Telangana High Court
R.V.Subramanayam vs The State Of A.P., Thru Cbi, Hyderabad, ... on 4 June, 2018
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1024 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., is filed by the accused officer in C.C. No.25 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court'), questioning the judgment dated 18.08.2008 whereby the trial Court found him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act'), accordingly convicted him of the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act.
2. Case of the prosecution is as follows:
The accused officer worked as Insurance Inspector in Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Charminar Division, Hyderabad during 2004. P.W.1 was the Supervisor, and P.W.5 was the Managing Partner, of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles, Dr. SA,J.Crl.A.No.1024 of 2008
2 Koti, Hyderabad. The accused officer inspected M/s. Vaibhav Textiles on 16.03.2004 and demanded Rs.6,000/- as illegal gratification from P.W.1 for writing a favourable inspection report and for reducing penalty amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. When P.W.5 contacted the accused officer, the accused officer reiterated his demand on 17.3.2004. On that, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-report on 18.3.2004. Basing on the same, P.W.8 issued Ex.P18-First Information Report and secured P.W.2-who was working as Administrative Officer in United India Insurance Company and one S.Ramanjaneyulu, who was working as an Officer in Bank of Baroda. After completion of pre-trap proceedings and preparing Ex.P3-first mediators report, he laid a trap against the accused officer on 18.3.2004, caught him red-handed under Ex.P5-second mediators report, while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.6,000/- from P.W.1 as illegal gratification to do the aforesaid official favour, seized Ex.P4-
inspection book, Ex.P7-attendance register, Exs.P8 and P9- files and Ex.P10-two sheets of paper. When right hand wash of the accused was subjected to chemical test, it gave positive result. The bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- was seized from right side pant pocket of the accused officer. Thereafter, the accused officer was arrested and sent for remand. The pant and right hand wash of the accused officer were forwarded to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. After receipt of FSL Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 20083 report and sanction under Ex.P15 from P.W.6, the charge sheet was laid.
3. The trial Court took cognizance of the case, and after furnishing copies of documents to the accused and after hearing both the sides, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused officer, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He admitted some evidence and denied some evidence, and filed written statement. But, no oral evidence is adduced on his behalf.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused officer, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20 and M.Os.1 to 5, before the trial Court. After considering the entire evidence on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.08.2008, convicted the accused officer in terms of Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (b) of the P.C. Act and sentenced him as stated supra. Challenging the said convictions and sentences imposed against the accused officer, the present appeal is filed.
Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 20084
6. Heard Sri S.Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for the appellant-accused officer, and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for the respondent-State, and perused the evidence on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused officer would submit that P.W.1 lodged a false report alleging that the accused officer demanded an amount of Rs.6,000/-; that the said report was lodged at the instance of P.W.5, Managing Partner of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles, Hyderabad; that P.W.8, the trap laying officer, without verifying the genuineness of the report, mechanically proceeded with the trap formalities; that there was no preliminary enquiry; that P.W.8 was not present when Ex.P1-report was received by the Superintendent of Police concerned and registration of Ex.P18-First Information Report; that P.W.8 did not make any endorsement either on Ex.P1 or on Ex.P18; that P.W.8 failed to examine P.W.5, Managing Partner of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles, Hyderabad before registering the First Information Report or before laying trap; that P.W.8, in haste, proceeded with the trap.
He would further contend that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused officer was shown all the challans relating to the period from October, 2000 to January, 2004 and the ledger entries from April, 1999 to March, 2003 to complete inspection by 16.03.2004; that the inspection was not completed till 18.03.2004 and so the Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 20085 question of the accused officer demanding any money, as alleged, does not arise. It is his further contention that the accused officer has no authority to impose any penalty on M/s. Vaibhav Textiles; that his duty is only to submit a report to the higher authorities and imposition of penalty would be decided by the higher authorities, and therefore, there was no opportunity for the accused officer to demand any bribe, which is the essential requirement of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.
It is his further submission that P.W.5-Managing Partner of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles was unhappy with the inspection being carried on by the accused as the said Textiles was figured in the list of defaulters; that except the interested and motivated evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 as to demand of bribe, there is no other corroborative or independent evidence to substantiate the alleged demand of bribe; that P.W.2, accompanying witness, neither witnessed P.W.1 handing over money to the accused officer nor he heard any conversation alleged to have been made between P.W.1 and the accused officer, and hence, his evidence is of no use to the prosecution case.
