APHC010466812009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 241/2009 Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, FOR ACB., HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ACB., NELLORE RANGE, NELLORE. ...APPELLANT A N D 1. B VENKATA NARASIAHA, Village Secretary, Telugurayapuram (V), Kaluvoy Mandal, Nellore District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Crl.A., questioning the acquittal U/sec. 7 & 13 (2) R/w 13 (1) (d) of of P.C.Act, 1988, of the respondent / accused officer herein, in CC.No. 21 of 2004 on the file of the Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, after obtaining the permission from the Govt. vide Memo No. 2264/ Vig./IV.A2/2004-5, dt.04-10-2008 of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLAMP 2307 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant special leave permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent / accused officer herein, u/s. 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) in SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 2 CC.No.21 of 2004 on the file of the Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB Counsel for the Respondent: 1. N RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following: SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 3 J U D G M E N T This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 09.06.2008 passed in Calendar Case No.21 of 2004 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned Special Judge’) against the respondent/Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the AO’) whereby the respondent/AO was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’) in terms of Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’). 2. 2. Sum and substance of the charges against the accused officer is that, the accused officer, being a Public Servant, employed as Village Secretary, Telugurayapuram village, Kaluvoy Mandal, Nellore District, demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from P.W1, towards illegal gratification other than legal remuneration to issue pattadar pass books in favour of his mother viz. L.W3/Kappala Jayamma and his maternal uncle, and accepted the tainted money of Rs.1,000/- from P.W1 on 14.05.2003 at Telugurayapuram village, for doing such official favour, thereby the accused officer committed SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 4 the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. 3. Vide Judgment, dated 09.06.2008 the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused officer of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 in terms of Section 248 (1) of CrPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused officer, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Kappala Chinna Narasaiah, who was the father of P.W1 and husband of L.W3/Kappala Jayamma, died on 26.09.2000; that he had Ac.0.71 cents of land at his village and he obtained pattadar pass book in his name for the above said extent; P.W1 and his mother, L.W3/ Kappala Jayamma sold away Ac.0.41 cents of land to one M.Pullaiah under an agreement and in order to get mutation of the said transaction, they are in need of pattadar pass book in favour of L.W3/Kappala Jayamma; that P.W1 got prepared a petition in the name of L.W3/Kappala Jayamma and addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaluvoy with a request to transfer the pattadar pass book in the name of L.W3/Kappala Jayamma. SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 5 (b) P.W2, who is maternal uncle of P.W1, wanted to obtain new pattadar pass book for the land purchased by him about two years back under a Registered Sale Deed and P.W1 got prepared another petition in favour of P.W2 and addressed the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaluvoy. (c) On 15.04.2003, P.W1 approached P.W4, the Mandal Revenue Officer of Kaluvoy and handed over the petitions of P.W2 and L.W3/Kappala Jayamma, who, in turn endorsed the two petitions to the accused officer, he being the Village Secretary, Telugurayapuram, for enquiry and report; that P.W1 handed over the two petitions to the accused officer and requested him for issuance of pattadar pass books; that the accused being a public servant, demanded P.W1 to pay illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- to do official favour; that the accused officer also stated that he would record the statement of P.W2. (d) On 18.04.2003, the accused officer visited Telugurayapuram, obtained the statement of P.W2 and enquired P.W1 as to whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- and when P.W1 replied that he had not brought the amount, the accused officer informed P.W1 that his work would be done whenever he brought the demanded amount; that P.W1 SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 6 approached the accused officer several times and requested him to do work, but the accused officer did not do work; that on 11.05.2003 P.W1 approached the accused officer and requested him to process the petitions of P.W2 and L.W3/Kappala Jayamma; that the accused officer informed P.W1 that he would visit Telugurayapuram village on the morning of 14.05.2003 and demanded him to pay illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- to him to do official favour i.e. to process the two petitions and to send the enquiry report for issuance of pattadar pass books and P.W1 accepted to pay the same. (e) Unwilling to pay the bribe, the accused officer approached P.W8, Inspector of Police, Range-I, ACB, Nellore and presented Ex.P7-report; that P.W7, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nellore registered Ex.P7-report as a case in Crime No.13/RCT-NLR/2003 and issued Ex.P13-FIR. (f) On 14.05.2003 at about 2.40 p.m. P.W1 along with P.W2 approached the accused officer at the house of L.W10/Karatampati Dayakar at Telugurayapuram village and on seeing P.W1, the accused officer enquired him as to