APHCOI 0577662007 IN THE HtGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 139.? Qp 2007 Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C 21.09.2006 in CC No. 18/2001 Cases., Hyderabad. Between: state Rep By Inspector Of Police,, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Anantapur Range, nan apur. (Through the Standing Counsel-cum-Spl.PP for ACB Cases) ■..appellant/complainant OF APRIL REDDY against the Judgment dated on the file of the Addl.SpI Judge for SPE & ACB AND 1. Sri K Venkata Subbaiah Mandal Revenue Officer, Anantapur. 2. Sri R Phanibhushana Rao, i/c V.A.O., Anantapur (R.M). Anantapur District (R2 IS not necessray Party) Inspector, O/o. Mandal Revenue ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OFFICER Counsel for the Appellant : SRI S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC For ACB Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following : cum Spl P.P. SRI M B THIMMA REDDY APHC010577662007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3327] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1393/2007 Between: ...APPELLANT State Rep By Inspector of Police AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Sri K Venkata Subbaiah and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB Counsel for the Respodent(S): I.MBTHIMMA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393 of2007 JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 21.09.2006 passed in Calendar Case No. 18 of 2001 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned Additional Special Judge’) against the respondent/Accused Officer No. 1 (A0.1). 2. Originally the Calendar Case No. 18 of 2001 was tried against AO.I/Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur and Accused Officer No.2 (A0.2)A/illage Administrative Officer, Kandukur, holding additional charge of Village Administrative Office, Ananthapur Rural Mandal and District from 03.11.1998 to 30.07.1999 before the learned Additional Special Judge. Sum and substance of the charges against AO Nos.1 and 2 is that, A0.1, being a Public Servant, employed as Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur Mandal and District, demanded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1, R/o.Ananthapuram, towards illegal gratification other than legal remuneration to issue pass book pertaining to r/a acres of land of his mother viz. B.Chinnamma 3. situated in Survey No.32/4 of Ananthapuram Rural Mandal and that A0.2, being a Public Servant, working as Village Administrative 3 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393of2007 Officer, Kandukur, holding additional charge of Village Administrative Office, Ananthapur Rural Mandal and District, accepted the tainted money of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1 on 27.07.1999 within the premises of MRO Office on the instructions of A0.1 for doing such official favour, thereby AO Nos.1 and 2 committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. Vide Judgment, dated 21.09.2006 the learned 4. Additional Special Judge convicted AO.2 of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 in terms of Section 248 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and imposed fine for a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988; AO.2 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. Both the 4 SRK,J Crl.A.No.I393 of2007 sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Special Judge acquitted A0.1 of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 in terms of Section 248 (1) CrPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal of A0.1, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A0.1 was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ananthapur and A0.2 was working as Village Administrative Officer, Kandukur, holding additional charge of Village Administrative Office, Ananthapur Rural Mandal and District from 03.11.1998 to 30.07.1999; P.W1 was 5. working as Junior Assistant in KMG High School, Ananthapuram; that his father viz. B.Kistappa died in the year 1995; that his father viz. B.Kistappa and his grandfather viz. Bulle Peddadiah got Ac.3.00 cents of joint landed property in Ananthapuram Rural Mandal bearing Survey No.32/4. One B.Chinnamma, who is the mother of P.W1, got 114 acres of land out of Ac.3.00 cents towards her share; that B.Chinnamma took the assistance of her son, P.W1 to get the pattadar pass book for her 114 acres of land; that two months prior to the date of complaint, P.W1 filled up the claim form for Pattadar Pass Book on his mother’s name and submitted the 5 SJiK,J Crl.A.No.l393of2007 same to P.W3, the Office Superintendent, in the absence of the Mandal Revenue Officer; that P.W3 made an endorsement on the claim form application and gave it to P.W1, to hand over the same to A0.2; that accordingly, on the same day during evening hours, P.W1 handed over the claim application to A0.2: that A0.2 asked P.W1 to meet him after one week. (b) P.W1 met A0.2 after one week and later, number of times, but he did not get his work done; that on 26.07.