THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.371 of 2010 & 372 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both the Criminal Appeals arise of the same judgment and the issue involved in both the Criminal Appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 have been preferred by accused officer No.2 and accused officer No.1 respectively against the judgment, dated 03.03.2010, passed in CC No.5 of 2008 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada. 3. Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short „the Act‟). By his Judgment, dated 03.03.2010, learned Special Judge found accused officer Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted them of the said offences, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 2 each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months, for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. Accused officer Nos.1 and 2 were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. MO.3 i.e. cash of Rs.5,000/-, was ordered to be returned to PW.1 and MOs.1, 2 and 4 to 10 were ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. 4. Sum and substance of the charges against the accused officers is that they, being public servants, working as Sub- Inspector of Police and PC 1949 of Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District, are alleged to have demanded a bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1 on 09.05.2006 and 11.05.2006 and thereafter reduced the said amount to Rs.5,000/- and accepted illegal gratification on 12.05.2006 for showing official favour stating that accused officer No.1 compromised with both PW.2 and PW.4 SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 3 without registering any case, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. In the course of same transaction, on 12.05.2006, by abusing their position as public servants obtained for their pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.5,000/- from PW.1 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for showing the official favour stating that accused officer No.1 compromised both PW.2 and PW.4 without registering any case, thereby the accused officers committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. 5. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows. i) Accused officer Nos.1 and 2 were working as Sub- Inspector of Police and PC 1949 respectively in Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur district, at relevant point of time. As such, they are public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. ii) PW.1 is the son of PW.2 and they are residents of Ibrahimpatnam. PW.2 gave loan of Rs.7,000/- to PW.4. On 08.05.2006, PW.2 quarreled with PW.4 with regard to the payment of loan amount and in that connection PW.2 and PW.4 lodged complaints against each other at Amaravathi Police SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 4 Station. Accused Officer No.1 received the complaint and effected compromise between both PW.2 and PW.4. On 09.05.2006, accused officer No.1 is alleged to have called PWs.1 and 2 to his Police Station and demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- for effecting compromise without registering any case. When PW.1 expressed his inability to pay Rs.10,000/-, the same was reduced to Rs.5,000/- and accused officer No.1 threatened PWs.1 and 2 to pay the demanded bribe amount at his office, otherwise case would be registered. On 11.05.2006, accused officer No.1 made number of calls to the cell phone of PW.2 and directed him to pay the demanded amount. Then, PW.1 approached PW.11 – the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vijayawada, and presented Ex.P1 report, pursuant to which a case in Crime No.14/RCT-ACB-VJA/2006 was registered after observing necessary formalities and issued FIR Ex.P17. iii) On 12.05.2006, PW.11 prepared pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P8 and on the same day at about 05.30 pm, he, along with his staff and mediators PW.7 and another, went to the office of accused officer No.1. On the instructions of PW.11, PW.1 entered into the office and on demand and instructions of accused officer No.1, PW.1 paid Rs.5,000/- to accused officer SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 5 No.2, who accepted the same with his right hand and kept in his upper shirt pocket. Then, PW.1 came out and gave the pre- arranged signal. Then PW.11 along with mediators PW.7 and another and his staff entered into the premises of the Police Station and seized the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from the possession of accused officer No.2 under cover of post-trap proceedings Ex.P14. After completion of investigation and on receipt of prosecution sanction proceedings, PW.10 filed charge sheet against the accused officers for the aforesaid offences. 6. On appearance of accused officers, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act were framed against the accused officers and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19, Ex.X1 and MOs 1 to 10. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused officers were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 6 circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. 9. On behalf of the accused officers, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 10. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused officers guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Against the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeals have been preferred. 11. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Posani Akash, learned counsel for the appellant/accused officer No.2 in Crl.A.No.371 of 2010, submitted that the decoy witness, who was examined as PW.1, did not support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. He categorically submitted that when once the decoy witness (PW.1) turned hostile, the demand of bribe amount alleged to have been made by the accused officers cannot be held to be proved. In support of his contention that proof of demand of illegal gratification is gravamen of the SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 7 aforesaid offences and in the absence thereof, mere acceptance of any amount or recovery would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under the aforesaid offences, he relied on a decision reported in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. The District Inspector of Police1. He further submitted that there is no accompanying witness to PW.1 at the time of pre-trap proceedings and except the evidence of PW.1, who turned hostile, there is no other evidence to connect the accused officers to the aforesaid crime. He submits that in the absence of any demand made by the accused officers from PW.1, the offences alleged would not be made out against the accused officers. He further submits that the learned Special Judge, without considering the said aspects in a right perspective, erred in convicting the accused officers, hence the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused officers are liable to be set aside. 12. Dr. M. Suri Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused officer No.1 in Crl.A.No.372 of 2010 submitted that accused officer No.1 never demanded any bribe from PW.1 either before or on the date of trap, or directed PW.1 to pay any such amount to accused officer No.2. He further 1 2016(1) ACR 474 : 2015(2) ALD(Crl.)883 (SC) SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 8 submitted that the decoy witness PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution and he turned hostile and there is no corroboration or acceptable evidence for either demand or acceptance of any bribe amount. 13. On the other hand, Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, submitted that though the decoy witness (PW.1) turned hostile, PW.7, who is mediator to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, supported the case of prosecution. The judgment passed by the learned Special Judge is on correct lines and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. Heard. Perused the record. 15. PW.1, who presented Ex.P1 report, did not support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. PW.2, who is the father of PW.1, also did not depose any incriminating against the accused officers. PW.3 is the Registered Medical Practitioner, who examined accused officer No.1 on 12.05.2006 and his evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. PW.4 stated that he does not know SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 9 PW.2 and he did not advance any amount to him. He further stated that no quarrel took place between him and PW.2. PW.4 was treated hostile by the prosecution. PW.5 - the Police Constable also did not support the case of the prosecution and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. The evidence of PW.6 – the Head Constable is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution, as he was not present at the time of trap and subsequently he came to know about the same. PW.7 is the mediator to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. He stated that on the date of trap, he proceeded along with PW.11 to the Police Station and when both the hand fingers of accused officer No.1 were rinsed in sodium carbonate solution, the solution remain unchanged and when both the hand fingers of accused officer No.2 were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, the same yielded positive result. He further stated that the bribe amount was recovered from the possession of accused officer No.2. 16. PW.8 – the Section Officer, Home, SCA Department, stated that Exs.P15 and P16 are the prosecution orders issued by the then Home Secretary, Home Department against the accused officers. SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 10 17. PW.9 - the Range-I Inspector, ACB, Vijayawada Range, stated that on 11.05.2006, he received Ex.P1 from PW.11 and caused discrete enquiries about the antecedents of accused officers and PW.1 and made his endorsement on Ex.P1 and submitted his report. He further stated that he assisted PW.11 during the course of pre-trap and post-trap proceedings Exs.P8 and P14. 18. PW.10 – the Range Inspector-II, ACB, Guntur stated that after receipt of Exs.P15 and P16 sanction orders, he filed charge sheet. 19. PW.11 – the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vijayawada and who is the trap laying officer stated that on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PW.1, he endorsed the same to PW.9 for causing discrete enquiries against PW.1 and the accused officer No.1 and after obtaining report from PW.9 he registered Ex.P1 report as a case in Crime No.14/RCT-VJA/2006 and issued Ex.P17 FIR. He submitted copies of FIR to all concerned. He further stated that he conducted pre-trap and post-trap proceedings under Exs.P8 and P14 in the presence of mediators and seized the tainted amount and connected records. SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 11 PW.12 took up further investigation in the case and examined the witnesses. 20. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused officers for the charge under Section 7 of the Act, it is essential that the prosecution must prove that the accused officers demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from PW.1. 21. PW.1 is a decoy witness. According to him, about one year back, his father PW.2 advanced an amount of Rs.7000/- to PW.4 and in that connection, an altercation took place in between PWs.2 and 4 on 08.05.2006 and they both gave complaint against each other. He further stated that PWs.2 and 4 went to Amaravati Police Station and the elders of the village compromised the matter in the police station itself. He further stated that some of the elders informed his father PW.2 that accused officer No.1 was demanding Rs.10,000/- as he compromised the matter and when they pleaded their inability to pay the said amount, the elders asked his father PW.2 to pay at least Rs.5000/- to accused officer No.1. As they were not willing to pay any amount, they both went to the ACB office two days thereafter and his father got drafted a report and he signed without reading the contents of the report. He further stated in SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 12 his evidence that as accused officer No.1 was busy, he kept the tainted amount in the shirt pocket of one Constable and asked him to pay the same to accused officer No.1. However, PW.1 was unable to recognize the SI of Police and the Constable, who are accused officers and who are present in the Court hall. The prosecution treated PW.1 as hostile. Whereas, as per the evidence of PW.4, he does not know PW.2 and he did not advance any amount to him. He further stated that no quarrel took place between him and PW.2. Except the said evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence to support the case of the prosecution or to connect the accused officers to the alleged crime. There is no accompanying witness to PW.1 at the time of trap. PWs.2, 4 and 5 also did not support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. 