whether he brought the demanded amount and when he gave reply affirmatively, the accused officer took P.W1 to the eastern side SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 7 verandah and there, he demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from P.W1. P.W2 witnessed the above transaction; that P.W7, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nellore, received the pre-arranged signal at 2.50 p.m. and rushed into the house of L.W10/Karatampati Dayakar; that when both hands fingers of the accused officer were subjected to Sodium Carbonate Solution test, the Test proved positive. The tainted amount was seized from the inside the upper pocket of shirt of the accused officer; that the inner linings of left side inner pocket of the shirt of accused officer was subjected to chemical test and it proved positive. P.W7, Deputy Superintendent of Police seized the petitions of P.W2 and L.W3/ Kappala Jayamma, four pass books, which were produced from an almyrah in the house of L.W10/ K.Dayakar and produced the accused officer. After completion of investigation and after the receipt of Ex.P21, Sanction Order, L.W15/K.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore District filed Charge Sheet. 5. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case against the accused officer for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 8 6. The accused officer was examined under Section 239 CrPC after furnishing copies of the documents. He denied the accusations. Charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 were framed against him, and when the charges were read over and explained to him, in Telugu, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 8. 8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused officer was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 9. On behalf of defence, the Junior Assistant working in the MRO Office, Dagadarthi, Nellore District was examined as D.W1 and got exhibited Exs.D1 to D3. 10. Considering the evidence on record, learned Special Judge found the accused officer not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 and acquitted him in terms of Section 248 (1) SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 9 CrPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State/appellant contended that the accused officer worked as Village Secretary in Telugurayapuram village, Kaluvoy Mandal of Nellore District at the relevant point of time of the incident and he comes within the purview of Section 2 (c) of the Act, 1988 as such public servant. It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that basing on the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused officer. The entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses proves the demand made by the accused officer prior and also on the date of the trap. The evidence of P.W4, Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaluvai would establish that subsequent to his endorsement on the applications made by P.W1, he did not receive the report from the accused officer for processing the same to issue Pattadar Pass Books in their favour, therefore, the evidence of P.W4 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it can be presumed that official favour was pending with the accused officer as on the date of trap, and the accused officer was present and demanded P.W1 as to whether he brought the bribe amount and received the same from P.W1.. It is SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 10 his further submission that subsequent to demand made by the accused officer, P.W1 handed over the amount to the accused officer, who received the same and the Sodium Carbonate test conducted to the both hands fingers of accused officer and his inner linings of the left side shirt pocket, gave positive result; that the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused officer for the offences alleged against him, but the learned Special Judge did not consider these aspects in right perspective and erred in acquitting the accused officer of the offences with which he was charged. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and convict and sentence the accused officer. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused officer contended that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 muchless the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and their evidence does not connect the accused officer with the offences alleged; that there is no legal evidence to prove either demand or acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused officer; that the amount that was received by the accused officer was paid by P.W2 towards cist and the evidence of D.W1 coupled with Exs.D1 and D2 proves the same; that the prosecution failed to SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 11 establish the alleged demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused officer, which are necessary ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988; that the learned Special Judge considered these aspects in right perspective and rightly acquitted him and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 13. Now the point for consideration is- “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the respondent/AO for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt or not, and whether the impugned judgment calls for any interference by this Court? 14. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 12 acquittal because there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 15. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab1, wherein it is held as follows: (paragraph No.8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 13 an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 16. The first charge framed against the respondent/AO is that he, working as Village Secretary, Telugurayapuram village, Kaluvoy Mandal, Nellore District, on 15.04.2003 demanded Rs.1,000/- from P.W1 towards illegal gratification other than legal remuneration to process the applications for issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of L.W3/K.Jayamma and P.W2, and in pursuance of the said demand, on 14.05.2003, at about 2.40 p.m. in the eastern side verandah of the house of L.W10/Karatampati Dayakar, the accused officer demanded and accepted the tainted SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 14 money of Rs.1,000/- from P.W1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The second charge is that the respondent/AO, by means of corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.1,000/- from P.W1 on 14.05.2003 and thereby committed an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. 17. In order to attract an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, the necessary ingredients to be established are that the respondent/AO is a public servant and that he accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration and the gratification was to do an official favour. Under Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988, if a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he is guilty of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. 18. The respondent/AO was working as Village Secretary, Telugurayapuram village, Kaluvoy Mandal, Nellore District at the SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 15 relevant point of time of the incident. There is no dispute that he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988. Ex.P21 is the Order issued by the Government according sanction to prosecute the respondent/AO. The evidence of P.W5 substantiates the same. 19. Coming to evidence, P.W.1, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P7-report, deposed that an extent of Ac.0.71 cents of land was in the name of his father and pattadar pass book was also issued in the name of his father; that his father died on 26.09.2000; that his mother sold away Ac.0.41 cents of land to Mamudur Pullaiah under an Agreement and intended to transfer the land in the name of his mother by obtaining pattadar pass book. He further deposed that he submitted Ex.P1-application to the Mandal Revenue Officer by annexing Ex.P2-Death Certificate of his father, Ex.P3-Title Deed Pass Book, and Ex.P4- Pattadar Pass Book. 20. P.W1 further deposed that P.W2 is his maternal uncle and he purchased Ac.1.38 cents of land under a Registered Sale Deed; that P.W2 informed P.W1 that he requires pattadar pass SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 16 book for the purchased land; that P.W1 submitted Ex.P5- application along with Ex.P6-Registered Sale Deed. 21. P.W1 further deposed that on 15.04.2003 he took the above documents to MRO Office, Kaluvai and approached the MRO and handed over the aforesaid documents; that the MRO endorsed the applications to the Village Secretary, Telugurayapuram village, and handed over the documents to P.W1 and instructed him to get the work done from the accused officer. It is his specific evidence that he obtained copies of Exs.P1 and P5 and handed over the said documents to the accused officer, who was the Village Secretary of their village and when he was in MDO Office at Kaluvai, the accused officer demanded P.W1 a bribe of Rs.1,000/- and told him that if he pays the amount, pattadar pass books will be issued to him. It is the evidence of P.W1 that the accused officer told him to bring P.W2 to record his statement; that three days thereafter, P.W1 met the accused officer in his village and that, the accused officer told him to bring P.W2 and photographs of P.W2 and L.W3/Jayamma and then, he would record the statement of P.W2. SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 17 22. P.W1 further deposed in his evidence that on 18.04.2003, when he took P.W2 to the accused officer, who was at the house of P.W6, the accused officer recorded the statement of P.W2 and obtained his signature and also received the photographs of P.W2 and L.W3/K.Jayamma; that the accused officer enquired P.W1 as to whether he brought the amount of Rs.1,000/- as demanded by him; that the accused officer informed P.W1 that the works would be done only after payment of the amount; that the accused officer told him that he would come to the village on 12.05.2003 and if the amount is paid, works would be done; that on 12.05.2003 P.W1 met the accused officer in the village and reiterated his earlier demand; that the accused officer stated that he would come again to the village on 14.05.2003 and if P.W1 pays the amount, he would do the work. 23. With regard to complaining to the ACB officials, it is the evidence of P.W1 that on 12.05.2003 at about 1.30 p.m. P.W1 went to ACB Office, Nellore and gave Ex.P7-report to P.W8 and he was told to come on the next day; that on 14.05.2003 at about 6.30 a.m., P.W1 along with P.W2 went to ACB Office, Nellore. According to P.W1, the DSP, other staff and two mediators were present in the office; that one of the mediators read over the SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 18 contents of copy of Ex.P23-FIR; that P.W1 was enquired as to whether the contents are correct or not. 24. P.W1 further deposed in his evidence that on 14.05.