It is his further contention that P.W.1 forcibly thrusted the tainted amount into the pant pocket of the accused officer inspite of resistance by the latter with his right hand as he was holding Ex.P4-register in his left hand; that Ex.P5-second mediators report was prepared conveniently at CBI office and Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 20086 it was served on the accused officer at 1.50 AM on 19.03.2004; that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused officer for the offences with which he was charged, beyond all reasonable doubt, and ultimately, prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court.
8. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would contend that there are no material omissions or contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; that the tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- was recovered from the pant pocket of the accused officer and the right hand fingers of the accused officer were subjected to Sodium Carbonate examination, which gave positive result; that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (b) of the PC Act beyond all reasonable doubt; that the accused officer has set up a false defence of thrusting the money in his pant pocket; that the accused officer has taken different stands with regard to recovery of Rs.6,000/- from his right pant pocket; that the Court below has given number of reasons in finding the accused officer guilty of the offences with which he was charged, and the said findings are based on the evidence on record, and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 20087
9. In view of the rival submissions, the points that arise for determination are :
(i) Whether the accused officer inspected M/s.
Vaibhav Textiles, Koti, Hyderabad on 16.03.2004 and demanded Rs.6,000/- as illegal gratification from P.W.1 to give a favourable inspection report and for reducing penalty from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/- ?
(ii) Whether the accused officer was caught red- handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- from P.W.1 on 18.03.2004 ?
(iii) Whether the convictions and sentences recorded against the accused officer for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are liable to be set aside ? POINTS:
10. As per the evidence placed on record, the accused officer worked as Inspector in ESI Corporation, Charminar Division, Hyderabad. He visited M/s. Vaibhav Textiles on 12.03.2004, met P.W.1 and stated to him that he would inspect M/s.
Vaibhav Textiles on 16.03.2004. Ex.P6-salary register of M/s.Vaibhav Textiles, Ex.P7-attendance register and Ex.P9-file consisting of E.S.I. challans, reveal that these documents were signed by the accused officer on 16.03.2004. There is specific evidence of P.W.1, who was working as Supervisor in M/s.Vaibhav Textiles as on that date. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused officer had signed on some other Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 20088 registers in token of inspecting records. P.W.4, who is the Branch Manager of ESI Corporation, deposed that the accused officer collected files from his office on 15.03.2004 to inspect M/s. Vaibhav Textiles. Similarly, P.W.3, the Deputy Director of ESI Corporation, Regional Office, Hyderabad, deposed that the accused officer was an Inspector in the Corporation and he provided his tour programme in advance. Ex.P12 is the tour programme provided by the accused officer for the month of March, 2004, which reveals that on 16.03.2004, the accused officer had to inspect M/s. Vaibhav Textiles. There is no dispute with regard to the official position of P.Ws.3 and 4. There is specific mention in Ex.P12-tour programme that the accused officer would inspect M/s. Vaibhav Textiles on 16.03.2004 and a Code number was provided for that. There is no much dispute with regard to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and Ex.P12-tour programme. It is also not much in dispute that P.W.1, Supervisor of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles, did not show files to the accused officer on 16.03.2004.
11. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the accused officer that the accused officer has no authority to impose fine and that he was not shown challans and other entries in the books of account of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles for the relevant period, and that the inspection was not completed till the date of trap i.e. 18.3.2004, and so, the question of the accused officer demanding any bribe would not arise, and consequently, the essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 20089 Section 7 (a) of the PC Act has not been complied with. There is specific evidence of P.W.1 that the accused officer inspected records of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles on 16.03.2004 and signed Ex.P6-salary register, Ex.P7-attendance register and Ex.P9-a file consisting ESI challans. It is borne by the record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused officer did not conduct inspection on 16.03.2004. The evidence of P.W.1 and the recitals in Ex.P10 reveal that Ex.P10 was handed to P.W.1 to obtain signature of owner of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles. The same is admitted by the accused officer. So, the visit of the accused officer on 16.03.2004 to M/s. Vaibhav Textiles cannot be disbelieved. There is also specific evidence of P.W.1 that on 16.03.2004, the accused officer inspected the records of M/s.Vaibhav Textiles, pointed out certain irregularities/ mistakes, and stated that the records were not properly maintained and that there was possibility of imposing fine up to Rs.20,000/-, and that he would write favourable report on payment of Rs.6,000/- as illegal gratification to him. P.W.1 communicated the same to P.W.5, who is the Managing Partner of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles. P.W.1 also stated that the accused officer provided him his cell phone number. There is also evidence of P.W.5 that on 17.03.2004, he contacted the accused officer on cell phone and the latter stated to him that there was possibility of imposing penalty up to Rs.20,000/- as there were some irregularities/mistakes in maintaining records of M/s.Vaibhav Textiles and if Rs.6,000/- was paid to him he would write a favourable report and would see that the penalty Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200810 is reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. P.W.5 clearly stated in his evidence that he was not inclined to pay the bribe and so he authorized P.W.1 to lodge a report. There is consistency and corroboration on these aspects between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5. As seen from entire cross- examination of these witnesses, no animosity or grudge or any other reason is pointed out for these witnesses to depose false against the accused officer. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that P.W.5-Managing Partner of M/s. Vaibhav Textiles did not speak to the accused officer on 17.03.2018 over phone number provided to him by P.W.1. This piece of evidence given by P.W.1 cannot be disbelieved. When P.W.5 specifically stated that he spoke to the accused officer on 17.03.2004, no document is necessary to establish the said conversation. Further, the accused officer was not known to P.W.1 or P.W.5 before he inspected the said textiles shop.
12. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused officer wanted to further inspect the textiles shop on 18.03.2004 and on that day the illegal gratification demanded by him was required to be paid to him and then he would complete inspection report on that day itself. As per the evidence, P.W.1 approached the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad on 18.03.2004 and presented Ex.P1-report. The Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad entrusted Ex.P1-report to P.W.8 for investigation. There is also evidence of P.W.8 that he received Ex.P1-report and issued Ex.P18-First Information Report in this Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200811 case. It is his further evidence that he secured P.W.2 and one Ramanjaneyulu, and prepared Ex.P3-first mediators report in the presence of P.W.1 i.e. with regard to P.W.1 providing Rs.6,000/-, noting down denominations, applying phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, etc. There is also evidence of P.W.8, P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the trap was laid on 18.03.2004. There is specific evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 that the accused officer demanded an amount of Rs.6,000/- as illegal gratification to write a favourable report to reduce the penalty from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.
13. It is apt to refer to Section 7 (a) and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, which read thus:
"Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act:
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification, whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disserve to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, Corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2 or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months Dr. SA,J.Crl.A.No.1024 of 2008 12
but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
(b) Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act reads thus:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a Public servant:
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct-
(a) ...
(b)...
(c)...
(d) if he -
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;"
(c) Section 13 (2) of the Act reads thus:
"Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine"
14. There is no dispute that the accused officer is a public servant. The accused officer demanded Rs.6,000/- as bribe to submit a favourable report to reduce the proposed penalty from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The demand of Rs.6,000/- is Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200813 nothing but illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for the purpose of doing an official favour. Whether the accused officer has authority to impose fine, is not relevant. Therefore, the requirements of the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act are proved against the accused officer.
15. There is also evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that after completion of pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P3, they went to M/s. Vaibhav Textiles, and the accused officer was at ground floor. Then, P.W.1 came to ground floor and took the accused officer to fourth floor where P.W.2 was pretending as if he was doing some work on computer. Admittedly, P.W.2 did not hear the conversation between the accused officer and P.W.1. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that the accused officer demanded the agreed amount when he was at second floor. The tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- was handed over to the accused officer by P.W.1. The accused officer took the amount with his right hand and kept the same in his right side pant pocket on 18.03.2004. The tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- was recovered from the right side pant pocket of the accused officer. When the right pant pocket and the right hand of the accused officer were subjected to chemical examination, the result was positive.
16. It is contended on behalf of the accused officer that the tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- was thrusted by P.W.1 in his right side pant pocket. There are inconsistencies in the defence set up by the accused officer. When the accused officer is a Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200814 stranger and when there is no animosity or any reason for P.W.1 to falsely implicate the accused officer in a case of this nature, there is no reason for P.W.1 to lodge Ex.P1-report and forcibly thrust the money in the right side pant pocket of the accused officer. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 is the only witness with regard to handing over the money to the accused officer. There are no omissions or contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to prosecution case. The accused officer was caught red-handed, tainted amount of Rs.6,000/- was seized from his right side pant pocket and the numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the currency note numbers mentioned in Ex.P3-pre-trap proceedings. The right side pant pocket and the right hand of the accused officer were found containing traces of phenolphthalein which was sprayed on the tainted currency notes. The forensic examination and the evidence placed before the Court establishes the same. Number of documents connected to the transaction in between M/s. Vaibhav Textiles and the accused officer were seized in the course of investigation. Apart from the oral evidence of P.W.1, there is also the testimony of P.W.2-mediator, strengthening the prosecution case. There is no dispute with regard to presence of P.W.1 or P.W.2 at M/s. Vaibhav Textiles. There is also no dispute with regard to the raid conducted by the C.B.I. in this case. 12 Nos. of Rs.500/- denomination currency notes were used in the trap. The same were handed over by P.W.1 to the accused officer. The details of notes recovered from the accused officer tallied with the numbers and details of currency notes Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200815 noted in Ex.P3-first mediators report. There is no evidence of resistance or the so-called thrusting of the notes into the right side pant pocket of the accused officer. Had the notes been forcibly thrusted in the right side pant pocket of the accused officer, the right hand of the accused officer would not have turned into pink when tested with Sodium Carbonate solution. It goes to show that the accused had taken a false defence.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused officer relied on the following decisions.