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. when P.W1 went to meet A0.2, A0.1 was present at that time along with A0.2; that when P.W1 asked A0.2 about his book, A0.1 demanded pass a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards illegal gratification for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book; that A0.2 also demanded the bribe of Rs.2,000/-; that when P.W1 expressed his inability, A0.1 reduced the amount to Rs. 1,500/- and informed that unless Rs. 1,500/- is paid, the work would not be done; that P.W1 was asked to come to A0.2’s house on 27.09.1999 at 10.00 a.m. with bribe amount. (c) As P.W1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached P.W6-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram on 26.07.1999 at 6.00 p.m. and presented written report. Ex.P1 is the report of P.W1. It was registered ACB, as a case in 6 SRK,J Crl.A.No.I393 of2007 Crime No.8/ACB-ATP/99 for Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Ex.P.16 is the original FIR. the offences punishable under 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. (d) On 27.07.1999 at 8.30 the assistance of P.W2-Assistant Executive a.m. in the office of P.W6, with Engineer, Roads and and L.W4-Ramachandra Engineer, Roads and P W6 got prepared pre-trap proceedings. Ex.P3 is the Pre-trap Proceedings, dated 27.07.1999 Buildings, NH-Section, Ananthapuram Rao, Superintendent, Office of the Executive Buildings, NH-Division, Ananthapuram, at 8.30 a.m. (e) On 27.07.1999, P.W1 met AOs. 1 and 2 at VAO’s home within the compound of MRO's Office. A0.1 inquired P.W1 Whether he brought the demanded as to amount or not and when P.W1 answered affirmatively, A0.1 asked P.W1 to hand A0.2; that then A0.2 went inside the VAO tainted amount of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1 over the same to Home and collected the and put the same in his left side shirt pocket. On giving the prearranged signal his personnel raided the VAO P.W6 along with s house, disclosed his identity and conducted post trap proceedings. When the right hand fingers of A0.2 and his shirt pocket were subjected to Sodium Carbonate Solution test, they proved positive. The tainted amount was 7 SRK,J Crl.A.No.I393of2007 recovered from AO.2 and other relevant records from the MRO Office, Ananthapuram Rural Mandal were seized under the cover of Post-Trap Proceedings. Ex.P8 is the Post Trap Proceedings. After completion of investigation and after the receipt of (f) Exs.P14 and P15, Sanction Orders, P.W7, Inspector of Police, ACB Ananthapuram filed Charge Sheet. The learned Additional Special Judge took cognizance 6. of the case against AOs.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. AOs.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 CrPC 7. after furnishing copies of the documents. They denied the accusations. Charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 were framed against them, and when the charges were read over and explained to them, in Telugu, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 8. to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to PI6, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, AOs.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence 8 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393 of2007 of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and filed their respective written statements. 9. In the written statement filed by A0.1, it is stated that P.W1 is an unscrupulous person, involved the Officers, who do not yield to his needs; that A0.1 is not at all concerned with the issuance of Pattadar Pass Book, as ROR Scheme was withdrawn w.e.f. 31.12.1997; that A0.1 did not attend the office at all and he had no occasion to meet P.W1 either on 26.07.1999 or on 27.07.1999; that P.W1 had no authorization letter from his mother to pursue and obtain the Pattadar Pass Book; that the share of B.Chinnamma in Ac.3.00 cents of land covered in Survey No.32/4 was not ascertained and demarcated; that no tainted amount was recovered from the possession of A0.1 and he has nothing to do with the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe from P.W1. 10. On behalf of defence, they got examined DWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.1 to 11 documents. 11. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Special Judge found AO.2 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 and imposed sentence as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the conviction, AO.2 preferred appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 1323 of 9 SRK,J Crl.A.No.I393of2007 2006 on the file of this Court. However, during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal, on 08.03.2021, the learned counsel for the appellant/AO.2 represented that the appellant/AO.2 was no more and he passed away two years prior to the date of his representation. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.1323 of 2006 was dismissed as abated on 08.03.2021. The learned Additional Special Judge vide Judgment, dated 21.09.2006, found A0.1 not guilty of the offences with which he was charged and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the same, the State preferred present Criminal Appeal. 12. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State/ appellant contended that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent/AO. 1 wds working as Mandal Revenue Inspector in MRO Office, Ananthapuram at the relevant point of time of the incident and he was a public servant under Section 2 (c) of the Act, 1988. It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that basing on the evidence on record, the learned Additional Special Judge convicted the Accused Officer No.2, but on the same evidence on record, the learned Additional Special Judge acquitted the respondent/AO. 1, which is quite contra. The entire evidence of P.W1 proves the demand made by the respondent/AO. 1 prior and 10 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393 of2007 also on the date of the incident. The evidence of P.W3, Office Superintendent, would establish that there is no necessity to respondent/ A0.1 to attend the office and he used to attend the inquiries directly from his residence, whereas, the evidence of P.W1 proves the presence of respondent/AO. 1 on the date of trap along with AO.2 at VAO’s home, which is situated within the compound of MRO Office, therefore, the evidence of P.W3 coupled with the evidence of P.W1 it can be presumed that on the date of trap, the respondent/A0.1 was present along with AO.2 and he demanded P.W1 as to whether he brought the bribe amount and directed AO.2 to receive the same from P.W1. Mere not containing the signature of A0.1 in the attendance register is not a ground to the respondent/AO. 1 entitling him for acquittal. It is his further submission that subsequent to demand made by the respondent/ A0.1, P.W1 handed over the amount to AO.2, who received the same with his right hand and kept in his shirt pocket and the Sodium Carbonate test conducted to the right hand fingers of AO.2 and his shirt pocket, resulted positive; that the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established the guilt of the respondent/AO. 1 for the offences alleged against him, but the learned Additional Special Judge did not consider these aspects in right perspective 11 SRK,J Crl.A.No.}393of2007 and erred in acquitting the respondent/AO. 1 of the offences with which he was charged. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment- and convict and sentence the respondent/ A0.1. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/AO. 1 contended that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W1 muchless the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and their evidence does not connect respondent/AO. 1 with the offences alleged; that there is no legal evidence to prove either demand or acceptance of the bribe amount by the respondent/AO. 1; that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent/AO. 1, which are necessary ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988; that there, is no recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the respondent/AO. 1, which goes to show that the respondent/AO. 1 was falsely implicated into the case; that the learned Additional 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 the 12 SRK, J CrLA.No.1393 of2007 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 15. Now the point for consideration is- “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the respondent/AO. 1 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt or not, and whether the impugned judgment calls for any interference by this Court? 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 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 16. 13 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393of2007 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. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab\ wherein it is held as follows: (paragraph No.8) 17. “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 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 the Court has often avoided emphasis on years . _ ‘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 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 14 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393 of2007 impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused 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 unreasonable.” and proved is 18. The first charge framed against the respondent/ A0.1 is that he, working as Mandal Revenue Inspector. Ananthapuram Mandal and A0.2, working as Village Administrative Officer. Kandukur Mandal, holding additional charge of Ananthapuram Rural Mandal, on 26.07.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., demanded Rs.2,000/- from P.W1 towards illegal gratification other than legal remuneration to issue pass book pertaining to 114 acres of land of his mother situated in Survey No.32/4 of Ananthapuram Rural Mandal and later reduced the demand to Rs. 1,500/- and in pursuance of the said demand, on 27.07.1999, within the premises of MRO Office, A0.1 dehianded and A0.2 accepted the tainted money of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1 on the instructions of the respondent/AO. 1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act. 1988. The second charge is that the respondent/ A0.1 and AO.2, by means of corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their position as public servants, obtained for themselves pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W1 on 27.07.1999 and thereby committed an offence under 15 SRK,J Crl.A.No.I393of2007 Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. In order to attract an offence under Section 7 of the 19. PC Act, 1988, the necessary ingredients to be established are that the respondent/AO. 1 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. 