APHC010081442007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 584/2007 Between: 1. K.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O NARASANNA, FORMERLY ASST. SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHINNACHOWK P.S., KADAPA. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE ACB, through Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Kadapa Dist., Tirupati Range, rep. by its Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Crl.A., to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment in C.C.No.18/02, dated 17.05.07 on the file of the Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Case, Nellore, Nellore Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(CRLAMP 882 OF 2007 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 suspend the execution of the sentence passed by the Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore in C.C.No.18/02, dated 17.05.07, and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Crl.A. 2 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 condone the delay of 50 days in representing the L.R.Petition in Crl.A.No.584/2007 and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 leave to continue the Crl.A.No.584/2007 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2022 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 pleased to bring the petitioners/proposed appellants 2 and 3 as appellants 2 and 3 in Crl.A.No.584/2007 being the Legal Representatives of the deceased sole appellant i.e. K.Venkata Subbaiah and pass Counsel for the Apellant: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respodent: 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB The Court made the following: 3 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.584 of 2007 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel – cum – Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, representing the respondent-State. 2. The appellant/accused preferred the appeal challenging the judgment dated 17.05.2007 in C.C. No.18 of 2002 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore. 3. The learned Special Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months, for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months, for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 4. Pending the appeal, the appellant/accused died. Therefore, his legal representatives came on record under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. to continue the appeal. 5. For the convenience of the Court, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the learned trial Court. 6. The case of the prosecution is that the accused worked as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk Police Station, Kadapa District. PW1 was running an STD booth and photocopy center at Sankarapuram of Kadapa Town. He presented Ex.P1 report dated 24.07.2001 to PW6, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Tirupati, alleging that the accused came to the STD booth on 04.06.2001 and demanded Rs.5,000/- for not booking any case against him. PW1 refused to pay the amount. Therefore, the accused foisted a case through PW3, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk Police Station, under Section 9(b) of the Explosive Substances Act vide Crime No.67/2001 alleging that PW1 was in possession of two gelatin sticks. Later, the accused again demanded PW1 to pay the bribe amount. As PW1 did not agree to pay the amount, the accused got registered a case under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa, against PW1. 5 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 7. On 22.07.2001, the accused again went to the shop of PW1 and made a demand for Rs.2,000/- as bribe for not recommending the name of PW1 for opening a rowdy sheet. 8. On 24.07.2001, the accused again went to PW1 and reiterated the demand. PW1 expressed inability to pay Rs.2,000/-. The accused reduced the amount to Rs.1,500/- and asked PW1 to pay the amount on 27.07.2001 either at the police station or at the residence of the accused. PW1 was not willing to pay the amount; therefore, he reported the same to PW6 vide Ex.P1 report. PW6 registered the same as a case vide Ex.P12 FIR. A trap was laid with the assistance of PW2, mediator, and another witness. The accused was caught with the bribe amount (M.O.3) at his residence. Chemical tests were conducted on the hands of the accused, which proved positive. Later, PW5 conducted further investigation. The Government issued sanction orders dated 01.05.2001 under Ex.P19 to prosecute the accused. Therefore, PW6 filed the charge sheet. 9. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P19 and M.Os.1 to 12. 10. The case of the accused is one of total denial. He contended that PW1 was having grudge against him, suspecting his role in launching prosecution against PW1 for the offence and bind-over proceedings mentioned above. Therefore, PW1 intended to implicate the accused in the ACB case. PW1 was 6 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 indebted to PW4 to a tune of Rs.1,500/-. There was an altercation between PW1 and PW4 regarding repayment of the said amount. The accused intervened in the matter. It was settled and PW1 agreed to repay the amount to PW4 by 24.07.2001 or 25.07.2001. PW1 agreed to repay the amount to PW4 directly or through the accused. Accordingly, PW1 executed a letter, which was attested by DW5. Subsequently, PW4 went to Hyderabad. PW1 intended to repay the amount on 25.07.2001 as per the letter. PW1 took advantage of the situation, hatched a plan to implicate the accused by giving a report to the ACB with false allegations that the accused demanded bribe. Accordingly, he went to the house of the accused on 25.07.2001 to repay the amount and gave Rs.1,500/- to the accused requesting him to give the amount to PW4, who had gone to Hyderabad. Later, the trap team came to the house of the accused and seized the cash on the ground that PW1 paid the amount towards bribe to do a favour. Therefore, the contention of the accused is that he was falsely implicated in the case by PW1 to take revenge, as criminal cases mentioned above were registered against PW1 and the accused conducted a search in the shop of PW1 and seized two gelatin sticks from his possession earlier. 11. The accused, to probabilise his plea, examined DWs.1 to 5 and filed Ex.D1. Ex.D1 is the certificate issued by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, in favour of the accused to show that he attended the Court on 24.07.2001 to give evidence. 