Telangana High Court
T.Sankar Narayana Rao, Guntur District vs State Of A.P, Rep.By Inspector Of … on 16 April, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.713 OF 2011
Between:
T.Sankar Narayana Rao ... Appellant
And
The State of AP,
Inspector of Police, ACB,
Warangal Range ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 16.04.2025
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
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
+ Crl.A. No. 713 OF 2011
% Dated 16.04.2025
# T.Sankar Narayana Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State of AP,
Inspector of Police, ACB,
Warangal Range ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.Vishwanath
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy,
Special Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
2
(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152
3
AIR 2009 SC 2022
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.713 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year
under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.17
of 2010 dated 30.06.2011, passed by the II Additional Special
Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said
conviction, the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the
defacto complainant. He was working as Assistant Engineer in
the office of Agriculture Marketing Committee, Warangal. The
appellant worked as Executive Engineer in the said office and he
was superior to P.W.1. The contract work was awarded to M/s.
Satyamurthy Constructions for laying cement concrete at Chilly
Sabad at part-III at Market Yard Ennmamula, and balance
cement concrete work at Chilly Sabad part-IV, Market Yard
Enmamula. The contract work was awarded to Satyamurthy
Constructions on a tender basis. The said construction work was
represented by P.W.4/Srinivas Reddy. After entering into the
4
contract, the contract work was executed within the stipulated
time. In all, P.W.1 prepared 8 bills for making payment to the
contractor. Out of 8 bills to be paid to M/s. Satyamurthy
Constructions, the 8th bill was due to be paid to the construction
company. The remaining seven bills were already paid. The final
bill i.e., Ex.P10, (8th bill) which is dated 16.09.2003, was to be
paid and was pending.
3. Another contract work was awarded to Sri R.Bala
Narasimha Reddy for construction of a rural Godown in the
Market Yard of Ennmamula. Two bills were prepared by P.W.1.
Out of two bills, one bill, Ex.P13, was paid and the 2nd bill,
Ex.P14, which is dated 20.09.2003, was not paid.
4. On 17.09.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant in his office. The
appellant instructed P.W.1 to collect a percentage of the bills
claimed by the contractors. In respect of the bills covered under
Exs.P10 and P14, P.W.1 informed that he would inform the
contractors. On 19.09.2003, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the
appellant insisted for collecting the percentage from the
contractors and paying him the amount since he would be on
leave from 27.09.2003. P.W.1 then informed the contractors, who
are P.Ws.4 and 5. P.W.4 gave an amount of Rs.3,000/- to P.W.1
5
and P.W.5 gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- to P.W.1. According to
both P.Ws.4 and 5, when they met the appellant, he demanded
Rs.10,000/- as bribe.
5. On 20.09.2003, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the
appellant insisted on payment of Rs.20,000/- for passing the bills
covered under Exs.P10 and P14, which pertain to P.Ws.4 and 5,
respectively. The appellant further threatened that he would spoil
the career of P.W.1 if the percentage was not collected. P.W.1
stated that he would collect the amount and passed on
Rs.3,000/-, which was given by P.W.4. However, the appellant
was angry and directed P.W.1 to pay from his pocket. The
appellant then insisted P.W.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- initially and
Rs.10,000/- thereafter.
6. P.W.1 then approached the ACB authorities and lodged a
written complaint/Ex.P15 on 20.09.2003. The Inspector, ACB
informed P.W.1 to come after three days since the DSP, ACB, was
not available. The trap was arranged on 26.09.2003.
P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/independent mediator, Umakanth
Reddy/DSP (died), P.W.7/Inspector of Police, who assisted the
DSP in pre and post-trap proceedings, and others formed the trap
party. The pre-trap proceedings were conducted by following
6
formalities before proceeding to lay the trap. The trap party
members then went to the office of the appellant and reached at
12.00 noon.
7. One Sri S.Venugopal (not examined), who was one of the
independent mediators, was asked to accompany P.W.1 inside
the office of the appellant. P.W.1, along with said Venugopal,
went inside the office. When P.W.1 entered, the appellant was
interacting with one Chandrasekhar (examined as D.W.2). After
Chandrasekhar left, P.W.1 entered the room of the appellant
while said Venugopal was standing outside. The appellant
demanded the amount from P.W.1. The appellant received the
bribe amount with both hands and kept it in his shirt pocket.
Immediately, P.W.1 went outside and relayed the signal to the
trap party members indicating demand and acceptance of bribe
by the appellant. The DSP/Umakanth Reddy, P.W.7/Inspector,
and other trap party members then entered the office and
enquired about the bribe amount. The test on the hands of the
appellant turned positive. The amount of Rs.10,000/- was
handed over by the appellant and another Rs.16,000/- was also
found in his possession. The appellant spontaneously explained
that the said Rs.16,000/- was rent that he received from his
7
tenant for his house at Guntur. Insofar as bribe amount is
concerned, the appellant informed that the said amount was
towards a loan and not as a bribe.
8. The version of P.W.1 and S.Venugopal was recorded during
post-trap proceedings. The concerned bills were also seized.
