Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Vedagiri Subrahmanyam Naidu vs The State Of Ap.,Acb on 15 July, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010373602014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3327]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513 OF 2014
Between:
1. VEDAGIRI SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, S/O LATE
ACHAPPA NAIDU HINDU OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT
FAC MPDO R/O D.NO.20-3-124/5, YERRAMITTA
TIRUPATHI TOWN CHITTOOR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP ACB, through the Inspector of Police
Anti Corruption Bureau Tirupathi Range Tirupathi Chittoor
district Rep by its Special Public Prosecutor High court of
AP., Hyderabad
...RESPONDENT
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying
that the High Court may be pleased to allow the Crl.A by setting
aside the Judgment dt 28-04-2014 in CC No.47/2013 on the file
of the Honble Judge, special court for trial of ACB cases in
Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool, Wherein the Honble Special
Judge Convicted the appellant / accused officer for the offences
for the offence under section 7 and 13(1)d) R/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and Sentenced him to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.200/- IDSI for one month for the offence u/s 7 ACT and further
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- IDSI for Two Months for
the offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of the prevention of
2
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
Corruption Act 1988 and both the sentences are directed to run
Concurrently
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. M B THIMMA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB
3
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal No.513 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment dated 28.04.2014 passed in CC No.47 of 2013 by the
learned Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases in Rayalaseema
Region, at Kurnool.
2. Sole accused officer is the appellant herein. He was tried
for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short „the
Act‟). By his judgment dated 28.04.2014, the learned Special
Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and,
accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of
Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only), in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of
the Act. He was further convicted for the offence under Section
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also to pay
fine of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred only), in default to suffer
4
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
simple imprisonment for two (2) months. Both the sentences of
imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. MO.4 i.e., cash
of Rs.3000/- was ordered to be returned to PW.1 and other
material objects were ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is
over.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the accused officer
worked as Office Superintendent, FAC MPDO, Piler, Chittoor
district, from 15.11.2008 to 21.01.2009, as such, he is a public
servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The de
facto complainant (PW.1) and 20 manual labourers formed into a
group and were attending labour works under Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme. About six months prior to the incident, they
dug pits in the fields of Bujjareddy and Nagarathnamma and
planted Mango saplings. PW.8 – the Field Officer of MPDO
Office, Piler, prepared bill for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and
submitted it to the accused officer for sanction. When PW.1 met
the accused officer about 15 days prior to the incident, he
demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- for sanction of the bill. On
19.01.2009, when PW.1 again met the accused officer in his
office and enquired about the bill, the accused officer asked him
to pay the bribe amount either on 21.01.2009 or on 22.01.2009 in
5
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
order to sanction the bill, otherwise the bill would be kept
pending. Having no other go, he agreed to pay the bribe amount
to the accused officer. However, as PW.1 was not willing to pay
the said bribe amount, he lodged a complaint Ex.P40 against the
accused officer before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,
Tirupati on 20.01.2009, basing on which a case in Crime
No.1/RCT-TCT/2009 of Tirupati Range, Tirupati, was registered,
against the accused officer for the offence punishable under
Section 7 of the Act and issued FIR Ex.P41. PW.17 conducted
pre-trap proceedings on 21.01.2009 and sent the decoy to the
office of the accused officer at 05.45 pm. The accused officer
received the bribe amount on Tirupati Platform in APSRTC Bus
Stand, Piler and on receiving pre-arranged signal from PW.1, the
trap party rushed there, seized the amount from the accused
officer under post-trap proceedings, completed the process,
investigated the case and after completion of investigation and on
receipt of prosecution sanction proceedings, charge sheet was
filed against the accused officer for the aforesaid offences.
4. On appearance of accused officer, copies of documents
were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and,
thereafter, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)
6
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
of the Act were framed against the accused officer and the
contents are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to
18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P41 and MOs 1 to 8.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused officer
was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the
incriminating material found against him in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. He did not choose to
examine any witness nor marked any documents on his behalf,
except filing a written statement.
7. The accused officer in his written statement stated that he
never demanded or accepted any illegal gratification of Rs.3000/-
from PW.1 and no official favour pertaining to PW.1 was pending
with him by the date of the report i.e. on 20.01.2009 or by the
date of trap i.e. on 21.01.2009. He further stated that he used to
take hand loans from PW.16 whenever necessary and on
20.01.2009 morning he requested PW.16 for hand loan of
Rs.5000/-, but he promised to arrange hand loan of Rs.3000/-
only on the next day. PW.16 further informed to the accused
officer that as he proposes to go to Bangalore on the next day he
7
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
would send the hand loan amount of Rs.3000/- through PW.1,
who is the son-in-law of PW.16. On 21.01.2009, while the
accused officer was in Piler RTC bus stand to go to Chittoor,
PW.1 came and handed over Rs.3000/- to him stating that PW.16
gave that amount to PW.1 to hand over the same to him as hand
loan. Believing the version of PW.1, he received the said
amount from PW.1. In the meanwhile, the ACB officials came
and caught hold of him and got fabricated the present false trap
case against him.
8. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral
and documentary evidence on record, found the accused officer
guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him
as aforesaid. Against the said conviction and sentence, the
present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.
9. Heard. Perused the record.
10. Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant/accused officer, submits that the de facto
complainant (PW.1) did not support the prosecution case and he
resiled from his earlier version and was treated as hostile by the
prosecution. He submits that the accompanying witness PW.2 as
8
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
well as all the material prosecution witnesses also did not support
the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile by the
prosecution. He further submits that the appellant/accused
officer, at the time of trap, submitted a spot explanation stating
that PW.16 has sent the money through PW.1 and he received
the money believing that it was sent by PW.16 and to that extent
PW.16, though examined as prosecution witness, supported the
version of the accused officer. He further submits that in order to
attract the offence under Section 7 of the Act, it is essential that
there should be demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by
the accused officer, and except the alleged recovery of tainted
currency from the possession of the accused officer, there is
absolutely no accusation as against the accused officer that he is
said to have made any demand for the bribe amount and
acceptance of the said bribe amount from PW.1. He relied upon
the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Aman Bhatia v.
State (GNCT of Delhi)1, B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra
Pradesh2, N. Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 and
Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.2136 of
2010, dated 23.03.2023).
1
2025 Law Suit (SC) 652
2
(2014) 13 SCC 55
3
(2016) 1 SCC 713
9
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
11. On the other hand, Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned
Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB,
submitted that merely because there is no proof of demand, the
entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. It is
evident that the amount was recovered from the possession of
the accused officer and that fact is sufficient enough, so as to
bring the accused officer within the purview of the aforesaid
offences. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment
passed by this Court in Crl.Appeal No.820 of 2007, dated
29.01.2024. He further submitted that on the ground that PW.1
turned hostile, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be
brushed aside and this Court has to look into the other
circumstantial material to come to a conclusion that whether a
case against the accused officer has been made out or not.
According to him, earlier there was a demand made by the
accused officer and the same is proved by the circumstances
prevailed in the case and that is sufficient enough to convict the
accused officer for the aforesaid offences and, accordingly, the
learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the accused officer,
which calls for no interference by this Court.
10
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
12. The point that falls for determination is whether the
prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/
accused officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and
13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and whether the impugned judgment calls for interference
by this Court ?
13. Substance of the charge against the accused officer is that
he, being a public servant, to wit. Office Superintendent, FAC
MPDO, office of the MPDO, Piler, Chittoor district, 15 days prior
to 19.01.2009 and again on 21.01.2009 demanded PW.1 to pay a
sum of Rs.3,000/- for the purpose of clearing a bill in respect of
the work of digging pits in the fields and planting of Mango
saplings under Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and
received Rs.3,000/-, at 05.55 PM at APSRTC Bus Stand, Piler, as
gratification other than legal remuneration as motive or reward for
showing and for doing an official act in exercise of his official
functions in passing the bill of the work undertaken by PW.1 and
his group, thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 7 of the Act. In the course of same transaction, the
accused officer demanded and received an amount of Rs.3,000/-
as gratification other than legal remuneration as a reward for
11
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
doing an official act in exercise of his official functions in passing
the bill of the work undertaken by PW.1 and his group and thus
amounting to obtaining the pecuniary advantage by corrupt or
illegal means in furtherance of previous demand made by him,
which amounts to criminal misconduct, thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
Act.
14. PW.1, who is the de facto complainant, stated that he is a
manual labourer. He and 19 others, being job cardholders under
National Employment Scheme, worked in the field of
Nagarathnamma and Buchireddy for three weeks for digging pits
and filled them with mud. The Government paid labour charges
for two weeks and had to pay remaining amount totaling to
Rs.8000/- to all. In connection with that, PWs.8 and 10 informed
PW.1 and others that they would pay one week labour, if PW.16
recommends for it. PW.8 has to prepare the bill and PW.10 has
to sanction it. PW.1 further stated that PW.16 asked him to come
to Tirupati to get some other work keeping the bill pending.