7 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 12. It is pertinent to note that it is the case of PW1 that the accused came to him on 24.07.2001 and made demand for bribe. PW1 went to the house of the accused on 25.07.2001. Apart from the above evidence, Exs.X1 to X12 were also placed on record in support of the plea of the accused through the witnesses mentioned above. 13. The learned Special Court, considering the above evidence, found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Therefore, the appeal was preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Special Court. 14. Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, would submit that the accused took a specific plea before the learned Special Court that PW1 had a grudge against him as a case was registered against PW1 for the offence under Section 9(b) of the Explosive Substances Act when the accused conducted a search in the STD booth of PW1 and recovered two gelatin sticks. Further proceedings under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. were also initiated against PW1. Therefore, PW1 strongly believed that the accused was behind all these proceedings. Hence, PW1 was nursing a grievance to take vengeance on the accused. He took advantage of the debt payable to PW4. The evidence of PW4 and DW5 would prove that PW1 was indebted to PW4. PW1 did not repay the amount. Therefore, an altercation occurred between PW1 and PW4 regarding 8 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 payment of the debt amount. Then the accused intervened in the matter and settled the issue. PW1 agreed to repay the debt by 24.07.2001 or 25.07.2001 and accordingly executed a letter in the presence of DW5, who attested the same. 15. He would further submit that PW1 deposed that the accused made a demand for bribe on 24.07.2001 by visiting his shop, but on that day the accused was not in Kadapa. He went to Rayachoty to give evidence in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty. Ex.D1 would prove that the accused attended the Court at Rayachoty on 24.07.2001. He would submit that in pursuance of the plan, PW1 went to the house of the accused on 25.07.2001 and made him receive the amount of Rs.1,500/- stating that he was paying the amount indebted to PW4 as agreed earlier and requested the accused to give the amount to PW4, who had gone to Hyderabad. When this was going on, the trap team entered the house of the accused and seized the amount in order to initiate criminal proceedings against him. 16. But, the statement of the accused made initially reiterating his plea did not find place in Ex.P6 proceedings, though PW6 deposed that he recorded the statement of the accused. It would show that PW6, for the reasons best known to him, suppressed the earlier statement of the accused only to avoid contradictions during trial of the case. 9 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 17. He would submit that it is the contention of PW1 that his signatures were obtained on blank white papers during seizure proceedings conducted by the accused earlier for seizure of explosive substances. Those blank white papers were brought into service at a later point of time to overcome the defence in the ACB case. He would submit that PW1 did not make a report to the higher officials of the accused immediately after seizure of the explosive substances stating that the accused forcibly obtained his signatures on blank white papers. He would also submit that it is not the case of the prosecution that PW1 reported to the learned Magistrate at the time of remand regarding obtaining his signatures on blank white papers by the accused. 18. He would also submit that the report presented by PW1 to PW6 vide Ex.P1 disclosed about the case registered for the offence under Section 9(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, but no statement was made regarding obtaining his signatures on blank white papers at the time of seizure of the explosive substances. Therefore, PW1, during cross-examination, came out with such a statement only with an intention to wriggle out of the letter signed by him in the presence of DW5. 19. In these facts and circumstances, which would show that PW1 with an intention to take revenge on the accused, hatched a plan, used the debt transaction between PW1 and PW4, and implicated the accused. The trial court ought to have disbelieved the testimony of PW1 as a plausible defence version is 10 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case and extended the benefit of doubt. But the learned Special Court did not consider the same in proper perspective and came to an erroneous opinion that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s acceptance of the alleged bribe amount and convicted the accused. 20. Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel – cum – Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, representing the respondent-State, would argue that the evidence of PW1 would establish demand of bribe by the accused as well as acceptance of the bribe on 25.07.2001 at his house. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of the mediator, as his evidence would establish seizure of M.O.3 from the house of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution proved the two ingredients, i.e., demand of bribe and acceptance by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Court. 21. He would submit that the plea of the accused regarding the debt transaction between PW1 and PW4 and execution of the letter by PW1 are afterthoughts developed by the accused to escape from the case. PW1 categorically stated that the accused obtained his signatures on blank white papers at the time of seizure of explosive substances. Therefore, the accused used those blank white papers with the aid of PW4 and DW5 to escape from the case. Hence, the evidence of PW4 and DW5 cannot be relied upon in the facts 11 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 and circumstances of the case. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Court. 22. In the light of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as under: “Whether there are grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Court” 23. P O I N T: The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused went to the shop of PW1 on 24.07.2001 and made a demand for Rs.2,000/- stating that he would not make any recommendation for opening a rowdy sheet against PW1. PW1 expressed inability to pay the amount. Then the accused reduced the sum to Rs.1,500/-. PW1 initially agreed to pay the amount on 24.07.2001 or 25.07.2001. As PW1 was not willing to pay the amount voluntarily, he reported the same to PW6 on 25.07.2001 vide Ex.P1 report. The accused filed Ex.D1 issued by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, which would show that the accused went to Rayachoty on 24.07.2001 to give evidence before the said Court. PW1 deposed that the accused came to him in the morning hours. Therefore, Ex.D1 alone may not be sufficient to prove the alibi taken by the accused to say that he did not go to PW1 on 24.07.2001. 