Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Patan Ali Khan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
APHC010053462023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 92/2023
Between:
Patan Ali Khan ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAJENDRA C
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. S M SUBHANI (SC FOR ACB AND SPL PP)
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.92 OF 2023
ORDER:
A Deputy Tahsildar being accused No.1 in C.C.No.8 of 2022 filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 prayed for his discharge before the learned Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases at Kurnool. His prayer in Crl.M.P.No.963 of 2022 in C.C.No.8 of 2022 was heard and by order dated 12.12.2022 the learned Special Judge found no merit in it and dismissed it and thus, refused to discharge him. That forced him to file this revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
2. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the Village Revenue Officer who was arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C.No.8 of 2022.
3. Sri C.Rajendra, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri S.M.Subhani, the learned Standing Counsel for ACB and 3 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023 Special Public Prosecutor submitted their respective arguments. Both sides cited legal authorities.
4. This revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.963 of 2022 in C.C.No.8 of 2022 before the learned trial Court under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. Therefore, it is appropriate to notice Section 239 Cr.P.C., which reads as mentioned below:
"239. When accused shall be discharged:--If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."
5. It is incumbent upon the Court below to consider the material placed before it and the submissions made before it and if it comes to a view that the accusation against the accused is groundless then it is bound to discharge him. In other words, if the accusation against the accused is discernible from the material available on record, it has to charge him and proceed further with the trial of the case. In the opinion of the trial Court, there was prima facie material and in that view of the matter it 4 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023 dismissed the petition. This being a revision, this Court now has to consider whether the view taken by the learned Special Judge is illegal or irregular or improper and whether the material on record discloses any facts constituting the offences or not as against this petitioner. The test which may be applied for determining whether the charge would be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever. At the stage of charge hearing, the Court below was to consider the report of the investigation agency and the documents sent along with it and give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to make their submissions based on that material. On considering those aspects, if it finds there is legal evidence to proceed further, it should charge him and if it finds no ground to proceed further, it should discharge him. "Groundless means there shall be no basis or foundation in evidence to make an accusation" vide State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Soundirarasu1. In view of these principles, now it must be seen whether there is no ground for presuming that the revision petitioner has committed the offence or not.
1 (2023) 6 SCC 768 5 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023
6. Briefly stated the facts are this:
Sri Gorla Obulesh is the one who moved the criminal justice machinery. He intended to purchase an immovable property and obtained an agreement for sale from the vendor and thereafter as it did not materialize into a sale deed, he had to sue him and finally he had obtained a decree in his favour. During execution proceedings, he got his registered sale deed through the process of law. It was in that context he required his passbooks since the property involved is Ac.6.46 cents of agricultural land in Survey No.302/1. That need made him to move the officers and staff of Tahsildar, Yerraguntla. This revision petitioner was working as Deputy Tahsildar in that office. Respondent No.2 was attached to that office in the capacity of Village Revenue Officer. The case of the prosecution would show multiple number of times the citizen approaching the officers especially these two and they demanded for bribe. The allegations are that each of them demanded money to do the work that was required. Finally, he told them that he would pay money, but met the ACB and the legal process commenced. A necessary trap was laid and the decoy went to the office and 6 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023 found A.1 and A.2 together in the office room. A.1 questioned him whether he brought the money and the decoy told him that he brought the demanded Rs.10,000/- for obtaining his passbook. On listening to his reply, the revision petitioner/A.1 told him to pay the bribe amount to A.2. He handed over Rs.10,000/- to A.2 which he counted and kept it in his left side upper pocket of the shirt. Matters did not end there. A.2 asked about his share of bribe and the decoy told him that he brought the demanded Rs.5,000/- and he handed it over to A.2. This time A.2 received it and kept it in the left side pocket of trousers. The raiding team came and they got A.1 and A.2. From the shirt pocket as well as pocket of trousers of A.2, the tainted currency was recovered and on conducting test using sodium carbonate solution, it yielded positive result. Thus, bribe demanded by both the accused and was paid by the decoy were physically recovered from A.2 only. The test was conducted to the hands of A.1 and that did not yield any result. Investigation progressed further and citing 18 witnesses, the charge sheet was laid after obtaining necessary sanction orders from the Government.7
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023
7. It is against record so available, the revision petitioner/A.1 seeks his discharge. In this revision, the following grounds are urged:
The allegations made against him are false. He has been discharging his duties as per the work manuals in issuing pattadar passbooks and for entering the entries in the web land. He has never violated his duties.