Having concluded the post-trap proceedings, the appellant was
arrested and produced before the concerned Court.
9. The investigation was partly done by Umakanth
Reddy/DSP, then, by P.W.7/Inspector of Police, who was part of
the trap party, and finally, P.W.8 Inspector concluded the
investigation and filed the charge sheet.
10. The defence of the appellant is that the appellant had served
the department without any blemish. He has spontaneously
explained during the post-trap proceedings that the amount of
Rs.10,000/- was given by P.W.1 as a loan, and the amount of
Rs.16,000/-, which was found in his possession on the date of
the trap, was the rental amount, which was passed on by D.W.1.
Since the son-in-law of the appellant, D.W.3, asked for
Rs.25,000/-, the appellant had the rental amount of
Rs.16,000/-, and P.W.1 had volunteered to give him a hand loan
8
of Rs.10,000/-. On the date of trap, Rs.10,000/- was handed
over by P.W.1 stating that it was towards loan. D.W.2 was
present in the office when the amount was handed over by P.W.1.
11. Learned Special Judge did not find favour with the
appellant’s version about receiving the bribe amount stating that
it was towards a loan, and convicted the appellant accordingly.
12. Learned counsel argued that, as per the contents of the
complaint, the appellant demanded a bribe from P.W.1 on
20.09.2003 to pass the bills covered under Exs.P10 and P14.
However, the said bills were not presented before the appellant
on or before 20.09.2003; as such, the question of demand does
not arise. He submits that Ex.P10 bill was submitted by P.W.1
through his immediate superior officer, P.W.6, to the office of the
E.E on 24.09.2003, and the same was put up before the E.E on
25.09.2003. On the same day, the appellant countersigned the
bill and forwarded it to the Chairman, Market Yard Committee,
Warangal.
13. Counsel further submits that Ex.P14 bill was submitted by
P.W.1 to the office of the E.E through P.W.6 on 22.09.2003, and
the office subordinate placed it before the appellant on
9
23.09.2003 for his counter-signature. The appellant
countersigned on the same day and forwarded it to the
Chairman, Market Yard Committee, Warangal. P.W.1, P.W.6, and
P.W.7 categorically admitted these facts in their cross-
examination.
14. Learned counsel further argued that the recovery of the
amount from the appellant is consistent with the fact that P.W.1
gave only a hand loan, and it was not a bribe amount.
P.W.2/mediator and P.W.7/IO admitted in their cross-
examination about the spontaneous explanation given by the
appellant that this amount was given by P.W.1 as hand loan.
15. Learned counsel further submits that P.W.1, being an
Assistant Engineer, is in the habit of colluding with the
contractors, and hence, he used to prepare excess bill amounts.
The appellant, being an Executive Engineer, used to cross-check,
very minutely, the bills prepared and submitted by P.W.1, and in
the said process, proposed bill amounts were deducted for their
eligibility, and only then did the appellant make his counter-
signature on each bill. The conduct of the appellant developed a
silent grudge in the minds of the contractors (P.W.4 and P.W.5)
and P.W.1, and hence, they planned to falsely implicate the
10
appellant. He further submits that the appellant never asked for
a hand loan amount from P.W.1. However, when the appellant
was discussing with D.W.1 about his financial requirements,
P.W.1 himself came forward to give a hand loan to the appellant,
which is evident from the evidence of D.W.1. Without knowing
the mala fide intention of P.W.1, the appellant took the loan
amount from P.W.1 on the date of the alleged trap. Unless it was
a true fact, the appellant would not have stated spontaneously to
the ACB officers on the date of the trap.
16. Learned counsel relied on the following judgments; i) In
Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that when the explanation given by the accused is probable
and reasonable, such defence can be accepted; ii) In
P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police and
State of Andhra Pradesh and another2, it was held that mere
recovery or acceptance of the amount, dehors the proof of
demand, will not be sufficient to bring home the charge under
Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and
iii) In C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala3,
1
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
2
(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152
3
AIR 2009 SC 2022
11
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted
money, divorced from the circumstances under which it was
paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the
substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Mere recovery, by
itself, cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the
accused in the absence of any demand.
17. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for
ACB argued that the appellant has misused his position as a
superior officer of P.W.1 and forced him to part with the bribe
amount and threatened him with destroying his career. P.W.1 did
not have any other option but to approach ACB authorities with
his grievance. Further, Ex.X4, which was marked by the
appellant during the course of trial, is dated 12.05.2004, and the
trap was laid on 26.09.2003. As an afterthought, the appellant
had come up with the complaint against P.W.1. The alleged
demand by the appellant from P.W.1 was to collect the
percentage of earlier bills passed in favour of P.Ws.4 and
5/Contractors, and specifically towards passing of Exs.P10 and
P14 bills in favour of P.Ws.5 and 6/contractors, respectively.