12 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 24. The main contention is that PW1 was indebted to PW4 to the extent of Rs.1,500/-. PW1 did not pay the amount. Therefore, an altercation occurred between PW1 and PW4. The accused intervened in the matter and it was settled. As per the settlement, PW1 agreed to repay the debt amount to PW4 on 24.07.2001 or 25.07.2001. Accordingly, he executed a letter vide Exs.X1, X4, X4(a), etc. DW5 attested the letter. PW4 deposed that PW1 was indebted to him but did not repay the amount. Later, an altercation took place. The accused intervened in the matter. PW1 executed the disputed letter and DW5 attested the same. Later, PW4 went to Hyderabad and requested PW1 to give the amount to the accused on 25.07.2001 as agreed. DW5 deposed that he was present when the altercation took place between PW1 and PW4. At that time, the accused intervened and later the letter was executed by PW1 and he attested the same. 25. The evidence of PW4 and DW5 would support the case of the accused. The question now is whether their evidence inspires confidence or whether there are grounds to disbelieve their testimony. 26. Nothing was elicited during the cross-examination of PW4 and DW5 to come to a conclusion that they were habituated to making false statements or that they were set up by the accused. No contradictions as contemplated under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act were brought on record to impeach their creditworthiness. Therefore, their testimony appears to be trustworthy. 13 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 27. The contention of PW1 is that his signatures were obtained on blank white papers at the time of proceedings conducted by the accused for seizure of explosive substances from his shop earlier, and those papers were pressed into service by the accused with the assistance of PW4 and DW5 to escape from the case. 28. Undisputedly, there is no evidence on record to say that soon after the proceedings conducted for seizure of explosive substances from PW1, he made a complaint to the higher officials alleging that the accused obtained his signatures on blank white papers. There is no evidence on record to show that PW1 reported to the learned Magistrate about this fact when he was produced for remand in connection with the seizure of explosive substances. 29. Another important factor is that PW1 presented Ex.P1 to PW6 alleging demand of bribe. He referred to the case registered against him for possession of explosive substances, but he did not mention that at that time the accused obtained his signatures on blank white papers and that there was a possibility of using them against him in the present case. PW1 did not disclose anything about obtaining his signatures on blank white papers either immediately or at a later point of time or in Ex.P1. He made such a statement only during cross- examination, when he was confronted with the letter signed by him in the presence of DW5. 14 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 30. In these circumstances, no credibility can be attached to the statement of PW1 that his signatures were obtained on blank white papers by the accused during the earlier proceedings. Then, the only remaining fact is that PW1 executed the letter attested by DW5 regarding repayment of the debt amount to PW4 on 24.07.2001 or 25.07.2001. As already mentioned, PW4 and DW5 categorically deposed the said fact. 31. Therefore, all the above facts and circumstances would lead to the conclusion that a case was registered against PW1 earlier under Section 9(b) of the Explosive Substances Act and proceedings under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. were also initiated against him. PW1 suspected the role of the accused in registration of those cases. Naturally, he would have an intention to teach a lesson to the accused. In the meanwhile, a dispute between him and PW4 occurred and was settled by the accused. PW1 agreed to repay the debt amount directly to PW4 or through the accused on 24.07.2001 or 25.07.2001. Therefore, it appears that PW1 intended to utilize the opportunity in his favour to teach a lesson to the accused. It was not possible on 24.07.2001 since the accused went to the Court at Rayachoty on that day and PW4 was also not in town. Therefore, PW1 utilized the opportunity and went to the house of the accused on 25.07.2001 on the pretext of repaying the amount to PW4. Before going to the house of the accused, he lodged Ex.P1 report before PW6 and got a trap laid. Admittedly, no one witnessed the happenings between PW1 and the accused 15 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 inside the house. The trap team entered the house only after the alleged transaction had taken place. 32. In these circumstances, which give rise to a reasonable doubt that there is every possibility of PW1 implicating the accused by using the situation to his advantage, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW1 regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. 33. The facts and circumstances also create a doubt that there is every possibility of the accused receiving the amount as money payable to PW4. Thus, two views are possible from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused shall be adopted and the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. 34. The learned Special Court did not consider the above facts in proper perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Special Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, the judgment dated 17.05.2007 in C.C. No.18 of 2002 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, is liable to be set aside. 35. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The deceased appellant/accused is found not guilty of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) 16 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 36. Further, the fine amount, if any, paid by the deceased appellant/accused shall be refunded to the legal representatives of the deceased appellant/accused by following due process of law. This judgment be certified to the lower Court, as per section 405 of Cr.P.C. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. _________________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 23rd February, 2026 cbn 17 BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.584 of 2007, dated 23.02.2026 198 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 584 of 2007 23rd February, 2026 cbn