:: 1 ::

C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES, NELLORE Tuesday, the 03rd day of January 2012 Present: Sri M. Venkata Ramana, B.Sc., LL.M., Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore

C.C. No.17 of 2006

(Crime No.11/RCT-TCT/2003 of A.C.B., Tirupati Range, Tirupati) 01. 02. Name of the Complainant: Names of the Accused: State: Inspector of Police-II, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Tirupati Range, Tirupati A.1: Sri V. Sree Rama Sanjeeva Rao, Son of Sri Badrinath, aged 50 years, Former Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, Chittoor District Sri Peddinti Krishnaswamy Vijayan, Son of Sri Krishnaswamy, aged 55 years, Former Police Constable, attached to Palamaner Police Station, Chittoor District

A.2:

03.

Offence & Sections of Law:

Charge No.1: U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act 1988 against both the accused; Charge No.2: u/Sec.12 of P.C. Act, 1988 against A.2; Charge No.3: u/Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against both the accused; and Charge No.4: u/Sec.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code against both the accused

04. 05.

Plea of the accused: Findings & Result:

Pleaded not guilty

A.1 is found, guilty of a charge under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, and is further found guilty of a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. A.2 is found guilty of a Charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, that he is further found guilty of a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, and that he is further found guilty of a charge under Section 12 of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) days, under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Both the accused are entitled for set off for remand period, if any, to the extent applicable, under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. MO.7-cash of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is directed to be confiscated to State on expiry of appeal time. MO.1 to MO.6 and MO.8 are useless items, and they are directed to be destroyed on expiry of appeal time.

:: 2 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

06. 07.

Prosecution conducted by:

Sri G. Ramesh Babu, Spl. Public Prosecutor; A.1 has appeared in person; and Sri K.V. Suresh, Sri Sk. Mahaboob Basha, and Sri K. Madan Mohan, advocates for A.2.

Defence conducted by:

08.

Date of Hearing:

30.12.2011

JUDGMENT
A.1-Sri V. Sree Rama Sanjeeva Rao was selected to A.P. Judiciary as Junior Civil Judge. He was an Officer of 1998 batch. He was posted as Junior Civil

Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, Chittoor District, where he worked from 06.01.2001 to 25.07.2003. A.2-Sri P. Krishnaswamy Vijayan was a Police Constable, 1994 batch of Palamaner Police Station, Chittoor District, where he worked from 15.9.1997 to 24.7.2003. By virtue of the posts held by both of them, they are public servants, within the meaning of Sec.2 (c) of P.C. Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused is, as follows: PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is a practicing advocate, from the Bar at Palamaner. He is a resident of Gantavuru village of Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District. C.C. No.460/2000 was a case, filed by Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Palamaner against four accused, for offences under Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P. Proh. Act, 1995 r/w Sec.34(a)(1)(ii) r/w Sec.11(2) and 12 of A.P. Excise Act. Smt. Mahalakshmi and Sri R. Jayavelu were A.3 and A.4 in the above case. On their behalf, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju filed Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 therein under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for discharge, on 01.04.2003. This matter was posted for counter and disposal by A.1 as learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, to 15.4.2003. On that day, a memo of objections was filed by learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, Palamaner, in this petition. Then, this matter was posted for enquiry to 09.06.2003.

:: 3 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

On 09.06.2003, A.1 called PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju into his chambers in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge at Palamaner at 2.30 p.m., and demanded him a bribe of Rs.5,000/- to pass favourable orders in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003. In the mean time, Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 and C.C. No.460/2000 were posted to 21.7.2003 for hearing, by A.1, as Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner. On 15.7.2003 at about 7.00 p.m., PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju went to Punjabi Dhaba on the outskirts of Palamaner town on Chittoor Bangalore road. He saw A.1 in that Dhaba and when he offered salutations, A.1 reminded him and asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- as early as possible to A.2, who was then a Police Constable, attached on Court duty for Palamaner Police Station. Since PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had no other go, he agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to A.1. However, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was not willing to pay this amount either to A.1 or A.2. Therefore, since the matter pertained to Judiciary, he approached the Joint Director, Rayalaseema Zone, A.C.B., Hyderabad, on 17.7.2003 and presented a written report against A.1. The same was endorsed to Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, who received it at 09.00 p.m., on 18.07.2003 through a special messenger. After