18. It is admitted by the prosecution that P.W.4’s firm had
claimed the amount through eight (8) bills, and all the initial 7
12
bills, under Exs.P3 to P9, amounting to approximately Rs.40.00
lakhs, were paid. Ex.P10, dated 16.09.2003, was the 8th and final
bill, which was due for payment. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are the two
bills that were raised by P.W.5’s firm/contractor, out of which
Ex.P13 for Rs.5,50,400/- was already paid, and Ex.P14 bill,
dated 20.09.2003, was pending.
19. Under Exs.P10 and P14, it is admitted that Ex.P10 bill,
which was raised for Rs.3,45,229/-, was calculated and reduced
by the appellant to Rs.3,33,000/-. Insofar as Ex.P14 is
concerned, the bill was raised for Rs.4,66,657/-, whereas the
appellant reduced the bill to Rs.4,37,201/-. Ex.P10 was passed
on 25.09.2003, and Ex.P14 was passed on 23.09.2003.
20. In the present case, neither P.W.4 nor P.W.5 have
approached the ACB lodging a complaint about any kind of
demand made by the appellant. Though they entered into the
witness box and stated that demand was made by the appellant,
however, the amounts were not paid by P.Ws.4 and 5 to the
appellant directly. Admittedly, both the bills, Exs.P10 and P14,
for which the alleged demand was made, were passed prior to the
trap date. Though Rs.40.00 lakhs through seven bills were
passed in favour of P.W.4, and Rs.5,50,000/- was paid to P.W.5,
13
admittedly, there was no payment of bribe, nor were any of the
bills stopped for the payment of a bribe by the appellant.
21. Both Exs.P10 and P14 were scrutinized by the appellant,
and the claim amount was also reduced, as stated earlier. In the
background of nearly 8 bills being passed for a value of more
than Rs.45.00 lakhs in favour of P.Ws.4 and 5/contractors, and
when two bills in question, Exs.P10 and P14, were already
passed by reducing the claim amount, the version of P.W.1 that
demand was made for passing Exs.P10 and P14 bills creates any
amount of doubt. The allegation of P.W.1 that the appellant
insisted that he should pay the amount from his pocket cannot
be believed. If P.W.1, who is the subordinate of the appellant, was
aggrieved by any acts of the appellant, he ought to have
approached the superior officers in the department. In the
background of the passing of the bills without any bribe being
paid, and the bills for which demand was made having been
inspected and the claim amounts reduced, the version of the
prosecution that demand of bribe was made by the appellant is
not only doubtful, but, in the present facts, unacceptable.
22. The appellant had spontaneously explained during the
course of post-trap proceedings that the amount of Rs.16,000/-
14
in his possession was towards the rental amount from his house
in Guntur, and this was not disputed by the prosecution. D.W.1
is a Retired Deputy Executive Engineer in the very same office. In
his evidence, D.W.1 stated that, at the instance of the appellant,
he collected R.16,000/- from the tenant of the appellant and
handed it over to the appellant on 19.09.2003 in the morning.
According to D.W.1, P.W.1 came there and volunteered to give an
amount of Rs.10,000/-, since the appellant had informed D.W.1
that his son-in-law(D.W.3) wanted an amount of Rs.25,000/-.
23. D.W.2, who was also working in the very same office, stated
that on the date of the trap, while he was sitting with the
appellant in his office, P.W.1 entered into the chamber and
informed that he had arranged Rs.10,000/- and handed over the
amount to the appellant.
24. The presence of D.W.2 in the chamber of the appellant was
admitted by P.W.1 during his examination.
25. D.W.4 was examined to speak about his presence on the
date of the trap and about P.W.1 entering into the chamber and
handing over the amount of Rs.10,000/- as a loan. D.W.4 is a
civil contractor who executed works for the department.
15
26. D.W.3 is the son-in-law, who speaks about the promise
made by the appellant to arrange for Rs.25,000/-.
27. It is admitted that, on the date of the trap, the appellant
spontaneously explained that Rs.16,000/- cash with him was the
rent he received, and the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was
handed over by P.W.1 towards a loan.
28. The burden that is on the appellant can be discharged by
preponderance of probability. The facts in a given case and the
events that transpired have to be looked into in their entirety.
Further, the defence witnesses have to be treated on par with the
prosecution witnesses. Only for the reason of the defence
witnesses coming and speaking in favour of an accused, that in
itself cannot discredit their evidence.
29. As already discussed earlier, all the bills were passed in
favour of P.Ws.4 and 5/Contractors, and never was any bribe
passed on. Even the two bills in question, Exs.P10 and P14, were
already passed by the date of the trap. In fact, the appellant had
reduced the claim amount under Exs.P10 and P14. In the said
circumstances, the version of P.W.1 that the appellant insisted
P.W.1 to collect bribe from P.W.4 and P.W.5/contractors and pay
16
him is doubtful. The defence of the appellant that P.W.1 had
falsely implicated him at the instance of contractors is believable
in the present facts and circumstances.
30. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.17 of
2010 dated 30.06.2011, passed by the II Additional Special
Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, is set aside, and the
appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail
bonds shall stand discharged.
31. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 16.04.2025
kvs
17
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.713 of 2011
Date: 16.04.2025
kvs
[ad_1]
Source link