The allegations levelled against him are far from truth. The record produced including Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements do not indicate any iota of evidence. Statement of the decoy/LW.1 made before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were contradictory to each other.
The witnesses cited in the charge sheet are pocket witnesses of the State.8
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023 Tahsildar is the competent officer to issue passbooks, but the petitioner is falsely implicated. There is no conspiracy between this revision petitioner and respondent No.2.
The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the real facts and circumstances and failed to appreciate the essence of concept of prima facie case in this type of cases.
The rulings cited by the revision petitioner were not properly considered by the trial Court.
Since the material on record itself indicated that the tainted money was not with the petitioner, there was no acceptance of bribe and therefore, he should be discharged.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner cited E.Venkataiah v. State of A.P.2.
2 2014 (1) ALT(CRI.) 82 (A.P.) 9 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023
9. That was a case where after due trial, the accused was convicted by the trial Court under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the appeal placed before this Court, a learned Judge found that the trial Court committed an error in invoking the presumption contained in Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act; since such presumption would arise only when the prosecution was able to prove the basic facts but not otherwise. Observing that the evidence on record did not establish voluntary acceptance of tainted amount and did not establish recovery of tainted amount from the accused, this Court found doubts in the veracity of the prosecution and granted the benefit of that doubt and upset the trial Court judgment and acquitted the accused.
10. Emphasizing his contention, the learned counsel submits that the revision petitioner is innocent, and his innocence can be clearly seen in the fact that his hands were clean, and nothing was recovered from him.
11. Truth or otherwise of the prosecution case, the strength and weakness of the case and the quality of the evidence that is proposed are matters that require trial. However, the stage of the 10 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023 case is earlier to the commencement of the trial. Here Court is not concerned with truth or otherwise of the allegations and it is obliged to see what the allegations are and whether those allegations are made based on any facts available through the oral statements of the witnesses or the documents. If such allegations are based on such material and if those allegations indicate demand and acceptance of bribe, then one must necessarily record that there is a prima facie case. The material on record in this case does in detail contain the statements of the witnesses showing that there has been consistent demand for bribe on part of this petitioner. Coming to acceptance of the bribe, the oral statements on record abundantly show that a dialogue took place between the petitioner and the decoy consequent upon which the decoy handed over the bribe money to A.2. The fact from the record is that in two separate bunches from two different places of his wearing apparels of A.2, tainted money was received. This one fact when read in this context standing in the shoes of decoy it would be noticed that to meet the demand of this revision petitioner he had paid the amount in the manner directed by him. If all this material remains unrebutted, it would certainly show facts that would constitute the 11 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023 penal provisions for which the charge sheet was filed. The fact that nothing was recovered from this revision petitioner is a fact that would fall for consideration in assessing the credibility of the evidence as and when it is produced. Merely because tainted money was not received by the very hands of the public servant has no bearing at this stage as he was in the company of his accomplice who was holding tainted money meant for both. In similar circumstances, this Court laid the law refusing to discharge and reference in this regard could be made to O.Yellamanda Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3.
12. In the light of what is mentioned above, it is clear to the mind of this Court that the learned Special Judge appropriately appreciated the material on record and rightly considered the legal position and arrived at proper conclusions. The refusal to discharge is the reasoned order passed by the learned Special Judge. This Court finds no illegality or impropriety or irregularity in the said order. Therefore, no interference is needed.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The impugned order dated 12.12.2022 of learned Special Judge for 3 Crl.P.No.5647 of 2015 dated 14.06.2018 12 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023 trial of SPE and ACB Cases at Kurnool in Crl.M.P.No.963 of 2022 in C.C.No.8 of 2022 stands confirmed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 06.08.2024 Ivd 13 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.92 OF 2023 Date: 06.08.2024 Ivd