(a) In M.Janardhan v. State of A.P.1 wherein it is held thus:
"Thus, in the instant case, there is no satisfactory and convincing evidence regarding the factum of payment of bribe by P.W.1 to the appellant. Therefore, the learned trial Court ought not to have raised a presumption against the appellant under Section 20 (1) of the Act..."
In the particular facts of the above case, learned single Judge of this Court held as above. In the case on hand, the prosecution is able to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe. Therefore, the above decision is not helpful to the case of the appellant.
(b) In C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI2, Cochin wherein it is held thus : (para 18) "The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to 1 2013 (1) ALD (Cri) 337 2 (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779 Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200816 show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe."
(c) In Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana,3 wherein it is held thus: (para 20) "It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstancial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard. So far as it satisfies the essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence."
There is no dispute about the propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases.
(d) In State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma4, wherein it is held thus: (para 11) "The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act 1988. While invoking the 3 (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450 4 (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 153 Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200817 provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person." There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court. While dealing with an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, the Apex Court held thus. In the case on hand, P.W.1 is not an interested or partisan witness, and his evidence is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, who is an independent witness, and the prosecution is able to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe for doing an official favour by the accused officer.
(e) In Dhayanandhan @ Dhayalan (died) D.Shanthi v. State, the High Court of Madras, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, that in view of the contradictory evidence given by P.W.2 about the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused, extended benefit of doubt to the accused. But, the facts in the case on hand are different. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is cogent and convincing.
Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200818
18. The facts and circumstances of the other cases in Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka5, in Meena (smt) w/o. Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra6 and in State of Karnataka Tr. Lokayukt Police v. Srinivas7, are quite different from the instant case. In the case on hand, there is specific evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 8 with regard to trap laid and recovery of Rs.6,000/- from the right side pant pocket of the accused officer, and when the right side pant pocket and the right hand of the accused officer were subjected to Sodium Carbonate solution test, the same turned into pink. Further, there is also expert evidence to substantiate the same. The instant case is distinctly placed from the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the accused officer.
19. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases relied on a decision in Umesh Manan v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment Lokayuktda Office8, wherein it is held that to attract Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, demand and acceptance are sine qua non. When there is evidence relating to trap and recovery of illegal gratification, the High Court rightly reversed the acquittal recorded by the trial Court therein and convicted the appellant therein of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case on hand, 5 2015 (10) Supreme Court Cases 230 6 (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 21 7 CDJ 2015 SC 1035 8 (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 608 Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200819 the demand and acceptance were proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. In the circumstances of the case, a presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act against the accused officer that he accepted Rs.6,000/- as gratification to prepare and submit preliminary report. It is well settled law that once the prosecution established the gratification in any form cash or kind had been paid or accepted by a public servant, the Court is under legal compulsion to presume that the said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to do or forbear from doing any official act.
20. In the case on hand, there is cogent and clinching evidence to establish the demand for doing an official favour, acceptance of illegal gratification and recovery of same, i.e., tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused officer. All the contentions and defences set up by the accused officer are untenable. The court below, while dealing with the subject, had elaborately dealt with entire evidence on record and found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act and convicted him of the said offences. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. There is no ground to take a different view.
Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200820
21. As regards sentence, the trial Court dealt with gravity of the offence and imposed the punishment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months, under each count, for the aforesaid offences. There are no circumstances to vary with the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 18.08.2008 in C.C. No.25 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.
Date: 04 .06.2018.
DRK Dr. SA,J.
Crl.A.No.1024 of 200821 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1024 OF 2008 04.06.2018 DRK