Accordingly, he met PW.16 at Tirupati. PW.16 gave Rs.3000/- to
him asking to handover the said amount to the accused officer as
a loan. PW.16 contacted the accused officer over phone and
12
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
informed that he was sending money through him. He had taken
him to MPDO Office, Pileru and asked him to give said Rs.3000/-
to the accused officer as if it was a bribe. PW.16 reminded him
after some time for not yet giving said money to the accused
officer. The accused officer contacted him over phone and asked
him to give said Rs.3000/-, which was given to him by PW.16.
PW.1 went to RTC bus stand, Pileru in the year 2009 (date and
month not remembered) with money and gave it to the accused
officer there at about 05.30 PM. At this stage, PW.1 was
declared as hostile by the prosecution stating that he resiled from
his earlier statement given before the ACB.
15. PW.2 is the accompanying witness. He too did not
support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the
prosecution. The material witnesses i.e. PWs.3 to 7, also did not
support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile by
the prosecution.
16. PW.8 is the Field Assistant in the office of the MPDO,
Pileru. He deposed that the accused officer was their MPDO. He
maintains muster roll recording names of labourers attended,
number of days attended etc., in the office. He made entries in
the muster roll in the field every day during his inspection.
13
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
Ex.P13 is one of such muster rolls from 04.01.2009 to
19.01.2009, which contains signatures of labourers including
PW.1, PWs.3 to 6 and his signature. He further deposed that the
muster rolls would go to PW.10 and then to MPDO who sanctions
the work charges. The Technical Assistant prepares pay slip and
gives it to him. He handover the pay slips to the concerned
labourers. Then, they go to post office and withdraw amount from
their accounts with their pay slips. A perusal of the evidence of
PW.8 goes to show that he only states to the extent of procedure
that has been contemplated for handing over the monies to the
labourers in the department.
17. PW.9 works as a Technical Assistant in the MPDO Office,
Pileru. He also explains about his job of visiting fields, verifying
correctness of muster rolls and feeding the work in M.Book i.e.,
Ex.P15 and gives it to PW.10. He further stated that he does not
remember whether the amount relating to this roll was remitted in
the Post Office. PW.10 was working as APO in the MPDO Office.
He receives muster rolls, M.Book, goes to field, verifies the work
and submits the records to the MPDO for sanction. He did not
support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the
prosecution. PW.11 is the Computer Assistant in the office of the
14
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
MPDO, Pileru. He too explains only with regard to the procedure
envisaged in the department. PW.12 is a farmer, who owns
Ac.7.00 of agricultural land in Pileru village. He states to the
extent that PW.1 and ten other labourers dug pits in October
month about five years back in his land to plant mango saplings
and filled them with mud and saplings in the month of December
of the same year.
18. PW.13, who worked as in-charge MPDO, Pileru, from
23.01.2009 to 05.10.2009, explains the nature of his job. He
deposed as follows.
“The ACB officials asked him job chart covering the role of
MPDO, citizen charter and service particulars of the accused
officer (previous MPDO). Ex.P12 is the job chart. Field Assistant
in the office of the MPDO takes attendance of labourers in given
work, prepares muster roll and submit it to APO, who verifies the
record and hands over the record to the Technical Assistant, who
visits the work place, verifies it with concerned records, records
the work in M. Book and returns it with muster roll to APO, who
gives these two records to computer operator, who feeds in
system concerned information and gets a sheet containing
amount of every labourer to be received and takes from the
15
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014system payment order individual and consolidate. APO cross
checks these records and prepares cheques in the name of post
office and submit them with other records to MPDO, who signs on
muster roll, M. Book, payment order, cheques, measurement
sheet etc., and send cheque of the week with muster roll
containing names and amount of labourer to post office for
remitting the amount in respective account of labourer. The office
has to remit the amount in post office within fifteen days after
preparation of muster roll. After preparation of Ex.P14, Field
Assistant begins the work.”
19. PW.14 is the Horticulture Officer, Pileru, who inspected
the agricultural field of one Bojja Reddy and Nagarathnamma, as
per the instructions of the ACB officials, and certified the age of
mango grafts under Ex.P36 report. PW.15 is the Chief Executive
Officer, Panchayat Raj, Vizianagaram. According to him, the
Commissioner issued prosecution sanction order against the
accused officer under Ex.P38.
20. PW.16 was declared as hostile by the prosecution. In his
cross-examination, he categorically stated that PW.1 is his son-in-
law. He knew the accused officer well for two or three years
before he was posted to MPDO office. He had friendly money
16
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
transactions with the accused officer and it happened many
times. The accused officer requested him for hand loan of
Rs.5,000/- one day before the date of trap. He had Rs.3,000/-
only and informed the accused officer that he would send it to him
on the next day through PW.1 and left his village at 5.00 am on
the next day by giving Rs.3,000/- to PW.1 to give it to the
accused officer and returned from Bangalore to his village ten
(10) days thereafter. He further stated that there were disputes
between one Venkataramana Reddy and the accused officer and
the said Venkataramana Reddy, having known about giving hand
loan by him to the accused officer, made use of this transaction
against him.
