Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sistu Vykunta Rao, vs The State ,. on 18 June, 2025
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.456 of 2009 & 459 of 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since both the appeals arise out of the same
judgment dated 06.04.2009 in C.C.No.39 of 2004 passed
by the learned Special Judge for ACB Cases,
Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’),
they are being disposed of, by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2009 has been preferred
by AO2, and Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2009 has been
preferred by AO1, in the aforesaid C.C.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Special
Judge found AOs.1 and 2 guilty of the offences under
Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), accordingly
convicted them of the said charges and sentenced them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for a period of one month each, for
the offence under Section 7 of the Act and Section 34 IPC,
2
and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period
of two months each, for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d)
read with 13 (2) of the Act and Section 34 IPC. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Case of the prosecution is as follows.
AO.1 was working as Principal, APSWR School/
Junior College, Gollakanchili, Kanchili mandal and AO2
was working as P.T.Teacher-cum-Deputy Warder of the
said institution, and both are public servants as defined
under Section 2 (c) of the Act. L.W.1-Gummadi Saradhi
was a Vegetable Contractor. He obtained Tender for supply
of vegetables, fruits, sweets, eggs, to A.P.S.W.R. School/
Junior College, Gollakanchili, supplied the same in the
month of September, 2003 and submitted bill for
Rs.48,546/- to AO.2. On 18.10.2003, he met AO.1 and
requested to pass the bill. On that, AO.1 demanded bribe
of Rs.7,000/- to do the official favour of passing the bill
and issue cheque. On his request, AO.1 reduced the
3
demanded amount to Rs.5,000/- and stated that unless
the bribe amount is paid, the bill would not be passed and
cheque would not be issued. AO.1 instructed AO.2 to
collect the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from him. AO.1
instructed him to bring the bribe amount within 4 or 5
days. Thereafter, AO.2 took him to hostel and demanded
Rs.5,000/- to do official favour to sign on bills and submit
the same to AO.1, and when he expressed his inability,
AO.2 reduced the bribe to Rs.3,000/- and instructed to
bring the amount. Unwilling to pay the same, he presented
a written report to P.W.2, who registered a case in crime
No.10/RC-ACB/VZM/2003 basing on the said report, for
the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of the Act.
After completion of pre-trap proceedings, the trap
was laid on 21.10.2003 at 12.30 noon in the presence of
mediators. L.W.1-Gummadi Saradi went into office of AO1
and P.W.1 took vantage position near the door of office
room of AO1. At that time, AOs.1 and 2 were present in
the office room of AO.1. On seeing L.W.1-Gummadi
Saradi, AOs.1 and 2 enquired about the bribe amount, for
4
which he responded positively. AO.1 instructed him to
hand over the bribe amount to AO.2. Accordingly, he
handed over the bribe amounts of Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.3,000/- to AO.2, who received the same. Immediately,
AO.1 called L.W.4-G.Eswara Rao, Office Superintendent to
bring cheque book by filling the bill amount. Later, L.W.1-
Gummadi Saradi came out and relayed the pre-arranged
signal. Chemical test conducted to right hand of AO.2 gave
positive result. AO.2 produced tainted currency notes,
whose numbers are tallied with the one mentioned in pre-
trap proceedings. P.W.2 took up further investigation,
examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and
seized material objects, and after receipt of sanction order
and completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet.
5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were
furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
and, on considering the material on record, charges under
Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Act were
framed against AOs.1 and 2. When the respective charges
5
were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu,
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5
were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked, besides
case properties M.Os.1 to 9.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the
incriminating material found against them in the evidence
of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. D.W.1 was
examined and no documents were marked, on behalf of
defence.
8. After hearing both sides and appreciating the
evidence on record, the learned Special Judge found the
appellants guilty, accordingly convicted and sentenced
them, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present
Criminal Appeals were filed.
9. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for
appellant/AO.1 in Criminal Appeal No.459 of 2009 and Sri
Badeti Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for appellant/
6
AO.2 in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2009, and Sri S.Syam
Sundar Rao, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public
Prosecutor for ACB. Perused the record.