causing discrete enquiries, PW.13-the then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, registered this case against A.1 and A.2 at 9.00 p.m., on 18.7.2003 and issued FIR. He also took up investigation. In the course of investigation, PW.13-Sri S. Seshagiri Rao, then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, organized and laid a trap against both the accused. Pursuant to it, pre-trap proceedings was conducted on 19.7.2003 between 7.00 a.m., and 8.00 a.m., in his office at Tirupati in the presence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao both the mediators. In the course of trap, at about 12.10 p.m., A.2 was caught red-handed by the team of ACB Officers, lead by PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

:: 4 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

ACB, Tirupati, when he had received and accepted the gratification amount of Rs.5,000/- from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.1. He turned positive to Sodium Carbonate solution colour test in such proceedings, and the seized currency notes from him also tallied in respect of their serial numbers, when compared with the one, noted in pre-trap proceedings, soon after recovery of the same from him. Immediately, A.2 was arrested in the premises of the Court of learned Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner. Judicial

In the course of the same

proceedings, with the permission, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, approached A.1 in his chambers, when he was learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, appraised him of the situation including recovery of tainted currency from A.2. A.1 denied the same. However, copies of mediator report were served on A.2 as well as A.1 in the same proceedings, under their

acknowledgments. A.1 obtained anticipatory bail from this Court in connection with this case, in Crl.M.P. No.83/2004 as per orders, dated 20.02.2004. Governor of Andhra Pradesh, being competent authority to remove A.1 from service, accorded sanction to prosecute him on the recommendations of Honble The High Court of A.P. Sanction was also accorded to prosecute A.2 by State

Government in connection with this case. Thus, the prosecution has set out that A.1, for official favour, to pass favourable orders in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, demanded Rs.5,000/- from PW.1-Sri Y. Naga Raju, and on his behalf, A.2 had received it, which is a gratification, other than legal remuneration and by resorting to such corrupt practice and as pecuniary benefit. Thus, A.2 abetted commission of offence by A.1. Therefore, according to the prosecution, A.1 is liable to be punished for offences under Sec.7 and under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, and A.2 is

:: 5 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

punishable for an offence under Sec.7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) as well as Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus, it has set out its case against both the accused. 3. The case was taken on file for offences under Section 7, Sec.12, Sec.13 (2)

r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, and process was directed to be issued against both the accused. 4. Upon appearance of the accused in this Court pursuant to service of

summons, both of them were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., with reference to the allegations of the prosecution against both of them. Both of them denied these allegations. 5. Upon consideration of the material, on hearing the prosecution, as well as the

accused, a charge under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.1 and A.2, a charge under Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.2, a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a charge u/Sec.13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code against A.1 and A.2 were framed, read over and explained in Telugu. The plea of the accused is one of denial, and not guilty. 6. The charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, read with Sec.34 I.P.C.,

is unnecessarily framed in this case. The case of the prosecution against A.2 is that of abetment of A.1 in receiving illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration to show a favour to PW.1-Sri Y. Naga Raju. When required charges have already been on record, framing another charge, relating to these substantive offences under P.C. Act, along with Sec.34 I.P.C., is uncalled for. Added to it, when P.C. Act is a self contained core in respect of substantive offences, bringing in the culpability of both the accused, meeting the situation required in this case, a charge relating to Sec.34 I.P.C. could not have been framed. Therefore, no finding, as such on this charge, is necessary, to be recorded in this case.

:: 6 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

7.

