Telangana High Court
Sri V.V.V.N.S.S.Pradad vs The State Of Ap., Through Cbi / Spe, Hyd on 29 January, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 417 OF 2014
Between:
Sri V.V.V.N.S.S.Prasad ...Appellant/Accused
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh ... Respondent/complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 29.01.2025
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.417 OF 2014
% Dated 29.01.2025
Between:
# V.V.V.N.S.S.Prasad ...Appellant/Accused
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh ... Respondent/complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Srinivas Kapatia
Learned Special Public Prosecutor for
CBI
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2021 CRI.L.J 1353
2. 2015 (10) SCC 152
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.417 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
The appellant/Accused officer filed the appeal questioning his
conviction and sentence recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.30 of 2008, dated 28.03.2014, for the
offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for CBI.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the Appellant, was
employed as Junior Engineer at the University of Hyderabad. A
case was registered based on a complaint lodged on 08.07.2008 by
PW.1 and PW.2, who were the Managing Partner and Supervisor of
M/s.Sri Sai Constructions, respectively. The complainant-PW.1
alleged that the appellant had demanded an illegal gratification of
Rs.50,000/- for recommending the clearance of pending bills
related to civil work executed by their firm at the University of
Hyderabad premises. It was further alleged that the appellant had
asked for the bribe to be paid on 08.07.2008.
4
4. Upon registration of the case on 08.07.2008, a CBI team led
by PW.9-Inspector B.Shankar Rao, along with PWs.1 and 2 and
mediators LW.3 and PW.3, assembled at the office of the
Superintendent of Police, CBI. Pre-trap proceedings were
conducted and the details were recorded under Ex.P3-the 1st
mediators report.
5. Following the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party, including
PWs.1, 2, 3, 9 and LW.3, proceeded to the University of Hyderabad.
PW.2 entered the office of the appellant, while PW.1, the CBI team,
and other members positioned themselves nearby. It was alleged
that the appellant accepted the bribe amount from PW.2 and
placed it in the left-side table drawer. PW.2 then exited the office
and signaled the trap team. The trap team subsequently entered
the office, apprehended the appellant and seized the bribe amount
from the top left side table drawer. A hand wash of the appellant
resulted in a pink colour for the left hand and a colourless result
for the right hand. The serial numbers and denominations of the
currency notes seized from the appellant matched those recorded
in Ex.P3. Additional items seized included the swab wash of the top
left side table drawer, the cotton swab used for the drawer wash
and a Citizen SLD 760N calculator found in the same drawer. The
trap proceedings were documented in Ex.P4-2nd Mediators Report.
5
6. Appellant was arrested on 09.07.2008. The M.Os.2 to 5 were
sent to CSFL for examination, which comprised the left hand wash
of the appellant in a sealed quarter-size bottle, the swab wash of
the appellant’s left-side table drawer (top left) in a sealed quarter-
size bottle, the cotton swab used to collect the wash from the
appellant’s table drawer in a sealed cover; and the Citizen SLD
760N calculator on which the bribe amount was placed. PW.8, the
Expert, opined that MOs.2 to 5 tested positive for the presence of
phenolphthalein ions. Furthermore, the presence of sodium and
carbonate ions was detected in MOs.2 to 4. It was revealed that the
appellant acted as the Site In-charge for the contract work allotted
to PW.1’s firm at the University of Hyderabad. The appellant
managed the measurement book, which formed the basis for the
first payment for the completed work. When the process for the
second bill was pending, the appellant allegedly demanded an
illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from PWs.1 and 2 to clear the
bill. The relevant measurement books and bills were seized from
the appellant’s office table. Call details for Landline No.23011833,
located at the appellant’s residence, were obtained from the BSNL
office. The report confirmed that on 08.07.2008 at about 1.32 P.M.,
the appellant made a call to PW.2’s mobile number 9866444885
and spoke for approximately 887 seconds. According to
6
investigation, it is established that the appellant committed
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. PW.7, the Vice Chancellor of
the University of Hyderabad and the authority competent to remove
the appellant, accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting the appellant.
7. The learned Sessions Judge did not find favour with the
defence of the appellant that no official favour was pending.
Further on the basis of other evidence adduced in support of the
prosecution, the appellant was convicted.