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., while the accused officer was sitting on a cot outside the house of L.W10/Karatampati Dayakar, P.Ws.1 and 2 met the accused officer and enquired about the pattadar pass books; that the accused officer enquired P.W1 as to whether he brought the amount as demanded by him and when he answered in affirmative, the accused officer demanded him to pay the amount and that, P.W1 removed the amount from his shirt pocket and gave it to the accused officer; that the accused officer received the same with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept the amount in left side inner side shirt pocket; that thereafter, the DSP and other members came there and conducted raid. 25. In the cross-examination, P.W1 deposed that in the Panchayat Elections held in the year 2000, one Madduru Chinna Subbarayudu was elected as Sarpanch of their village with seven votes majority and in that election, P.W1 was 2nd poling agent for Chinna Subbarayudu. He concedes that he was the follower of SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 19 Chinna Subbarayudu and that in the year 2002, the accused officer was posted as Village Secretary of their village; that he does not know as to whether the accused officer sent a petition on 28.08.2002 stating that there were irregularities in the works done by Chinna Subbarayudu. P.W1 concedes that the cheque power of Chinna Subbarayudu was cancelled, but he does not know as to whether there was misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.23,000/- in General Fund and Rs.10,269/- under 11th Finance Money Scheme. He further deposed in his cross-examination that for mutation of land from his father to his mother, photographs and thumb impression of his mother are sufficient. P.W1 concedes that on 24.01.2003 the accused officer called him and informed him that he has to submit photographs of his mother and pass book of his father to mutate the land of his father in the name of his mother and on that date, P.W1 did not accompany him to the accused officer; that the accused officer told him to bring photographs and to bring the amount, which was due as cist. He further deposed that four or five days thereafter, P.W1 took P.W2 to the accused officer and on that date, the accused officer enquired them as to whether he brought the photographs; that when he answered in negative, the accused officer stated that his maternal uncle has to SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 20 pay some due amount under cist; that he does not know as to whether the accused officer took 15 empty pass books to issue pass books in the name of his maternal uncle and 14 others. P.W1 concedes that on that day the accused officer told him to bring his mother and her photographs, so that, he could obtain her thumb impression and could hand over the pass books of P.W1’s mother; that he does not remember the date when he took his mother as per the directions of the accused officer. 26. P.W1 further deposed in his cross-examination that the due amount under the cist is Rs.900/- and odd; that P.W1 went to the ACB Office to give report on 12.05.2003. P.W1 further deposed that he does not remember that on 12.05.2003 he was at MDO Office, Kaluvai and that, he does not know as to whether on that date, the accused officer attended a meeting with regard to meeting to be held at their village on 14.05.2003. He denied the suggestion that on 12.05.2003 the accused officer did not come to their village and on that date, he was at MDO Office, Kaluvai. He further deposed that he does not know as to whether on that date, the accused officer attended a meeting with regard to the meeting to be held at his village on 14.05.2003. It is the evidence of P.W1 that by the time he went to the accused officer, he was sitting on a SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 21 cot and was writing something in a Register, but he does not know whether it was Cist Register. He denied the suggestion that the accused officer told that he paid the amount of Rs.953/- towards cist of his maternal uncle. 27. Though, learned Special Public Prosecutor sought permission of the Court to cross-examine P.W1, as a new fact with regard to cist was elicited in his cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited in his cross-examination. 28. P.W2, maternal uncle of P.W1, deposed in his evidence that he was having Ac.1.38 cents of wet land in Telugurayapuram village, purchased under Ex.P6-A and Ex.P6-two Registered Sale Deeds from one Sarvepalli Mohan Rao and Krishna Rao, respectively; that at that time, P.W1 applied for pass books to his mother and then, he too applied for pass books before the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.P5-application; that he requested P.W1 to do the needful for obtaining pass book in his favour; that one week thereafter, they gave their respective applications and he along with P.W1 went to the accused officer and at that time, the accused officer demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for issuing pass book; that the accused officer took photographs on SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 22 that date and wrote the S.Nos., of P.W2’s land. It is the further evidence of P.W2 that he along with P.W1 went to Nellore and met the DSP, ACB Office and they were asked to come two days thereafter along with bribe amount. 29. With regard to trap, it is the evidence of P.W2 that the DSP sent himself and P.W1 to the accused officer reiterating the instructions; that they went to the house of Dayakar as the accused officer would be there; that by 2.00 p.m. the accused officer sat on a cot in the varandah and was writing something on a white paper; that P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the accused officer and enquired him with regard to pass book, for which, the accused officer demanded the bribe amount; that P.W1 paid the amount to the accused officer and the accused officer counted the amount and kept the same in his left side upper shirt pocket. P.W2 further deposed in his evidence that on giving signal by P.W1, the DSP and other raid party members came there and by pointing out the accused officer, P.W2 stated that they paid the amount to him. 30. In the cross-examination of P.W2, it is elicited that P.W2 casted his vote in the Panchayat Elections on the request of others at Telugurayapuram. He denied the suggestion that in the SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 23 Panchayat Elections he casted his vote to the candidate supported by P.W1. He purchased the land