To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.14, and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28, as well as MO.1 to MO.8. 8. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is the defacto complainant in this case. He deposed in

respect of filing Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, while A.1 was working in such capacity. He further deposed in relation to the demands, made by A.1 for illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- on 09.06.2003 and on 15.07.2003, directing him to pay this amount to A.2, to be delivered to him, and in respect of pre-trap and trap proceedings in this case. He also deposed in respect of receipt of MO.7-tainted currency by A.2 at

about 12.10 p.m., in the premises of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, on behalf of A.1, and thus, completely supported the case of the prosecution. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao are the mediators, who were present in the course of pre-trap and trap proceedings. While PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana resiled from the prosecution version in respect of he, being a shadow witness, who accompanied PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju up to the chambers of A.1, and receipt of MO.7-tainted currency by A.2, in front of the main building of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, in other respects, he supported the case of the prosecution. However, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao

completely supported the case of the prosecution in respect of pre-trap and trap proceedings, corroborating the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11-mediator reports, prepared in this connection. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana also admitted that these two mediators reports were prepared in connection with these two transactions, though he resiled from a part of the prosecution story. PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem was then Head Clerk, PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu was then Typist-cum-Accountant, PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy was then Personal Assistant to learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner,

:: 7 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana was then Junior Assistant and Criminal Bench Clerk, PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna and PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi being attenders/Process Servers in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. PW.4 and PW.5 deposed in respect of a part of transaction relating to trap proceedings of A.2, while PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy stated that A.1 was conducting Lok-Adalat sitting on 19.07.2003, and whereas, PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana also corroborated the version of PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy in this respect. PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana also identified Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.28 being the record, relating to Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 and C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, and stating that they were seized by the then learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, in connection with this case against A.1. The prosecution had chosen to treat PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, and PW.5-Sri M. Ranachandrudu, hostile, and with the permission of the Court, they were subjected to cross-examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor. They partly resiled from the prosecution version in this respect, and whereas, PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy and PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana supported the version of the prosecution. PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna deposed in respect of presence of A.1 on 19.07.2003 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, and conduct of Lok-Adalat proceedings on that day, when he was on Court hall duty, supporting the version of the prosecution. Whereas PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi turned hostile to the

prosecution and supported more the version of the defence, speaking in respect of presence of A.1 and A.2 on 19.7.2003, while setting out as to what went on in the chambers of A.1 on that day, apart from Lok-Adalat proceedings, conducted in the Court hall. PW.10-Sri Mopuri Audi Narayana was then Sub-Inspector of Police, Palamaner Police Station and he deposed in respect of A.2, being deputed to attend Court duty from their Police Station, and retention of A.2 in Palamaner Police Station, in spite of

:: 8 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

being transferred, at the request of A.1. prosecution.

Thus, he supported the version of the

PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna and PW.12-Sri G. Devendra Rao are the Section Officers, examined by the prosecution, to prove sanction orders issued against A.1 and A.2, under Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 respectively and both of them supported the version of the prosecution in this respect. PW.13-Sri S. Seshagiri Rao and PW.14-Sri K. Karunakar are the Investigating Officers in this case. Both of them deposed in respect of investigative aspects. 9. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused were

examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating material, appearing against them. They had chosen to examine witnesses on their behalf, and filed

separate written statements in support of their defence. 10. A.1 filed a statement, denying the case of the prosecution, as follows: He was appointed as Junior Civil Judge on 16.5.1998 and was transferred to the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, on 06.01.2001. He had known PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and A.2-Sri Vijayan. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was practicing

advocate at Palamaner, and even before he joined at Palamaner, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was expelled from Bar Association, Palamaner, for his unbecoming conduct. He was involved in several criminal cases and during the period when A.1 was working at Palamaner, Police registered several cases against PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. A rowdy-sheet was also opened against him, and being maintained

against him. He also presented several false complaints against A.1 to his superiors and that he is rude and unruly in his behaviour. He has a motive to implicate A.1 in this false case. A.1 denied that there was any demand by him on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, nor there was any pending official favour towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Pendency of discharge petition is only part of his duty, and it can never be an official favour,