8. The defence of the appellant is that;
i) No Official Favor is Pending: The testimonies of PW.4 and
PW.6 confirm that the only pending amount in the final bill to be
paid to PW.1 is Rs.45,347/-. The final bill (Ex.P13) was already
prepared, and both the appellant and PW.4 had signed it. However,
PW.1 had not signed the bill, and he himself admitted that without
his signature, pass orders could not be issued. There was no
pending bill of Rs.1,70,000/- with the appellant, nor was the
appellant authorized to prepare or pass such a bill, as his role was
limited to supervising the work executed by the contractor (PW1).
7
ii) Improbability of Demand: Since the final bill (Ex.P13) was
ready and already signed by PW.4 and the appellant, while PW.1
had not signed it, the alleged demand for recording measurements
and passing bills, as claimed by PWs.1 and 2 and documented in
Ex.P1, appears highly improbable.
iii) Improper Trap Laying: The trap laid through PW.2 is
impermissible and contrary to law, as PW.2 had no authorization to
represent PW.1 in any capacity. Consequently, the statements and
actions of PW.2 lack legal validity.
iv) Malafide Intent by PW.1: PW.1 lodged a false complaint against
the appellant out of malafide intention. This is evident from PW1’s
habitual conduct of filing frivolous cases against officers.
Additionally, PW.1 was motivated by the fact that the appellant had
previously lodged complaints with PW.4 regarding the quality of
PW.1’s work.
9. Further, according to the appellant, on 08.07.2008, PW2, a
stranger, entered the office room. He enquired about the bill of
PW.1, falsely representing that he was a supervisor. The appellant
told PW.2 that the bills were ready by 9.6.2008 and that PW.1 had
to come and sign the bill, which was already prepared and signed
by PW.4 and himself. On this, PW.2 informed him that PW.1 was
8
waiting outside the office. The appellant was about to call PW.1,
when, the CBI officials entered into his office room, and one person
by the name Raghavendra Kumar caught hold of his hands.
Further, when the appellant left the room to fetch PW.1, PW.2 was
positioned at the left file rack side on the left side, making it
possible for PW.2 to have access to the left side table drawer.
Additionally, the appellant mentioned to PW.6 that he had not
taken any bribe and that when he went out to call PW.1, PW.2 was
in the chamber, and after he returned, he noticed money there.
Regarding the colour change of the solution on the appellant’s left
hand, the defence argues that Raghavendra Kumar is a material
witness and was not examined. It is alleged that Raghavendra had
phenolphthalein on his hands and caught hold of the appellant’s
hands, subsequently putting the appellant’s hands in the solution.
Further, Raghavendra Kumar’s hands were not tested before he
caught hold of the appellant’s hands, and appellant was asked to
dip his fingers in the solution. There is a possibility of
phenolphthalein traces on the appellant’s hands due to the
newspaper that was accessible to Raghavendra, raising the
question of why he was the selective person to catch hold of the
appellant’s hands. The appellant’s plea is that he did not touch the
currency notes at all and had no knowledge that PW2 was carrying
9
tainted notes and came to trap him. Appellant further pleaded that
PW.2 shook hands with him.
10. According to PWs. 1 and 2, the total value of the contract
work was Rs 13,90,877/-, and they stated that they completed the
repairs by April, 2008. Regarding the bills, they mentioned that
except for an outstanding amount of Rs.1,70,000/-, the university
had paid the remaining amount. Thus, as per PWs.1 and 2, the
final bill amount pending with the appellant was
Rs. 1,70,000/-.
11. According to PW4’s testimony, the final amount pending for
payment to PW.1 was Rs.45,347/-. He further stated that part
payments were made to PW.1, leaving a balance amount of
Rs. 45,347/-.
12. According to PW.6, for part-measured works, an amount of
Rs.11,41,656/- was paid to PW.1 as per Ex.P8, the Measurement
Book. He also deposed that PW.1 submitted a final bill for
Rs. 45,347/- prior to the trap.
13. Moreover, PW.4 stated that Ex.P12 is the bill dated 5.11.2007
for Rs.13,97,206.14 ps., and Ex.P13 is the bill dated 9.6.2008 for
Rs.45,347.32 ps.