10. Learned counsel appearing for appellants contended
that the informant-L.W.1-Gummadi Saradi, who set the
criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P11-written report,
died before commencement of trial, and the entire case of
prosecution rests on the evidence of the alleged
accompanying witness P.W.1, and there is any amount of
ambiguity in relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 for the
reason that the mediator who was examined during post-
trap proceedings has never mentioned with regard to
presence of P.W.1 at the scene of offence. He further
submits that basing on the evidence of P.W.1, the accused
officers cannot be convicted for the reason that the
evidence of P.W.1 would be on par with an interested
witness in order to favour the prosecution. It is his
submission that P.W.1 deposed that when the informant
went inside the room of AO.1, he was waiting at the
entrance door of the office room of AO.1, and according to
7
his evidence in cross-examination, measurement of the
room of AO.1 is 20 x 15 feet, and in such a case, P.W.1
would not be in a position to say exactly what transpired
there in the office room. The learned counsel submits
that P.W.1 would not be in a position to hear what
transpired in the office room at the relevant point of time of
the incident. The learned counsel submits that even
according to evidence of P.W.1, he was orally instructed by
the Executive Engineer to appear in ACB office and in the
pre-trap proceedings, there is no reference of the oral
instructions of the employer, and therefore, in view of the
aforesaid circumstances, it is not safe to place reliance on
the evidence of P.W.1 alone, which is uncorroborated, to
maintain a conviction.
It is his submission that there is absolutely no
evidence on record to prove the demands allegedly made by
the appellants/accused officers on earlier occasions prior
to the date of trap, and it cannot be said that the alleged
demands on earlier dates are proved to be established
beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that there is no
impeaching evidence to establish the alleged demand and
8
acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellants/accused
officers, but these aspects were not considered by the trial
Court in right perspective. Hence, he prays to set aside the
convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Special
Judge against the appellants.
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent/A.C.B. submitted
that though the informant-L.W.1-Gummadi Saradi died
before commencement of trial, the evidence of P.W.1, who
is an accompanying witness, is consistent with regard to
the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the
appellants/accused officers on the date of the trap, and
there is recovery of tainted amount from the possession of
appellant/AO.2 and an official favour was pending with the
appellants/accused officers as on the date of trap; that
there is no reason for P.W.1 to foist a false case of this
nature against the appellants unless they demanded the
bribe amount. It is his submission that contradictions, if
any, in the evidence of P.W.1 would not go to the root of
the case of the prosecution. As regards acceptance, he
9
submits that appellant/AO.2, accepted the tainted money
on the instructions of AO.1. He submits that the learned
Special Judge, upon considering the evidence on record,
rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and there
are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.
12. Now, the point for consideration is whether the
prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of
appellants/accused officers 1 and 2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d)
of the Act, beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the
judgment passed by the learned Special Judge needs any
interference by this Court?
13. The charges framed against appellants/AOs.1 and 2
are punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of the Act. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 7 of the Act are –
i) that the person accepting the gratification
should be a public servant;
ii) that he should accept the gratification for
himself and the gratification should be as a motive
or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official
10
act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the
exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour
to any person.
14. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned,
its essential ingredients are:
(i)that he should have been a public servant;
(ii)that he should have used corrupt or illegal
means, or otherwise abused his position as
such public servant, and
(iii)that he should have obtained a valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or
for any other person.
15. It is the case of the prosecution that AO.1, being
public servant working as Principal, APSWR School/
Junior College, Gollakanchili, Kanchili mandal at the
relevant point of time of the incident, demanded bribe from
L.W.1-Gummadi Saradhi, who was a Vegetable Contractor,
for passing the bill submitted by him for Rs.48,546/- for
supply of vegetables, fruits, sweets, eggs, to A.P.S.W.R.
School/Junior College, Gollakanchili, and for issuing
cheque, on 18.10.2003, and instructed AO2, who was a
public servant working as P.T.Teacher-cum-Deputy Warder
of the said institution at the relevant point of time of the
11
incident, to collect the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from
him. It is further alleged that AO.2 also demanded
Rs.3,000/- from him to do official favour to sign on bills
and submit the same to AO.1.