in the year 2000 and two years after his purchase, he intended to sell the said land and as such, he applied for pass book as the same was required for registration of sale deed; that after purchase of land, he never paid cist. P.W2 denied the suggestion that he had to pay cist for 10 years as dry land at the rate of Rs.12.50 paise per annum and from 2001-2002 as the land was converted into wet land and he had to pay Rs.276/- per annum for three years for water cess i.e. in total a sum of Rs.953/-. He also denied the suggestion that when the accused officer told him that unless P.W2 pays the cist, pass books cannot be issued, P.W2 told him as to why he had to pay the cist, as he intends to sell the land, as it was due, prior to his purchase. P.W2 specifically deposed that prior to the trap, he met the accused officer for two times. He denied the suggestion that due to political reasons, he was deposing false stating that the accused officer demanded bribe. 31. P.W3, Assistant Executive Engineer, R&B Nellore Circle, who acted as one of the mediators for Ex.P14-Pre-trap Proceedings and Ex.P18-Post-trap proceedings, deposed in his evidence about conducting pre-trap and post-trap proceedings in SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 24 the presence of P.W1, Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses. The evidence of P.W3 is further to the effect that Sodium Carbonate solution test yielded positive result and the DSP, ACB seized M.O4-shirt of the accused officer. The cross- examination was to the effect of conducting pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and except that nothing incriminating material could be elicited. 32. P.W4, Mandal Revenue Officer of Kaluvai, deposed to the effect that P.W1 filed Exs.P1 and P5-applications tagged with Exs.P2 to P4 and Ex.P6 on behalf of his mother viz. L.W3-Kappala Jayamma and his maternal uncle, respectively and in turn, he instructed the Panchayat Secretary, T.R.Puram to examine and to submit report. It is his evidence that P.W4 did not receive any report from the accused officer for issuing of pattadar pass book and for mutation. In the cross-examination, P.W4 deposed that by endorsing on Exs.P1 and P5, he expected from the accused officer that he would make entries in 6-1 and 6-2 Registers and also in Exs.P3 and P4 and prepare passbooks and title deed. He further deposed that after the accused officer submits his report along with 6-1 and 6-2 Registers and old pass books and new pass books, he would enquire, and after scrutiny, he would put his signatures. He SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 25 further deposed that the accused officer, as a Panchayat Secretary, has to do the duties as instructed by MRO and MPDO. He concedes that from March of every year there would be special drive for collection of land revenue and water cess and when an agriculturist is due for land revenue and water cess, they would insist for payment of the said amount at the time of issuing pattadar pass book and title deed. He deposed that he does not remember as to whether the accused officer sent Ex.D1-Representation, dated 28.05.2023 stating that on 14.05.2003 at 5.00 p.m., ACB Officials seized Rs.1,000/- from him and that, he prepared a cist receipt bearing No.23771 for Survey No.233-3 in an extent of Ac.1.38 cents and requested him to cancel that receipt. 33. P.W5, Section Officer in School Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. His evidence is to the effect of issuing Ex.P21-Sanction Order issued by the Government to prosecute the accused officer. 34. P.W6, who is said to be present at the time of trap, turned hostile to the prosecution case. In the cross-examination conducted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, nothing material could be elicited in favour of prosecution. SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 26 35. The evidence of P.W7, DSP, ACB, Nellore is on the line of registering Ex.P23-FIR, conducting Ex.P14-Pre-Trap and Ex.P18-Post-Trap proceedings in the presence of mediators, conducting Sodium Carbonate test over the hands of accused officer. The entire evidence of P.W7 was to the effect of procedure of investigation conducted by him. In the cross-examination, except the suggestions, nothing material could be elicited. 36. The evidence of P.W8, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore is to the effect of presenting Ex.P7-report by P.W1 on 12.05.2003 and verification of antecedents of P.W1, accused officer and the veracity of Ex.P7. In the cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited except mere formal suggestions. 37. P.W9, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore, evidence is with regard to recording the statements of witnesses, statement of P.W1 under Section 164 CrPC. His evidence is also to the effect that after receipt of sanction orders from the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused officer. In the cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited except mere formal suggestions. SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 27 38. A perusal of entire prosecution evidence goes to show that the mother of P.W1 viz. L.W3/Jayamma sold away Ac.0.41 cents of land to one Pullaiah under an Agreement and in order to get mutation of the above transaction, they were in need of Pattadar Pass Book in her favour and during that transaction, P.W1 made Ex.P1-application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaluvai. The evidence of P.W1 coupled with the evidence of P.W2 further goes to show that P.W2, who is maternal uncle of P.W1, purchased Ac.1.38 cents of land at Telugurayapuram under two Exs.P6 and P6(A)-Registered Sale Deeds, dated 13.11.2000 and in order to obtain pattadar pass book, upon the request made by P.W2, P.W1 made Ex.P5-application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaluvai. The evidence of P.W1 would disclose that he gave those two applications on 15.04.2003. 