10
14. As per the evidence the bill amounting to Rs.13,97,206.14 ps.
has already been cleared. The work order issued for the repairs to
the C Block hostel was for Rs. 13,97,206.14 ps.. The evidence
confirms that part payments were made to PW.1, who himself
admitted to signing on page 40 of M-Book No. 1231/2007,
accepting the part bill value of Rs. 13,97,206.14 ps.. After
permissible deductions, an amount of Rs.11,41,656/- was paid to
him via cheque as part payment, as reflected on page 43 of M-Book
No. 1231/2007, where he also signed. Additionally, according to
the testimonies of PWs.4 and 6, the final bill amount pending for
payment to PW.1 was only Rs.45,347.32 ps., which represented the
balance remaining after the part payments were made to PW.1.
15. PW.4 further deposed that Ex.P14 is the bill dated
15.10.2007 for Rs.1,54,596.15 ps. He clarified that Ex.P14 lists the
extra works carried out by PW.1, which were submitted to the
university engineering section for approval. As on the date of the
trap, this approval was pending. Once the approval was obtained, a
new bill for the amount covered by Ex.P14 would be prepared.
Nevertheless, PW.4 confirmed that he and appellant had signed
Ex.P12 to Ex.P14. Though Ex.P14 is pending approval, as per the
procedure explained by PW.6, it is PW.4 who has to finally approve
it and pass it over for technical check. PW.4 himself has admitted
11
that he and appellant had signed on Ex.P14 as well. According to
PW.6, the procedure is that, on being satisfied, PW.4 will cause
PW.1-contractor to sign on the M-Book and then PW.4 will prepare
the bill form and forward the same to university engineer’s office for
technical check. After the technical check, the bill would be sent to
the university’s finance section for processing payment to the
contractor.
16. Appellant’s work was completed when he verified the
measurement and passed it on to PW.4 for physical verification. It
is PW.4’s responsibility to then prepare the bill and pass it on to
university’s engineering section. It cannot be said that Ex.P14 was
pending. Since Ex.P14 bill has already been signed by the
appellant and passed over by PW.4 to the university’s engineering
section for approval. Further PW.6 does not mention that there is
any final bill of Rs.1,54,596.15 ps. that is pending to be given to
PW.1, he only speaks that there is a final amount of Rs. 45,347/-
that needs to be given to PW.1.
17. It is evident that the final bill amount due to PW.1 was
Rs.45,347.32 ps., not Rs.1,70,000/- as claimed by PWs.1 and 2.
Ex.P14-bill pending approval has no relevance to accused as
accused and PW4’s work regarding Ex.P14 was already complete.
12
18. The allegation whether the appellant had intentionally
withheld the bills of Rs.45,347.32 Ps. for the purpose of bribe has
to be assessed.
19. PW6 stated that upon completion of the work, the contractor
submits the particulars of measurements of the works executed by
him to the appellant. The appellant, being the junior engineer,
along with the contractor-PW1, physically verifies the
measurements. If satisfied, the Appellant records them in the M-
Book and submits it to the assistant engineer, i.e., PW4, for further
physical verification and authentication. Upon being satisfied, PW4
causes PW1-contractor to sign the M-Book, prepares the bill form,
and forwards it to the university engineer’s office for technical
checks. Once the technical check is completed, the bill is sent to
the university’s finance section for processing payment to the
contractor. The finance officer then issues a pass order, and
payment is made to the contractor in the form of a cheque.
20. PW.1 identified the document shown to him as the final bill
dated 9.6.2008, prepared by PW.4, for Rs. 45,347.32. He stated
that he had not signed this bill. PW.1 also deposed that as of
9.6.2008, pass orders were not prepared. He admitted that unless
13
he signed the final bill, agreeing to the amount mentioned therein,
pass orders could not be prepared.
21. In his cross-examination, PW.1 admitted (as reflected on page
40 of M-Book No. 1231/2007) that he had signed, accepting the
part bill value of Rs. 13,97,206.14. After permissible deductions,
an amount of Rs. 11,41,656 was paid to him by cheque as part
payment, as recorded on page 43 of M-Book No. 1231/2007, where
he also signed.
22. PW.4 deposed that upon completion of work, bill forms were
submitted by the Appellant. As the Assistant Engineer, he also
signed these bill forms. He stated that the bill forms were prepared
based on Ex.P8, which contains the values of the measurements.
PW4 identified Ex.P12 as the bill dated 5.11.2007 for Rs.