20. The respondent/AO. 1 was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector, Ananthapuram Mandal at the 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.P14 is the Order issued by the Government according sanction The evidence of P.W5 to prosecute the respondent/AO. 1. substantiates the same. 16 SRK,J Crl.A.No.I393 of2007 Coming to evidence, P.W.1, who set the criminal law 21. into motion by lodging Ex.PI-report, deposed that in the month of May, 1999, he went to the MRO Office, Ananthapuram with claim forms of his mother for getting Pattadar Pass Book; that he handed over the claim form to P.W3, Office Superintendent: that P.W3 put his initial and endorsed on it referring to AO.2 and gave to P.W1 to hand over the claim forms to AO.2; that on the same day evening. P.W1 met AO.2 at VAO’s house, Ananthapuram and handed over those claim forms. It is the further evidence of P.W1 that A0.2 after 22. perusing the claim forms, asked P.WI to meet him after a week; that thereafter, P.WI met AO.2 for five to six times within a period of two months; that on 26.07.1999, P.WI went to meet A0.2 situated in the MRO Office premises at 4.00 p.m., where he found A0.1 and AO.2 talking at the gate of VAO’s home. It is the specific evidence of P.WI that when he told AO.2 that he was roaming around him for two months for Pattadar Pass Book, A0.1 interfered and demanded him to pay a bribe of Rs.2,000/- to get his work done. It is also the evidence of P.WI that when he expressed his inability to pay that much amount, A0.1 reduced the bribe amount at Rs.1,500/- to get his work done. 17 SRK,J CrLA.No. 1393 of2007 23. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the evidence of P.W3, who worked as Office Superintendent in the Office of MRO, Ananthapuram at the relevant point of time. P.W3 deposed that he used to look after the entire official work in the absence of the Mandal Revenue Officer; that A0.1, being the Mandal Revenue Inspector, is the Executive Staff and they sign in the attendance register as and when they return to the office and they did not sign in the attendance register, everyday. It is the specific evidence of P.W3 that A0.1 attended the office duties from 17.07.1999 27.07.1999 and on 27.07.1999, A0.1 to came to the office during evening hours; that at about 12.00 noon on 27.07.1999, the ACB Officials came to the MRO Office and when he went to the place of trap, he found A0.2 was present; that the DSP of ACB enquired with regard to the Mandal Revenue Officer and A0.1, for which P.W3 informed that A0.1 did not come to office. 24. A perusal of the evidence of P.W3 goes to show that the prosecution declared P.W3 hostile, as he did not support the case of prosecution. Though, the evidence of P.W3 cannot be considered, his evidence to certain extent i.e. presence of A0.2 at the place of trap on 27.07.1999 and non-presence of A0.1 at the same time, can be taken into consideration, for the reason that, his 18 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393 of2007 evidence corroborates to the extent of P.W1 visiting the office of MRO, Ananthapuram, submitting claim forms for getting Pattadar Pass Book in favour of his mother and handing over the same to P.W1 after making endorsement by P.W3 on the claim forms, for getting initial of AO.2. 25. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent/AO. 1 that A0.1 was not present on the date of trap and he, being an Executive Staff, working as Mandal Revenue Inspector, was on field and such contention is supported by the evidence of defence evidence and also the evidence of P.W3 to certain extent. 26. A perusal of Ex.P4-Attendance Register got exhibited through the evidence of P.W3 goes to show that A0.1 presence was not marked from 19.07.1999 to 27.07.1999. As per the evidence of P.W3, A0.1 is the Mandal Revenue Inspector and he comes under the category of Executive Staff and it is not compulsory for Executive Staff to sign in the attendance register everyday. In the cross-examination made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor P.W3 conceded that on 27.07.1999 at about 5.00 p.m., A0.1 came to the office and P.W3 informed A0.1 to 19 SRK,J CrLA.No. 1393 of2007 attend the ACB Office as instructed by the DSP, ACB. As per the evidence of P.W1, on 27.07.1999 he went to the MRO Office at about 9.40 a.m., to give the demanded bribe amount to AOs.1 and 2 and that A0.1 asked P.W1 as to whether he brought the demanded bribe amount and when P.W1 replied affirmatively A0.1 asked AO.2 to receive the amount and so saying he went inside the MRO Office. P.W3, Office