:: 9 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

which he could have extended to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, nor he could have passed any favourable order in that discharge petition. On 19.7.2003, when A.1 came to his chambers at 10.30 a.m., PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, who was the attender on guard duty at Chambers, informed that DW.4-Smt. Seetha Lakshmi, Sri Kameswara Rao, then Manager, State Bank of India, Palamaner, Mr. Shoukath Ali and Mr. Barkath, advocates, had come to meet him, which he permitted and at about 11.00 a.m., PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi further informed that an advocate wanted to represent to him. Thereupon, A.1 had allowed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, who represented that he would not be attending the Court on 21.7.2003, since his father-in-law fell ill, while requesting not to dismiss his cases on that day. On which, A.1 informed him, that there was no necessity to enter his chambers for this purpose, which he could have represent when he was sitting in Lok-Adalat. Thereupon, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju went away. A.2 was never in his Chambers on that day, nor come to his Chambers on that day. He had never directed A.2, to receive any amount from PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju. At 11.45 a.m., he commenced Lok-Adalat on that day and at about 3.30 p.m., while he was in his chambers, ACB Officers came to him. When enquired, he informed them as to what happened prior to their arrival. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju got him implicated in this case, since he had admonished PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in open Court for his rude behaviour and since he apprehended that A.1 would convict him in pending cases against him, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju apprehended that Police would open a rowdy sheet against him, and requested A.1 to interfere asking the Police not to open rowdy-sheet against him. Thus, A.1 had set out his defence in his written statement, filed as a part of examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. 11. A.2 filed a separate written statement as a part of his examination under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., denying the case, set up against him. He admitted that he was attached to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, while he was working in Palamaner Police Station. He further admitted that he had known PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, who was a practicing advocate at Palamaner, against whom

:: 10 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

several cases were registered and tried at the instance of Police Department. He further stated, that several private complaints were filed by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju against those, who filed criminal cases against him. On 19.7.2003, there was a Lok-Adalat, being held in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, on which day, he got ready with some cases for Lok-Adalat purpose, producing accused and witnesses. At about 10.30 a.m., the Criminal Bench Clerk came to the Public Court, whom he had approached, and informed him about the cases of Palamaner Police Station, which were ready for compromise in Lok-Adalat, and got the matters ready for the said purpose. A.2

further stated, that at about 11.45 a.m., A.1 came to the Lok-Adalat sitting and according to A.2, he was in Court hall up to 12.10 p.m. He further stated, that when A.1 was looking into Civil cases, he along with four other Court Constables went to a tea-stall to have tea and in the meantime, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came there, offered tea to all of them. Thereupon, according to A.2, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju handed over Rs.5,000/-, stating that he should pay fine amount in Lok Adalat sitting, upon settlement of a case relating to Moula and Senthil Kumar, while further stating that he was going to Bus stand to send his uncle by bus, while further informing that after return from Bus stand, he would collect this amount. According to A.2, he believed the words of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, received such amount and kept the same in his Uniform pocket. Thereupon, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju left them and he started going towards the Court hall, two persons came, caught hold of him, took him to the Head Clerks room and whereas, some other persons also came to the same room, informing that they were from ACB raid party. According to him, when enquired, he informed them as to what happened prior to their arrival and handed over the cash of Rs.5,000/-, to them. Thus, A.2 denied that he had ever demanded or accepted any amount from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.1, nor there was any official favour pending with him towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, nor A.1 had directed him to receive any amount

:: 11 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

from any one. According to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju implicated him in this case with false allegations, since he entertained grudge against Police Department, since several cases were registered against him, that were investigated and he was charge-sheeted. Thus, setting out in his defence, A.2 requested to acquit him. 12. On behalf of A.1, DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy, DW.4-Smt. J. Seetha Lakshmi and

DW.5-Sri M. Mohan Reddy were examined and whereas, on behalf of A.2, DW.2-Sri J. Sadasiva Reddy and DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu, were examined in support of their defence. 13. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy is the President of Bar Association, Palamaner. A.1

examined him to prove that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju along with Sri Sk. Basha, was expelled from Bar Association, which was questioned by him sending a legal notice to then Bar President, which was suitably replied to. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy

deposed in respect of such facts, while stating that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju has been in active practice at Palamaner, even to this day. DW.4-Smt. J. Seethalakshmi is the wife of Sri Subrahmanyam, a Senior Advocate at Palamaner. She has been a member of Lok-Adalat Bench at Palamaner for the last 10 years. According to her, on the date of trap, she was present in the chambers of A.1 in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. She is examined by A.1 to prove that there was no demand by him for bribe, nor directing PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to handover the same to A.2, and to prove that A.2 was not present in his chambers. She deposed such facts. DW.5-Sri M. Mohan Reddy is a Junior Assistant, working in Honble High Court of A.P., in the Vigilance branch. He produced Ex.D.6-file. A.1 examined him to prove that the statements of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu are different, which are produced in this Court, from the one, forwarded to Honble High Court of A.P., while questioning the investigation of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati.