16. The informant L.W.1-Gummadi Saradhi died before
commencement of trial. The entire case of the prosecution
rests on the solitary testimony of P.W1, who was working
as Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply
Section, Ponduru, who was arrayed as accompanying
witness along with the informant L.W.1-Gummadi Saradhi,
on the date of trap, with regard to the alleged demand of
illegal gratification by appellants/AOs.1 and 2 and
acceptance thereof by appellant/AO.2 on the instructions
of appellant/AO.1. When a case rests on the solitary
testimony of a witness, it is settled law that it must be
consistent, cogent and trustworthy and it has to be placed
in the category of ‘wholly reliable’. In such a case, there is
no legal bar to base conviction basing on the testimony of
solitary witness. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a
12
decision in Vadivelu Thevar vs. the State of Madras1,
wherein it was held thus: (Paragraph No.10)
“Generally speaking oral testimony in this
context may be classified into these categories,
namely:
(i)wholly reliable
(ii)wholly unreliable
(iii)Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable
In the first category of proof, the Court
should have no difficulty in coming to its
conclusion either way it may convict or may
acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it
is found to be above reproach on suspicion of
interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In
the second category, the court equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the
third category of cases, that the Court has to be
circumspect and has to look for corroboration in
material particulars by reliable testimony, direct
or circumstantial.”
17. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that on the date of the
trap, himself and the informant L.W.1-Gummadi Saradhi
went to the office of AO.1, and the informant went inside
the room of AO.1 and he was waiting at the entrance of
1
AIR 1957 SC 614.
13
door of the office room of AO.1. It is his further evidence
that on seeing the informant L.W.1-Gummadi Saradhi,
AO.1 asked about the demanded amount, for which the
informant replied positively, and on that AO.1 directed the
informant to give the amount to AO.2. It is his further
evidence that the informant picked up the amount from his
shirt pocket and handed over to AO.2, and AO.2 received
the same and kept on the table of AO.1. It is his further
evidence that thereafter, AO.1 called the Office
Superintendent and asked him to bring the bill and
cheques pertaining to the informant, and accordingly, he
went outside in order to bring the bill and cheques, and
thereafter, the pre-arranged signal was given by the
informant, pursuant to which the trap party entered the
room of AO.1 and post-trap proceedings took place.
18. P.W.2 worked as Inspector of Police, ACB,
Vizianagaram at the relevant point of time of the incident.
He deposed about registration of the subject crime under
Ex.P12 basing on Ex.P11-report dated nil, lodged by L.W.1-
Gummadi Saradhi, conducting pre-trap, laying the trap
14
and conducting post-trap proceedings. P.W.3 also worked
as Inspector of Police, ACB, Srikakulam, who assisted the
DSP during pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, conducted
further investigation in the subject crime and filed charge
sheet after completion of investigation and receipt of
relevant documents.
19. P.W.4 worked as Section Officer, Social Welfare
Department, Secretariat. He deposed about issuance of
sanction orders under Exs.P13 and P14 by the then
Principal Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare
Department Mr. Ajendra Paul, to prosecute the appellants/
AOs.1 and 2 respectively.
20. P.W.5 worked as Principal of A.P. Social Welfare
Residential School, Srikakulam. He deposed regarding
issuance of Ex.P3 (a) proceedings, accepting the tender of
L.W.1-Saradhi for supply of vegetables, fruits, eggs and
sweets to Residential School, Kanchili. He deposed that
the supplier will present the bill before the Deputy Warden,
who in turn prepare the bill and forward the same to the
15
Principal concerned, who will pass the bill after
verification.
21. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that P.W.1 is a planted witness and the
mediator who was examined during post-trap proceedings
has never mentioned with regard to presence of P.W.1 at
the scene of offence. It is his submission that admittedly,
P.W.1, being a witness to the pre-trap proceedings (Ex.P2)
and post-trap proceedings (Ex.P10), is an interested
witness, and hence, in the absence of evidence of the
informant and in the absence of corroboration, his
evidence cannot be relied upon.
22. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that
on the date of the trap, when the informant went inside the
room of AO.1, he was waiting at the entrance door of the
office room of AO.1, and on seeing the informant L.W.1-
Gummadi Saradhi, AO.1 asked about the demanded
amount, for which the informant replied positively, and on
that AO.1 directed the informant to give the amount to
AO.2. The evidence of P.W.1 is silent on the aspect of
16
AO.2 demanding the amount of Rs.3,000/- asked by him
as bribe and the informant paying the same, on the date of
trap. Whereas, in his statement in post-trap proceedings
Ex.P10, he stated that AO2 demanded money for himself
and the informant stated that he brought the money for
AO2 also and accordingly handed over the said amount to
AO2. Therefore, there is a clear omission on this material
aspect in the evidence of P.W.1.
23. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence as if he witnessed the
entire transaction that took place between the accused
officers and the informant on the date of trap. According
to his evidence in cross-examination, measurement of the
room of AO.1 is 20 x 15 feet, and according to his evidence,
he was standing outside the door of the office room of
AO.1. In cross-examination, when a suggestion was put to
him that he did not hear the transaction in the room and it
was not audible to the alleged place where he stood, he
denied the same. But, he did not elaborate that he
witnessed the transaction. Therefore, there is any
amount of ambiguity whether P.W.1 witnessed the
17
transaction or heard the same from outside the room of
AO.1.
24. A perusal of the recitals in post trap proceedings
Ex.P10 goes to show that one Rada Satyam, Sweeper of
APSWR School/Junior College, Gollakanchili, Kanchili
mandal stated that on 21.10.2003, he was standing in
front of office room of the Principal, and at 12.45 PM, the
informant went inside the office of the Principal, and within
5 or 10 minutes, he came out from the room of the
Principal, and the Office Superintendent went inside with
some papers. Presence of the said Attender in front of
door of room of the Principal is quite natural. Even P.W.1
stated that one Attender Satyam was present at the
entrance of AO.1 room. His presence cannot be ruled out.
But, he did not specifically state that another person was
standing at the door of office room of AO.1. If really P.W.1
was standing at the door of office room of AO.1, he would
have certainly stated about presence of P.W.1 at the door of
office room of AO1 at the time of trap. But, there is no
such recital in his statement. In view of the same, there is
18
any amount of ambiguity about presence of P.W.1 at the
door of the office room of AO.1 at the time of the trap.
Further, P.W.1 stated in cross-examination that the then
Executive Engineer orally instructed him to appear in ACB
office. He admitted that in pre-trap proceedings, there is
no reference of oral instructions of his employer.
Admittedly, P.W.1 was working as an Assistant Executive
Engineer, Rural Water Supply Section, Ponduru. But,
without authorization from his employer from his employer
to participate in the trap proceedings.
25. When a case rests upon the evidence of solitary
testimony of a witness, his evidence must be
unimpeachable and above board. In the light of the
aforesaid infirmities and in the absence of any orders from
his superior, there is any amount of ambiguity with regard
to his participation in the trap proceedings, especially he
witnessing the incident proper. Therefore, P.W.1 cannot be
termed as a wholly reliable witness. In such a case, his
evidence requires corroboration. Except his evidence, there
is absolutely no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to
19
establish the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe
amount made by the appellants. There is no substantive
evidence of the informant. Further, the evidence of P.W.1
does not substantiate the earlier demand allegedly made by
the appellants. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold
that an implicit reliance cannot be placed on the solitary
testimony of P.W.1 to base the conviction, and it can be
said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the
appellants/AOs.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
26. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that in the absence of any evidence of the
informant, the alleged earlier demand made by the
appellants on 18.10.2003 is not established, and if the said
part of the prosecution story is held to be not accepted,
conviction cannot be based on the other part, which cannot
stand by itself in the absence of proof of the vital part
beyond reasonable doubt. in order to attract the offences
alleged against the appellants/AOs.1 and 2, it is essential
that all the essential ingredients of offences alleged have to
be made out. There cannot be any dispute that earlier
20
demands are integral part of subsequent demand and
acceptance, and it is just and necessary that earlier
demand which has been made by the appellants / AOs.1
and 2 has to be proved, so as to lead the informant, to
lodge a complaint before ACB.