13,97,206.14 Ps. and Ex.P13 as the bill dated 9.6.2008 for Rs.
45,347.32 ps.
23. During cross-examination, PW.4 confirmed that the bill
amount of Rs. 45,347.32 ps., recorded on page 90 of Ex.P8, was
signed by him and the appellant, but not by PW.1. He stated that
this amount represented the final bill to be paid to PW.1.
14
24. PW.6 further deposed that based on the copy of the final bill,
the bill amount was sanctioned to PW.1. However, PW.1 did not
sign the copy of the final bill, nor did he protest against the final
bill amount. PW.6, also stated that the final bill was signed by the
appellant and PW4 on 9.6.2008.
25. PW.2, stated that the appellant prepares the bills, and PW.4
signs both the M-Book and the bill. Subsequently, PW.1 and the
appellant sign these documents, and PW.4 forwards the bill to the
Executive Engineer’s office.
26. PW.10-Inspector, stated that PW.1 has not signed on the bill
by the date of examination of PW.4.
27. From the above, it is evident that PW.1 was also required to
sign Ex.P13, the bill dated 9.6.2008, for Rs. 45,347.32 ps.,
alongside PW.4 and the appellant. PW.4 admitted that PW.1 had
not signed the bill, and PW.1 himself confirmed the same. PW.1
further acknowledged that pass orders could not be prepared
unless he signed the final bill, agreeing to the amount mentioned
therein. This procedure is consistent with the earlier part bill of Rs.
13,97,206.14 ps, where PW.1 admitted (as reflected on page 40 of
M-Book No. 1231/2007) that he signed, accepting the part bill
15
value. Subsequently, the cheque for the permissible amount was
issued to him, clearly establishing the process.
28. Further, PW.4 and appellant both work under PW6. Hence,
PW.6’s testimony becomes more relevant. According to PW.6, the
work given to PW.1 fell under the jurisdiction of PW.4, the
Assistant Engineer (Civil), with the Appellant, serving as the Junior
Assistant (Civil), assigned to assist PW.4. PW.6 further mentioned
that PW.4, after physically verifying the measurements, would
prepare the bill and forward it for a technical check. This also
needs to be considered when determining whether any official
favour was pending with the Appellant and whether he
intentionally withheld the clearance of bills. Since PW.6’s testimony
is clear that PW.4 is the one who has to prepare the bills and
forward the same to the university engineer’s office for technical
check.
29. As per Ex.P1, the allegation is that Appellant demanded Rs 1
lakh initially for making entries in measurement books and passing
the final bill, and thereafter, demanded Rs.50,000/- for passing the
bill. As per the procedure, only when the entries are made in the
measurement book, the bills will be prepared and then forwarded
by PW.4, once the Appellant, PW.4, and PW.1 sign on the same. In
16
this case, the bill was already prepared. Hence, there is no
question of Appellant’s pending work of recording entries in the
measurement books. Further, both PWs. 4 and 6 nowhere depose
about Appellant’s authority to pass the bill. Appellant’s work is
only to record the entries and forward the same to PW.4 for
physical verification. At the risk of repetition, PW.6’s evidence is
also clear that it is PW.4’s responsibility to prepare the bills. Hence,
the question of Appellant preparing them does not arise.
30. PW.4 in his testimony stated that Appellant prepares the bills
and passes it over to him, it nevertheless has no effect because as
per the facts, the final bill pending to be given to PW.1 was already
prepared–Ex.P13 and signed by Appellant and PW.4. It was PW.1
who was left to sign the same.
31. Therefore, it is clear that the work of PW.4 and the accused
was complete, as their signatures were already present on Ex.P13,
dated 9.6.2008. The only pending step was PW.1’s signature,
without which pass orders could not be prepared, as admitted by
PW.1 himself. As on the date of the trap, no official favour was
pending with the Appellant.
32. Moreover, PW.6 stated that although the bill amount was
sanctioned to PW.1, he neither signed the copy of the final bill nor
17
protested against the final amount. This indicates that PW.1
accepted the final amount of Rs.45,347.32 ps.
