.

20) It is to be noted here that, in the instant case, the accused officer was working as Foreman, Grade-I in the Office of the Assistant Engineer (Distribution), A.P. Transco, Gooty, Ananantapur. Therefore, he is a 'public servant', within the meaning of the Act.

21) Insofar as to whether there was any favour, which the accused officer could have done, it is to be noted here that, on 18.06.2001, PW1 gave an application, vide Ex.P2, to PW3 -

Assistant Engineer (Distribution) seeking electrical connection to his wet grinder industry under Category-IV. PW3 put his initial on it, and as some of the columns were not filled up in Ex.P2. On his 19 advice, the columns were filled up through their staff. An amount of Rs.50/- was paid, for which a receipt [Ex.P3] was issued. The said application was handed over to one Narayana Swamy - Office Assistant [not examined], since the accused officer was not present in the office, on that day, i.e. 18.06.2001, as he was in field work. Hence, the said Narayana Swamy was asked to prepare the estimate along with the accused officer. On 24.06.2001, PW3 asked the accused officer to inspect the site and verify the service connection, address and the load. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, since, the accused officer was not present in the office, on that day, the application [Ex.P2] was given to Narayana Swamy for preparing the estimates along with the accused officer. It is the version of PW3 that, on 24.06.2001, Narayana Swamy prepared the estimates and showed it to him and as the estimates prepared by Narayana Swamy were incorrect, PW3 asked accused officer to prepare fresh estimates for giving a connection.

22) Taking advantage of the answer elicited in the evidence of PW3, it is urged that, it was the Narayana Swamy, who was asked to prepare the estimates, and, since, the file relating to PW1 was recovered from the table drawer of the Narayana Swamy, which is evident from the evidence of PW3, it is urged that, the demand of money by the accused officer, for preparing the estimate, may not be correct.

23) It is to be noted here that, the said Narayana Swamy is only an Office Assistant, while the accused officer was working as Foreman Grade-I in the office. The evidence of PW3 shows that, he asked Narayana Swamy to prepare estimates and, since, the estimates were not correct, PW3 asked the accused officer to prepare the estimates. The evidence of PW2 and evidence of the investigation officer, coupled with the contents of the post-trap proceedings [Ex.P13] would show that, on the date of trap, when the accused officer was asked about the estimates pertaining to PW1, he produced papers, which were in his writing and said that the papers pertain to PW1. A perusal of the papers would reveal that, amongst the documents produced, one of the document is a report along with the estimate. A perusal of the report and the estimate, which are placed on record as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 would show, "proposal for one [01] number 3HP "service connection only". Ex.P6 discloses the estimates for installation of 3HP motor, and proposed collection of development, security and service connection charges of Rs.6,120/- from the consumer. Admittedly, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 were prepared by the accused officer, in his own writing, which were said to have been signed by the officer, on 26.06.2001. Merely because the application was in the drawer of Narayana Swamy, who is not examined, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, it cannot be said that, there was no favour, which the accused officer could have done to PW1. If really the accused officer has nothing to do with the application of PW1, 21 there is no explanation, as to how Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, which are estimates pertaining to Ex.P2 [application of PW1] were with Accused Officer, at the time of trap. Furthermore, the report, which is produced at the time of trap, by the accused officer, itself shows that, an amount of Rs.6,215/- was to be paid by the subscriber to the said connection, which only means that, the accused officer was aware of submission of Ex.P2 application by PW1. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused officer, as to how he prepared the said estimate, when he has nothing to do with the application of PW1. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the accused officer has no role to play in preparing the estimate and doing an official favour to PW1.

24) Now coming to the demand and acceptance, the evidence available on record would show that, on 26.06.2001, PW1 went to the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, and upon their instructions, handed over a sum of Rs.500/- to the mediators, who noted down the serial numbers of the notes. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and thereafter one Constable kept the tainted amount in front shirt pocket of PW1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, instructed him to give the tainted currency notes, to the accused officer, only on demand. Accordingly, PW1 went to the office of the accused officer and when the accused officer asked PW1 to hand over the money, he 22 took out the tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed them over to the accused officer. On that, the accused officer received the amount with his right hand, counted it; kept it in his money purse, and then kept the purse in his shirt pocket.

25) But, it is a case of the accused officer that, this amount was collected for purchasing a service meter through their contractor, who was examined as DW1. In other words, to be more precise, it is the case of the accused officer that, the son of the accused officer was working with DW1, and to purchase the said service meter from DW1, this amount of Rs.500/- was collected by the accused officer. It is no doubt true that, the said plea was never taken, at the time of post-trap proceedings, but suggestions given to PW1 that one M. Narasimhulu [DW1] is an electrical contractor; that the son of the accused officer was working under him; that the amount was given to the accused officer for purchasing service meter through DW1 son, who is working under DW1; and that the accused officer neither demanded any bribe nor accepted the bribe amount, were all denied by him. It was not even suggested to PW1, the value of the service meter to be installed, namely, as to whether it was worth Rs.500/- or Rs.1,000/- or whether Rs.500/- was inclusive of the wire as well. While the evidence of DW1 is to the effect that, the cost would vary from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- for service meter, fuse, board etc. To have a fresh service connection, a new meter, new service wire is required. The meter 23 will be purchased by the party and if the meter is not available in the department, the meter purchased by the party will be sent to MRT laboratory for testing. After testing, they will be installed. There is no evidence on record to show that the meters were not available in the department. Even assuming that, the meters are not available in the department, it is the party which has to purchase the meter and hand over the same to the department, who will in turn send it to MRT laboratory for testing.

26) As seen from the record, no evidence has been produced by DW1 to show that son of Accused Officer was working under Him. Even assuming that, DW1 is a Contractor, but, there is no evidence to show that, M.V. Guru Swamy, who is the son of the accused officer was entrusted with this work by DW1 and that, he regularly supplies meters, service wire or electrical material, at Rs.500/-. On the other hand, DW1 admits that, he has not filed any document to show that he has participated in the tenders and that the work was allotted to him to do contract works with the Central Power Distribution Company.

27) Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant that this amount of Rs.500/- was collected by the accused officer for purchasing the meter, service wire etc. from DW1 cannot be accepted. On the other hand, it is the party, which has to purchase the meter and give it to the department; and secondly, the evidence of DW1 does not anywhere show that the 24 meter, wire etc. would cost Rs.500/-. According to him, it ranges from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, the argument that the bribe amount of Rs.500/- was collected for purchase of meter, wire etc., cannot be accepted.

28) Hence, it is clear that the prosecution was able to establish that the accused officer demanded a sum of Rs.500/-, on 25.06.2001, and received the sum from PW1, on 26.06.2001. The explanation offered for receipt of money, being an after thought, cannot be accepted. Hence, when the demand and acceptance is proved and in the absence of any plausible explanation as to how the said money was in his pocket, that too, in his purse, this court is of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the trial court in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, warrants no interference.

29) In Sunil Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time- 1 (2003) 11 SCC 367 25 honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise".

30) On a conspectus of the evidence and the findings of the trial Court and for reasons stated above, this court is satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proved the demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification.

31) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 01.03.2007, passed in C.C. No. 26 of 2002, on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the appellant is upheld. Since, the appellant is said to have died, the bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant, shall stand cancelled. No order as to costs.

32) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 23.09.2020 SM.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2007 Date: .09.2020 SM.