27. According to the case of prosecution, on 18.10.2003,
when the informant L.W.1-Gummadi Saradhi approached
AO.1, who is Warden-cum-Principal of the Institution and
requested to pass the bill, he demanded Rs.7,000/- as
bribe to do the official favour of passing the bill and issuing
the cheque for Rs.48,546/-, and on the request made by
the informant, AO.1 reduced the same to Rs.5,000/-. It is
further alleged that on the same day, AO2, who was
working P.T.Teacher-cum-Deputy Warden, also demanded
bribe of Rs.5,000/- to do the official favour of signing the
bills and submitting the AO.1, and on the request of the
informant, he reduced the same to Rs.3,000/-. In the
case on hand, the informant L.W.1-Gummadi Saradhi died
before commencement of trial. Admittedly, P.W.1 has not
witnessed when AOs.1 and 2 made the earlier demand for
21
bribe from the informant on 18.10.2003. Therefore, there
is no substantive piece of evidence to substantiate the
earlier demands made by the accused officers.
28. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in
Hari Dev Sharma vs. State (Delhi Administration) 2, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus (paragraph No.3):
“The High Court on appeal preferred by the appellant
before us did not accept the prosecution case on the
first two charges on the ground that it would be unsafe
to hold on the bare testimony of the complainant that
Rs.20 had been paid to the appellant as alleged.
Apparently, the High Court looked upon the
complainant as a witness not to be believed unless his
evidence was corroborated by other evidence. The High
Court however accepted the other part of the
prosecution case that the appellant had been caught
while accepting Rs.70 as bribe from the complainant.
One circumstance which appears to have impressed the
learned Judge was that the complainant was being
harassed by various objections raised on his
application ever since 1964 when the property was
purchased. It appears however that the appellant
started dealing with the file only from July 1966, and
the earliest of the notes made by him on the file was
dated July 20, 1968. Admittedly, the complainant met2
(1977) 3 Supreme Court Cases 352.
22
the appellant for the first time on January 29, 1969
and, that being so, it is difficult to hold that the
objections raised prior to this date were calculated to
put pressure on the complainant. It is hardly
reasonable to think that the appellant could anticipate
what in fact followed. Besides, the appellant could not
have been responsible for any objection raised between
1964 and July 1966. But the main difficulty we feel in
accepting the prosecution case arises out of the fact
that the High Court disbelieved the part of it which,
according to the prosecution, was the genesis of the
case. Having disbelieved the story that the appellant
had asked for a bribe of Rs100 of which Rs 20 was
paid in advance, we do not think the High Court could
reasonably proceed on what was left of the prosecution
case to affirm the order of the conviction passed by the
trial court. The prosecution case was one integrated
story which the trial court had accepted, If the High
Court did not find it possible to accept a vital part of the
story, it is difficult to see how the other part, which did
not stand by itself, could be accepted. It was not the
prosecution case that Rs 70 which was recovered from
the appellant was the amount that the appellant had
asked for from the complainant. This was a new case
made by the High Court. Undoubtedly there are
circumstances in this case which are highly suspicious
against the appellant, but the High Court having
disbelieved an essential part of the prosecution case on
which the other part was dependant, we do not
23
consider it safe to sustain the conviction of the
appellant. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set
aside the order of conviction and sentences passed
against the appellant.”
29. There cannot be any dispute that the prosecution
case is one integrated story. In view of lack of substantive
evidence with regard to the alleged demand made by the
appellants on the earlier occasion, it is difficult to accept a
vital part of the story i.e. earlier demand made by the
appellants on 18.10.2003, 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.
30. With regard to the fact that tainted money was
recovered from AO.2 and chemical test conducted on the
hands of AO.2 gave positive result, mere recovery of tainted
currency, by itself, is not a ground to find a person guilty of
the offences alleged. The prosecution failed to establish
the earlier demand and the demand on the date of the trap
made by the appellants. In the absence of the same, the
24
appellants cannot be found guilty of the charges levelled
against the appellants.
31. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of
the appellants for the charges leveled against them beyond
all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has not considered
the evidence on record in right perspective and erred in
convicting and sentencing the appellants. Hence, the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be
set aside.
32. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed,
setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded
against the appellants, in the judgment dated 06.04.2009
in C.C.No.39 of 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge
for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. The appellants are found
not guilty of the charges leveled against them and are
accordingly acquitted of the said charges and they are set
at liberty. Fine amounts, if any, paid by them shall be
refunded to them.
25
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in these Criminal Appeals shall stand closed.
_________________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Date: 18.6.2025
DRK
26
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal Nos.456 of 2009 & 459 of 2009
Date: 18.6.2025
DRK