CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 550 of 1997 PETITIONER: State of Andhra Pradesh RESPONDENT: T.Venkateswara Rao DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2003 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad made in
Criminal Appeal No.491 of 1989 whereby the High Court set
aside the judgment and conviction recorded by the Principal
Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases at Hyderabad against the
respondent herein. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the
appeal are that the respondent who while working as
Commissioner, Sangareddy Municipality during the year 1986-
87 demanded and obtained an illegal gratification of Rs.400/- to
show an official favour to award the work order to PW-1 who
was a successful tenderer in a municipality contract, thus
committed an offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) read
with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the Act) as
also an offence under section 161 IPC. In this regard, the
prosecution alleges that on 20.4.1987 when PW-1 met the
respondent and requested him for the work order which he was
entitled to pursuant to the acceptance of his tender for doing a
contract job for the Municipality, the respondent demanded a
bribe of Rs.500 to issue the work order. When PW-1 expressed
his inability to pay such a huge amount respondent reduced the
said amount to Rs.400 and directed PW-1 to pay that amount
within 3 or 4 days. PW-1 being aggrieved by such an illegal
demand of the respondent went to Nizamabad and contacted
PW-5 who was then working as Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad District and lodged
a complaint Ex. P-9. Pursuant to the said complaint PW-5
directed PW-1 to come back to him on 24.4.1987 at 9 a.m. at
Shankarampet Guest House. Prosecution further alleges that
PW-5 after verifying the antecedents of PW-1 obtained
necessary permission of competent authority for laying a trap.
He also made necessary arrangements for requisitioning
officers working in the office of the Superintending Engineer,
Nizamabad to act as mediators. PW-4 was one such person who
was chosen to be the mediator. Prosecution then alleges that on
24.4.1987 PW-5 accompanied by his staff and others including
PWs.1 and 2 came to Sangareddy at about 12 p.m. PW-5 by
then had already instructed PWs.1 and 2 to carry the pre-
marked currency notes totalling Rs.400 in value to be handed
over to the respondent. It is the further allegation of the
prosecution that on that day after reaching Sangareddy PWs.1
and 2 went to the office of the respondents and offered to pay
bribe but then respondent asked them to meet him at his
residence during the lunch-break. Accordingly PWs.1 and 2
went and informed PW-5 whereupon all of them proceeded at
about 1 p.m. to the house of the respondent and PWs.1 and 2
went inside the house when the respondent asked them as to the
money whereupon PW-1 paid pre-marked currency notes to the
respondent who took them inside his bed-room and kept them
under mattress. On PW-2 giving the necessary signal PW-5 and
other members of the raiding party entered the house of the
respondent and asked him whether he had received any money
from PW-1. Prosecution alleges that the respondent admitted
having received the said amount and on being told by PW-5 he
brought the said money from his bed-room and when his hands
were tested for the presence of phenolphthalein powder with
water, same proved positive. Prosecution further alleges that the
proceedings were drawn up which were attested by PW-4 and it
is based on the said investigation that the respondent was
charged for offences as stated above.
While the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of
PWs.1 to 5 the respondent in his defence examined 9 witnesses
to establish his innocence. It was the defence case that the stage
of issuing work order had not been reached because the contract
in question was yet to be accepted by the Municipal Council or
the Collector who was in-charge of the Council then, hence
question of demanding bribe did not arise at all. The defence
had further pleaded that the respondent was being falsely
implicated because he was opposing a cartel of contractors in
Sangareddy who were using unfair means to obtain contracts
and also because of the enmity he had with PW-3 who was an
Engineer in the said municipality and was supporting the said
cartel. It is the further case of the defence that at the instance of
PW-3 a trap on false allegations was laid. The defence in
support of its case also examined the Collector of the District to
show that the contract was not ready to be executed. Defence
also examined an attendant of respondent’s office to show that
PWs.1 and 2 did not come to the office of the respondent on the
morning of 24.4.1987. It further examined witnesses to show
that PW-2 was inimically disposed towards the respondent
because of a prior criminal complaint lodged by the respondent
against his relative. In his statement recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C. the respondent had pleaded that because of the enmity
the contractors and PWs.1, 2 and 3 had with him, a false case of
trap was set up on 24.4.1987. He also stated that in fact PWs.1
and 2 had come to his house when he was not in the house on
the pretext of making a telephone call and had entered the bed-
room and had stealthily kept the tainted money under the
mattress and after the respondent came home for lunch, PW-1
came and shook hand with him for a favour which the
respondent had supposedly shown to him. That is how his
fingers came in contact with the phenolphthalein powder.