Superintendent, he deposed that on 27.07.1999, A0.1 came to office during evening hours and he denied the suggestion of prosecution that A0.1 came to office on 27.07.1999 at about 10.00 a.m. If the evidence of P.W1 is taken into consideration for a while that A0.1 was present in the office during morning hours on the date of trap, the custody of A0.1 might had been taken by the ACB Officials soon after trap itself and they did not inquire P.W3 about AO. 1 on the date of trap. In this regard, a perusal of evidence of P.W6, DSP, 27. ACB, Ananthapuram goes to show that he deposed that on 27.07.1999, i.e. on the date of trap, he inquired P.W3 about the presence of A0.1 and on perusal of ExP4-Attendance Register, it was found that A0.1 presence was not marked from 19.07.1999 to 27.07.1999. P.W6 in his cross-examination deposed that he did not instruct any of his staff members to catch hold A0.1 and search for ¥C 20 SRK,J Crt.A.No.l393 of2007 him in the MRO Office and he conceded that before the arrival of P.W3, Office Superintendent, he did not instruct any of his staff members to search for A0.1. As per the evidence of P.W1, on the date of trap, when he went to the office, he found that AOs.1 and 2 were talking with each other at the VAO’s home and as per the evidence of P.W1, after confirming that P.W1 brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,500/-, A0.1 was said to have asked AO.2 to receive the amount from P.W1 and so saying he went inside the MRO Office. Admittedly, a perusal of evidence of P.W3 coupled with the evidence of P.W6, A0.1 was not present either at the place of trap or at the office of MRO. Neither P.W3 nor P.W6 found A0.1 on the date of trap during morning hours. It is during evening hours, when A0.1 came to the office, he was instructed by P.W3 to attend the ACB Office. 28. Apparently, Exs.XI to XII documents got exhibited through D.Ws.1 to 5 and a perusal of those documents coupled with the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 goes to show that A0.1 went to . the house of D.W2 on 26.07.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. to make inquiry for issuance of Permanent Caste Certificate in favour of D.W2 and his sisters viz. M.Sunitha and in that regard, A0.1 recorded the statement of D.W3 on 26.07.1999 from about 3.00 21 SRK,J Crt.A.No.I393of2007 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Further, a perusal of evidence of D.W4, who made an application before the MRO, Ananthapuram seeking for financial assistance under National Family Benefit Scheme, goes to show that A0.1 came to her house on 27.07.1999 at about 9.00 a.m. to make inquiry on her application made under Ex.X8 and her statement was also recorded on 27.07.1999 by A0.1 and he was present at her house till 10.00 a.m. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.XI to X11 proves that A0.1 was on field duty on 26.07.1999 and 27.07.1999 at the respective houses of D.Ws.1 to 5 and as per the evidence of D.W4, A0.1 was present in her house on the date of trap i.e. on 27.07.1999 till 10.00 a.m, which is supported by the evidence of D.W5, whose statement was recorded by A0.1, on the date of trap, at the house of D.W4. Even, the presence of A0.1 on 26.07.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. was spoken in the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. When such is the evidence spoken by D.Ws.1 to 5, the evidence of P.W1 with regard to demand of A0.1 on 26.07.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. and presence of A0.1 on 27.07.1999 at about 10.00 a.m. at the VAO’s home, is highly improbable and not believable. Admittedly, it is not the case of prosecution that there is official favour pending on the part of A0.1 as on the date of trap. 29. 22 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393 of2007 The relevant evidence in regard to sanctioning of Pattadar Pass Book in favour of a beneficiary, is P.W4, who is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ananthapuram at the relevant point of time. His evidence is to the effect that the Mandal Revenue Inspectors were entrusted with the responsibility of conducting field enquiries of all types, assignment files, land issues, certificates etc., and issuing of Pattadar Pass Books and making enquiries and other protocol duties and with regard to Pattadar Pass Books, its issuing authority is the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer are the Enquiry authorities and after enquiry, basing on their reports, the MRO would issue the Pattadar Pass Books. In the cross-examination of P.W4, it is elicited that A0.1 is sincere, hardworking and honest and there was no complaint against him. 30. Except the evidence of P.W1, there is no accompanying witness to corroborate the evidence of P.W1 that A0.1 demanded the bribe amount of Rs. 1,500/- for getting the work done by AO.2, which is pending with him. In the cross- examination of P.W1, it is evident that he neither orally nor in written gave any complaint to P.W3 or to the MRO stating that AO.2 was delaying his work and also that AOs.1 and 2 demanded 23 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393of2007 