33. It is not PW.1’s case that though the bill was ready, the
appellant didn’t let him sign on Ex.P13. PW.1’s case is that the
appellant had not entered the measurements in M-Books and
prepared the bills, whereas the appellant had completed both these
things, as evidenced by Ex.P13 and the signature of PW.4 and the
appellant on Ex.P13. It cannot be assumed that PW.1 did not sign
on Ex.P13 because the appellant was demanding a bribe, since the
allegation is that the bribe was demanded for entering
measurement values and preparation of bills, not for allowing
clearance of bills. Hence, from the record it is apparent that
appellant did not intentionally withheld the bill Ex.P13.
34. Further, with regard to bribe, what needs to be determined is
whether Appellant called PW.2 on 8th around 1:30 pm and whether
PW.2 called Appellant at 4:00 pm, after which Appellant told them
to come to his office and give Rs.50,000/-.
35. Firstly, from the evidence of PW.5, two things are clear: that
telephone No. 23011833 was allotted to Appellant and that Ex.P16
shows a call was made from the telephone of Appellant to the cell
phone No. 9866444885 on 8.7.2008 at 1:32 pm. However, the
18
prosecution was not able to establish that the cell phone No.
9866444885 belongs to PW.2, since, PW.5 admitted that from
Ex.P16, he cannot give the particulars of the names of the persons
to whom phone calls were made from phone No. 23011833. Hence,
from Ex.P16, one can only see the number but not the names of
the owner of the number. The prosecution did not place evidence
on record to prove that the number belongs to PW.2.
36. PW.10 deposed that his investigation revealed that the cell
phone No. 9866444885 belongs to PW.2; however, no evidence was
placed on record to prove the same. PW.5 stated that the CBI did
not give him a requisition for providing the call particulars of the
cell phone bearing No. 9866444885.
37. Further, PW9-Inspector stated that during the investigation,
he did not collect information from the nodal officer as to in whose
name the cell phone bearing No. 9866444885 stands. He also did
not seize the cell phone with this number. Additionally, he did not
observe where the office landline telephone in the appellant’s office
was located. PW.2 admitted that he does not know his cell phone
number and that his cell phone was not seized by the CBI officer.
19
38. According to PW.2 and other witnesses, PW.2 got a call from
the appellant around 1:32 pm on 8.7.2008. However, in Ex.P4, it is
specified that the TLO enquired with PW.4 after the trap, and PW.4
stated about the appellant coming to the office at 1:55 pm on
8.7.2008. If this is taken to be true, the whole case of the appellant
calling PW.2 around 1:32 pm on 8.7.2008 becomes doubtful.
39. PW.3’s statement that PW.2 informed them on 8th morning
about the appellant demanding him a bribe of Rs.50,000/- is also
contradictory to other witnesses’ testimonies, as, according to the
prosecution, PW.2 got a call around 1:32 pm.
40. PW.10’s evidence is completely contradictory. PW.10 deposed
that the landline telephone No. 66792313 belongs to the office of
the appellant, whereas, according to PW.5, telephone No.
23011833 was allotted to Appellant.
41. Hence, the prosecution has not successfully established that
the appellant called PW.2’s cell phone on 8.7.2008 around 1:32 pm
and that PW.2 called the appellant again at 4:00 pm. Only after the
calls, did they come to know that they were supposed to give the
bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant at his office. This is
again contradictory to PW.1’s testimony of the appellant calling him
on 8th morning and contrary to Ex.P1 as well.
20
42. The Honourable Supreme Court in N.Vijayakumar v. State
of Tamil Nadu 1 held that mere recovery of the amount divorced
from the circumstances cannot form basis to convict, when the
substantive evidence in the case was not reliable.
43. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of
Police, State of A.P (2015(10) SCC 152). A three judge bench
of the Supreme Court held that proof of demand of illegal
gratification is the gravamen of the offences punishable under
Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act and in the absence of the same, the charge would fail. It
was also held that mere acceptance and recovery of the illegal
gratification would not be sufficient to prove the above
charges.
44. In the background of the discussion above, it emerges
that no work was pending with the appellant as claimed by
PW.1 nor any demand was made. The demand of bribe for
clearing the bill for Rs.45,347/- is highly improbable. Hence,
even if there was recovery in the present case, the same
1
2021 CRI.L.J 1353
21
cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the light of
the above two Judgments.
45. Accordingly, the appellant is extended benefit of doubt
and the appeal is allowed. Since the appellant/accused officer
is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 29.01.2025
tk