The trial court after considering the material on record
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its
case and rejecting the defence case found the respondent guilty
of an offence punishable under section 161 IPC and section
5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Act and awarded the
sentence of one year RI on each of the counts but directed the
sentences to run concurrently.
In appeal the High Court of Andhra Pradesh took a
contrary view and came to the conclusion that the prosecution
has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt its case against
the respondent hence allowed the appeal. In that process the
court came to the conclusion that there was evidence to support
the defence case regarding the existence of a cartel of
contractors which used to corner tenders by unethical means
and the same was opposed to by the respondent, hence the
contractors in Sangareddy had a good reason to falsely
implicate the respondent. It also came to the conclusion
agreeing with the trial court, that the Municipal Engineer PW-3
had enmity with the accused and had all the reason to join
hands with the said contractors hence his evidence cannot be
relied. The High Court also came to the conclusion that the
occasion for demanding bribe as on 14.4.1987 or 24.4.1987 did
not arise because though there was only one tender for the
works advertised by the Municipality, the same had not yet
been accepted and the agreement having not being executed, the
stage for awarding the work order had not reached, therefore,
there could not have been a demand for any bribe. The High
Court also noticed the fact that if really the respondent had
demanded a bribe from PW-1 he would not have accepted that
in the presence of PW-2 because admittedly PW-2 had some
enmity with the respondent because of a criminal complaint
lodged by him against a close relative of PW-2. Thus High
Court noticing the improbabilities in accepting the bribe gave
the benefit of doubt and allowed the appeal of the respondent,
setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial
court.
In this appeal, Ms. K Amareshwari, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant-State contended that the
High Court has seriously erred in rejecting the prosecution case
especially that of PW-5 the officer who conducted the raid and
PW-4 an official of the Department of Engineering who had no
enmity with the accused whose evidence established beyond
reasonable doubt that the amount in question was paid to the
respondent on 24.4.1987. She also contended that even if the
evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are to be ignored evidence of PWs.1,
4 and 5 are sufficient to base a conviction on the respondent.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the records, we are unable to accept the argument
addressed on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant. We
think the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion
that the contract for which PW-1 had offered his bid was only
under consideration and was not finally accepted therefore, the
question of the respondent agreeing to give the work order on
payment of bribe did not arise. The High Court was also
justified in coming to the conclusion that on 24.4.1987 between
11 a.m. and 1 p.m. respondent was not in his office hence the
prosecution case that PWs.1 and 2 approached him in his office
on that day to pay the bribe cannot be accepted. The High Court
was also justified in coming to the conclusion that no
reasonable man would have agreed to accept the bribe in the
presence of PW-2 who admittedly had a grievance against the
respondent. These findings, in our opinion, are based on
material on record and there is no perversity involved in the
conclusions arrived at by the High Court in regard to these
findings. Though learned counsel for the appellant is justified in
contending that PWs.4 and 5 are independent witnesses hence
their evidence ought not to have been rejected by the High
Court, in our opinion the fact that they are independent
witnesses ipso facto does not establish the prosecution case that
the respondent demanded or received a sum of Rs.400 in the
form of tainted currency notes on the said date. Their evidence
only establishes the fact that when they entered the house,
Rs.400 was recovered from under the mattress in the bed-room
of the respondent and on testing the respondent’s hand tested
positive for having handled the tainted money. This evidence
even if it is accepted as true would not lead to an irresistible
conclusion that this money was received by the respondent as
bribe money because of the explanation given by the
respondent wherein it is stated that the money in question was
kept in advance by PWs.1 and 2 before his arrival in the house
and he was asked to bring that money by PWs.4 and 5 when
they came to his house which he did. Because of his handling
the currency, he came in contact with the phenolphthalein
powder. Bearing in mind the findings of the High Court in
regard to the genesis of this bribery demand we think the
explanation given by the respondent by way of defence and
supported by evidence cannot be rejected as improbable or far-
fetched.
In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal.
The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