22. The evidence of PW.7 is to the effect that when both the hand fingers of accused officer No.1 rinsed in the sodium carbonate solution, the same remained unchanged, whereas when both the hand fingers of accused officer No.2 rinsed in the sodium carbonate solution, the same turned to pink colour. PW.7 is not the witness for the earlier demand that has been allegedly made by the accused officers. In order to attract the SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 13 aforesaid offences, it is essential that all the essential ingredients of aforesaid offences have to be made out. It is just and necessary that earlier demand which has been allegedly made by the accused officers has to be proved, so as to lead the informant i.e. PW.1, to lodge a complaint before PW.11. In the absence of any evidence to prove the earlier demand, the entire trap and Ex.P1 cannot be the basis to base conviction. Earlier demand would also be integrated part of subsequent demand and acceptance. It is essential that integrated earlier demand has to be proved by the prosecution. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the same. 23. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy’s case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as follows. “21. 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 therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. 22. 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 SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 14 offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. 23. The sheet anchor of the case of the prosecution is the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, of PW1 - S.Udaya Bhaskar. The substance of his testimony, as has been alluded to hereinabove, would disclose qua the aspect of demand, that when the complainant did hand over to the appellant the renewal application, the latter enquired from the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount which he directed him to bring on the previous day, whereupon the complainant took out Rs.500/- from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the appellant. Though, a very spirited endeavour has been made by the learned counsel for the State to co- relate this statement of PW1- S. Udaya Bhaskar to the attendant facts and circumstances including the recovery of this amount from the possession of the appellant by the trap team, identification of the currency notes used in the trap operation and also the chemical reaction of the sodium carbonate solution qua the appellant, we are left unpersuaded to return a finding that the prosecution in the instant case has been able to prove the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the evidence of PW1- S. Udaya Bhaskar is accepted on the face value, it falls short of the quality and decisiveness of the proof of demand of illegal gratification as enjoined by law to hold that the offence under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act has been proved. True it is, that on the demise of the complainant, primary evidence, if any, of the demand is not forthcoming. According to the prosecution, SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 15 the demand had in fact been made on 3.10.1996 by the appellant to the complainant and on his complaint, the trap was laid on the next date i.e. 4.10.1996. However, the testimony of PW1- S. Udaya Bhaskar does not reproduce the demand allegedly made by the appellant to the complainant which can be construed to be one as contemplated in law to enter a finding that the offence under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.” 24. A perusal of the aforesaid decision goes to show that in the absence of proof of demand, the aforesaid offences would not be made out. 25. Since the decoy witness did not support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution, the evidence of PW.7, who is a shadow witness to PW.1, cannot be unilaterally accepted without there being any corroboration to the said witness. Admittedly, there is no accompanying witness to PW.1 at the time of trap in the present case. 26. In view of the said reasons and the touch stone of the legal principles adumbrated herein above, no matter as to how the prosecution case in the instant case, it has failed to prove unequivocally the demand of bribe on earlier point of time, and subsequently, since the decoy witness turned hostile, this Court SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 16 has no option except to hold that it can be wholly unsafe to sustain the conviction on the accused officers. 27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the above referred decision, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused officers of the alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt and the accused officers, therefore, deserve to be acquitted of the charges. 28. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in the judgment in CC No.5 of 2008, dated 03.03.2010 are set aside. The appellants/accused officer Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges leveled against them and accordingly they are acquitted of the same, and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused officer Nos.1 and 2 shall be refunded to them. SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 17 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Appeals, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated:17.06.2025 Nsr SRK, J Crl.Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 18 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal Nos.371 and 372 of 2010 Dated:17.06.2025 Nsr