21. PW.17 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,
Tirupati, who registered the case based on the complaint of PW.1
Ex.P40 and issued copies of FIR Ex.P41 to all concerned. He
conducted pre-trap and post-trap proceedings under Exs.P10 and
P11. His successor PW.18 – the Inspector of Police, ACB,
Tirupati, after completion of investigation and on receipt of
prosecution sanction orders, filed charge sheet.
22. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that
PW.1, who is a decoy witness and whose evidence is crucial in
17
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
nature, did not support the prosecution case and he was treated
as hostile by the prosecution. The accompanying witness i.e.
PW.2, too did not support the case of the prosecution and he was
also treated as hostile by the prosecution. As rightly submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellant, on the date of trap, the
accused officer submitted spontaneous explanation that the
amounts received by him from PW.1 are the amounts that have
been sent by PW.16. This Court perused the evidence of PW.16
and, in his cross-examination he categorically stated that there
were money transactions between him and the accused officer
and he sent the money through PW.1 to handover the same to
the accused officer. Since there were disputes between Reddy
community and the accused officer, the amount that has been
given by PW.16 was made use of by PW.1, as though he paid
bribe to the accused officer.
23. Irrespective of the same, the demand of illegal gratification
is sine qua non to constitute the offence under Section 7 of the
Act and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the
offence under Section 7 of the Act unless it is proved beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused officer voluntarily accepted the
money knowing it to be a bribe. One of the essential ingredients
18
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
be constituted under Section 7 of the Act is that there should be a
demand earlier and on the date of trap. In the absence of proof
of demand, the prosecution would not bring the accused officer
guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Act.
24. In Aman Bhatia‘s case (1 supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court held as follows.
“51. In C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt. of
India reported as (1997) 9 SCC 477, this Court,
although interpreting the term “accept” in the context
of the 1947 Act, observed that “accept” means to
take or receive with a consenting mind. In contrast,
“obtain” was understood to imply securing or gaining
something as a result of a request or effort. In both
instances, a demand or request by the receiver is a
prerequisite for establishing an offence under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
52. It is well-settled that mere recovery of
tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish
the charges against an accused under the PC Act.
To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) of the Act respectively, it must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant
voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a
bribe. The courts have consistently reiterated that
the demand for a bribe is sine qua non for
19
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014establishing an offence under Section 7 of the PC
Act.”
25. In B. Jayaraj‘s case (2 supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
held as follows.
“8. In the present case, the complainant did
not support the prosecution case in so far 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 same was pursuant to any demand
made by the accused. When the complainant
himself had disowned what he had stated in the
initial complaint (Exbt.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 Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to
come to the conclusion that the above material
furnishes proof of the 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
20
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014currency notes from the accused without proof of
demand will not bring home the offence under
Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so
far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(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.”
26. In N. Sunkanna‘s case (3 supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court held as follows.
“The prosecution examined the other fair price
shop dealers in Kurnool as PWs 3, 4 and 6 to prove
that the accused was receiving monthly mamools
from them. PWs 4 and 6 did not state so and they
were declared hostile. PW-3 though in the
examination-in-chief stated so, in the cross-
examination turned round and stated that the
accused never asked any monthly mamool and he
did not pay Rs.50/- at any time. The prosecution has
not examined any other witness present at the time
when the money was demanded by the accused and
also when the money was allegedly handed-over to
the accused by the complainant. The complainant
himself had disowned his complaint and has turned
hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that
the accused had made any demand. In short there is
21
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014no proof of the demand allegedly made by the
accused. The only other material available is the
recovery of the tainted currency notes from the
possession of the accused. The possession is also
admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere
possession and recovery of the currency notes from
the accused without proof of demand will not bring
home the offence under Section 7, since demand of
illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the
said offence. The above also will be conclusive
insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) 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. 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. Unless there is proof of demand
of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not
follow. Reference may be made to the two decisions
of three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 55] and P.
Satyanarayna Murthy vs. The District Inspector of
Police and another [(2015 (9) SCALE 724].
27. It is well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the
accused person against whom the presumption is made under
22
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the
prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies
upon the accused he is not required to discharge that burden by
leading evidence of proof his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the
prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the
accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused
person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him
under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is
sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a
preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not
necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a
reasonable doubt or in default to incur verdict of guilt. The onus of
proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a
preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing
so, the burden shifts to prosecution which still has to discharge its
original onus that never shifts, i.e., that of establishing on the
whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.”