the bribe amount for getting the work done. P.W1 concedes that A0.1 did not receive any amount from him when he said that he brought the bribe amount on the date of trap. A perusal of the evidence of P.W1 goes to show that P.W1 being a Junior Assistant in Municipal Office, Ananthapuram, not even aware as to who was the authority for issuing Pattadar Pass Book in favour of beneficiary, as he admitted in his cross- 31. examination that he does not know who is the competent authority to issue Pattadar Pass Book. His evidence further discloses that he did not inquire P.W3 as to what was the procedure to obtain Pattadar Pass Book and its sanctioning authority. When such is the case, demanding of bribe amount by A0.1 to P.W1 for getting Pattadar Pass Book in favour of his mother is not believable, for the reason that, A0.1, being a Mandal Revenue Inspector, who was an Executive Staff, his nature of duty was to conduct inquiry and submit report to the Mandal Revenue Officer with regard to entitlement of getting Pattadar Pass Book by a beneficiary and basing on the report, the Mandal Revenue Officer is the final authority, who got power to sanction Pattadar Pass Book in favour of a beneficiary. Therefore, when there is no official favour pending on the part of A0.1, demanding bribe amount of Rs. 1,500/- from 24 SRK,J CrlA.No.l393 of2007 P.W1 is not believable. The evidence of other witnesses does incriminate anything as against the respondent/AO. 1 as regards the alleged demand for doing official favour and acceptance of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by the respondent/AO. 1. not 32. In N. VIjaykumar’s Supreme Court held thus: case (supra), the Hon’ble “It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu V. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779) and in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. can 25 SRK,J CrLA.No. 1393 of2007 The relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment B. Jayaraj (supra) read as under: “7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is in concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration, reference be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., [(2010) 15 see 1) : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [(2009) 3 SCC 779 ; (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]. the may 8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P11 same cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the 26 SRK,J Crl.A.No.l393 of2007 demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as 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 advantage cannot be held to be established. 9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on 27 SRK,J CrLA.No. 1393 of2007 the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” The above said view taken by this Court fully supports the case of the appellant. In view of the contradictions noticed by us above in the depositions of key witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, we are of the view that the demand for and acceptance of bribe amount and cell phone by the appellant, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to such evidence on record the acquittal recorded by the trial court is a “possible view” as such the judgment of the High Court is fit to be set aside. Before recording conviction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once conviction is recorded under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered. At the same time it is also to be noted that whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to evidence on record." 33. In the appeal on hand, even there is no recovery from the possession of respondent/AO. 1 and there is no Sodium Carbonate Solution test conducted, as no tainted amount was -I t I recovered from the possession of A0.1. Thus, it can be safely held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt 28 SRK,J Crl.A.No. 1393 of2007 that respondent/AO. 1 demanded any bribe amount from P.W1 or accepted the same as bribe on the date of trap. The prosecution miserably failed to prove; the guilt of the respondent/AO. 1 for the charges levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the 34. case, the judgment passed by the learned Additional Special Judge is in accordance with law and there is no ambiguity in the same. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Additional Special Judge. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is. 35. accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 21.09.2006 passed in Calendar Case No. 18 of 2001 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. 1. The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases Vijayawada, (with records) 2. The Station House Officer, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ananthapur Range, Ananthapur. 3. One CC to SRI. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. M B THIMMA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh 6. THREE CD COPIES PR TAC HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 1393 OF 2007 I 19 JUK m ^ ^ , Current Secnon ^ spatcW^^ " m DISMISSING THE APPEAL