39. A perusal of evidence of P.W1, in regard to demand of bribe by the accused officer, goes to show that on the date of submitting the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaluvai, when they were forwarded to the accused officer, the accused officer was said to have demanded a bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- to do the official favour i.e. processing of the applications and mutation of name of SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 28 L.W3-Jayamma and preparation of new pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of P.W2. 40. The evidence of P.W1 would discloses that unwilling to pay the bribe amount to the accused officer, P.W1 approached the ACB Officials and presented Ex.P7-report to P.W8 on 12.05.2003. As per the evidence of P.W1, the accused officer told him to bring photographs and P.W2. As per the evidence of P.W4, Mandal Revenue Officer, he forwarded Exs.P1 and P5-applications to the accused officer, by endorsing to conduct enquiry and submit report, therefore, the accused officer, being the Panchayat Secretary, has to submit report along with 6-1 and 6-2 Registers and old pass books and new pass books and then only, P.W4, who is Mandal Revenue Officer and who got power to issue Pattadar Pass Book, would issue the same in favour of P.W1’s mother and P.W2. 41. A perusal of the evidence of P.W4, it is evident that on 07.05.2003 itself, the accused officer made a request for pattadar pass books under a requisition and accordingly, P.W4 issued 15 pass books bearing Nos.368866 to 368870 and 368751 to 368760, among which, Exs.P11 and P12 were prepared by the accused SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 29 officer in the name of P.W2. Admittedly, on the date of trap, the Investigating Officer seized Exs.P4-Pattadar Pass Book and P3- Title Deed standing in the name of mother of P.W1. Indeed, there are no thumb impressions of P.W1’s mother on the said pass books, but the evidence of P.W1 is to the effect that the accused officer told him to bring his mother and photographs so as to obtain her thumb impression and hand over the pass books. Furthermore, though P.W1 deposed that he handed over three photographs to the accused officer, he did not state as to whose photographs he handed over to the accused officer. Apparently, the Investigating Officer did not seize any photographs of P.W2 and the signatures of P.W2 are found visible on Exs.P11 and P12 i.e. pattadar pass book and title deed documents. From the above, it is evident that though the accused officer requested P.W1 to produce the photographs of P.W2, it was not complied by either P.W1 or P.W2. When the photographs of P.W2 were not produced, the accused officer could not prepare pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of P.W2. Further, P.W1 did not produce his mother as instructed by the accused officer for obtaining her thumb impression. SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 30 42. In order to prove his defence, the accused officer got examined D.W1, who worked as Junior Assistant in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office, Kaluvai. His evidence is to the effect that on 20.05.2003, as per the instructions of the Superintendent, he along with Buddaiah went to the house of Village Servant situated at Telugurayapuram and took the documents and registers mentioned in Ex.D2-receipt, which contained Receipt Book Nos.24051 to 24100. As per the evidence of D.W1, the receipt book contains written receipts from 23751 to 23771. 43. Whereas, a perusal of evidence of P.W4, Mandal Revenue Officer, goes to show that he does not remember as to whether the accused officer sent a representation, dated 28.05.2003 stating that on 14.05.2003 at 5.00 p.m., the ACB officials seized Rs.1,000/- from him and that, he prepared a cist receipt bearing No.23771 for Survey No.233-3 in an extent of Ac.1.38 cents and requested him to cancel that receipt. Even as per the evidence of P.W4, when tax is collected, on the spot the Panchayat Secretary would issue receipt and the said receipt books will be with the Panchayat Secretary. As per the explanation of the accused officer given in Ex.D3, the amount was said to have been received from P.W1, was the amount towards cist paid by SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 31 P.W2. Even as per the evidence of P.W1, when himself and P.W2 approached the accused officer, the accused officer demanded P.W2 to pay cist of Rs.900/- and odd, and on that ground, P.W1 was declared hostile as a new fact of payment of cist was deposed by P.W1 in his evidence. 44. A perusal of entire evidence of material prosecution witnesses goes to show that the amount that was paid to the accused officer on the date of trap, was the amount paid by P.W2 towards cist. It is due to that reason, P.W2 accompanied P.W1 on the date of trap. If at all the accused officer demanded bribe amount, either P.W2 or the mother of P.W1 viz. L.W3-Jayamma ought to have given complaint. Indeed, it is not the evidence of P.W1 that he was instructed by her mother or P.W2 to approach the ACB Officials to give complaint against the accused officer for demanding bribe amount. Admittedly, it is not the case of prosecution that there is official favour pending on the part of the accused officer on the date of the trap. The relevant evidence in regard to sanctioning of Pattadar Pass Book in favour of a beneficiary, is evidence of P.W4, who worked as the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaluvai at the relevant point of time. Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.W4, the Panchayat Secretary after SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 32 examining and submitting the report, issuing authority of Pattadar Pass Book is the Mandal Revenue Officer, and the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer are the Enquiry authorities and after enquiry, basing on their reports, the MRO would issue the Pattadar Pass Books. 45. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no accompanying witness to corroborate their evidence that the accused officer demanded the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- for getting the work done, which is pending with him. The evidence of other material prosecution witnesses does not incriminate anything as against the accused officer as regards the alleged demand for doing official favour and acceptance of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused officer. There cannot be any dispute that the prosecution case is one integrated story. However, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is difficult to accept a vital part of the story i.e. receipt of amount by the accused officer, which is the genesis of the case. In the absence of the same, the other part of the prosecution story did not stand by itself and the same is also not acceptable. 46. The only other circumstance available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 33 officer. It is settled that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. Further, even if recovery of tainted money from the accused officer is accepted, mere recovery of money by itself may not be sufficient to show that the money was received as an illegal gratification by the accused officer from P.W1 for doing an official favour. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the demand and in the absence of evidence to show that the money was paid as illegal gratification, mere recovery of money, is not sufficient to convict the respondent/accused officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. 47. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police and Anr.,2 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused officer without proof of demand would not establish Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the PC Act, 1988. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary 2 (2015) 10 SCC 152 SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 34 advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, 1988. Dealing with the same, the Court observed as under: "The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." 48. The said principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his Legal Representative v. State of Punjab3, as under:- "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be 3 (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 136 SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 35 sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." 49. In C.M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc.,4 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “In support of the submission reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra (1987) Suppl. SCC 266 and our attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the judgment: “26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. The question as to the handing over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances one of which is the question whether any demand was at all made by the appellant for the bribe. When it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the court will view the allegation of payment of the bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused with suspicion.” In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 725 this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive 4 LAWS (SC) 2010 11 84 SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 36 evidence in the case is not reliable. 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 show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. Another decision on which reliance is placed is the decision of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 in which it has been held as : “16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety.” 50. From the judgments referred to above, it is clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that, in order to prove a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, 1988, the prosecution has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that till that is accomplished, the accused officer should be considered to be innocent. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1998 and in the absence thereof, SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 37 unmistakably the charge, therefore, would fail. The Hon’ble Apex Court went on to hold that mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under aforesaid two sections. 51. In State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, 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’. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No.7 of the said judgment, which reads thus: "7. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. 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 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that 5 2013(3) MLJ (Crl) 565 SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 38 the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the 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." 52. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that it is unsafe to place implicit reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution to base a conviction against the accused officer and the accused officer is entitled for acquittal of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. The trial Court considered these aspects in right perspective and acquitted the accused officer of the charges leveled against him. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is devoid of merit. SRK, J Crl.A.No.241 of 2009 39 53. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 09.06.2008, passed in Calendar Case No.21 of 2004 by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 17th June, 2025. DNB