(See Jhangan Vs. State 1966 (3) SCR 736).
(Emphasis supplied)
23
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
28. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has relied upon
the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.820 of 2007, dated 29.01.2024,
wherein this Court held as follows.
“In the light of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that though PW.1 turned hostile the
evidence on record proves that the very obtaining of
a sum of Rs.5,000/- by AO from PW.1 is nothing but
by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his official
position with demand as such it quietly proves the
charge under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC
Act beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution did not
prove the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act
beyond reasonable doubt as such AO is liable to be
exonerated of the charge under Section 7 of the PC
Act. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion of this Court
is that Appeal is liable to be allowed in so far as the
charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and liable to
be dismissed in so far as the charge under Section
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act is concerned
respectively.”
29. While relying upon the above judgment, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that though PW.1 turned
hostile, entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out. He further
submitted that very obtaining of a sum of Rs.3,000/- by the
accused officer from PW.1 is nothing but by corrupt or illegal
means by abusing his official position with demand, as such it
24
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
quietly proves the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)
of the Act beyond reasonable doubt.
30. Time and again this Court and the Hon‟ble Apex Court
have consistently held that mere recovery of money would not in
any way prove the guilt of the accused officer of the charges
leveled against him. In order to prove the guilt of the accused
officer within the purview of the aforesaid charges framed against
him, it is essential that the prosecution has to prove the demand
and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused officer beyond all
reasonable doubt. Going by the evidence on record coupled with
other circumstantial material, there is absolutely no evidence to
show that the accused officer had made any demand during
relevant period of time. PW.1 who is decoy witness did not
support the prosecution case and he was treated hostile by the
prosecution. The accompanying witness PW.2 and other material
prosecution witnesses PWs.3 to 7 also did not support the
prosecution case and they were treated as hostile by the
prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused
officer has submitted spontaneous explanation to the extent that
the money that was received by him has been sent by PW.16
through PW.1 and in connection with that PW.16 also confirmed
25
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
the narrative given by the accused officer. Hence, it can safely
be inferred that the prosecution failed to establish that there is
demand of bribe amount by the accused officer.
31. In Jagtar Singh‘s case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court held as follows.
“In the case in hand, Jit Singh, complainant
as well as Chamkaur Singh, shadow witness, have
turned hostile. The Trial Court had specifically held
that there is no evidence produced on record to
prove the demand of illegal gratification. It is not
the case in which the demand was reiterated when
the money was allegedly paid to him. Gurjinder
Singh (PW-8) is only a witness who stated that he
had recovered the money from the appellant. The
High Court has passed its judgment on the
assumption that the money having been recovered
from the appellant, there was demand of illegal
gratification. This is not a case where there was
circumstantial evidence to prove the demand.”
32. From the above decision, it is clear that in the absence of
any demand or reiteration of demand when the money was
allegedly paid to him, the case would not in any way come within
the purview of the aforesaid offences. The present case on hand
strictly comes within the purview of Jagtar Singh‘s case.
26
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
33. As stated supra, in order to prove the aforesaid offences it
is essential to establish all the ingredients such as demands
made at earlier point of time and on the date of trap, acceptance
of bribe and recovery of tainted amount from the possession of
the accused officer. In the absence of any of the ingredient, the
benefit of doubt would go in favour of the accused officer. In the
case on hand, there is absolutely no evidence to the extent that
the accused officer made any demand on the date of trap and
mere recovery of amount from the possession of the accused
officer would not in any way attract the aforesaid offences, more
so, when there was spontaneous explanation from the accused
officer that the amount which was paid to him is the loan amount
sent by PW.16 through PW.1.
34. In the absence of any proof of demand of bribe amount and
acceptance of the same by the accused officer, there is any
amount of ambiguity whether the alleged incident as suggested
by the prosecution is said to have taken place or not. Therefore, I
am inclined to hold that the learned Special Judge was not
correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused
officer as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency
27
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
notes from the accused officer without proof of demand will not
bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Act.
35. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of ACB
Cases, Rayalaseema Region, Kurnool in the judgment in CC
No.47 of 2013, dated 28.04.2014 are set aside. The
appellant/accused officer is found not guilty of the charges under
Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and is accordingly acquitted of the charges
leveled against him and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any,
shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant
shall be refunded to him.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
________________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Date:15th July 2025
Nsr
28
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal No.513 of 2014
Date: 15th July 2025
Nsr
29
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014