:: 12 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy is the Head Constable, attached to Palamaner Police Station, who produced Ex.X.1-file to show that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was Rowdy No.10 by opening a Rowdy-sheet, in their Police Station. DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu is one of the Constables, alleged to have had attended the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner on 19.7.2003, when a Lok-Adalat was conducted. A.2 examined him to prove his defence that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju handed over Rs.5,000/- to A.2 on the premise that it was the amount, to be paid in Lok-Adalat sitting towards the fine payable by one Senthil Kumar and another, on account of settlement of cases and it was never the bribe amount. DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu deposed as to such facts. 14. On behalf of the prosecution, written submissions are filed. On behalf of both

the accused, written submissions are filed separately and whereas, on behalf of A.2, oral submissions are also made. A.1 filed his written submissions in person. 15. Now, the points arise for determination are, 1. Whether there was official favour pending with A.1 and A.2 towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju? 2. Whether the alleged demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju by A.1 is true, and if the prosecution proved that A.2 had received Rs.5,000/- as bribe from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.1? 3. 4. Whether the investigation in this case is appropriate and fair? Whether sanction to prosecute A.1 and A.2 under Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 are proved to be legal, proper and in order? 5. Whether a charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act and a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act against A.1 is made out? 6. Whether a charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, and under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act are established against A.2 beyond reasonable doubt?

:: 13 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

POINT No.1: Whether there was official favour pending with A.1 and A.2 towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju? 16. Palamaner is a small town in Chittoor District. There is a Court of learned

Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, at Palamaner. A.1 took charge as the learned Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner on 06.01.2001. 17. C.C. No.460/2000 was pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Palamaner, when A.1 was the Presiding Officer of this Court. It had arisen out of Crime No.144/97-98 of Excise Station, Palamaner. There are four accused in C.C. No.460/2000. On behalf of A.3 and A.4 in C.C. No.460/2000, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, a practicing advocate at Palamaner, filed Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., as per Ex.P.27-petition, for discharge, on 01.04.2003. It was posted for counter and objections of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, to 15.4.2003. Thereafter, C.C.

No.460/2000 and Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 were posted to 21.7.2003. Ex.P.26 is the docket sheet in C.C. No.460/2000, reflecting posting of this case to different dates, which is also reflected by Ex.P.27 the petition in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003. 18. When A.1 was learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, these matters These facts are testified by

came up for consideration and enquiry before him.

PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, Junior Assistant in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, who was looking after criminal bench work in that Court. The original records of C.C. No.460/2000 were seized by learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, on account of the trap in this case, through his Personal Assistant Sri Muralidhar, on 20.07.2003 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.28 were secured as per orders of this Court on the memo filed by the prosecution in this case, from the Court of learned Prl. District Judge, Chittoor, upon being summoned. It is not disputed by A.1, that these matters came up for consideration before him as the learned

:: 14 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Presiding Officer of the said Court. According to PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, A.1, as learned Presiding Officer of the said Court, made the docket notings with his initial thereon, when the case was pending, during his tenure. He stated that A.1 had also subscribed his initials on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.28. 19. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju also deposed in respect of it, stating that Crl.M.P.

No.894/2003 was posted to enquiry to 09.06.2003 and again to 21.7.2003. According to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, it is on account of pendency of Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000, a demand was made by A.1 for a gratification of Rs.5,000/-, to pass favourable orders therein, on 09.06.203, on 15.7.2003, and again on the date of trap, namely, 19.7.2003. discussed infra, while discussing Point No.2. 20. Nonetheless, the admitted situation in this case relating to pendency of this The details of such demand shall be

matter, and A.1, being the Presiding Officer of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, make out that he was in a position to extend a favour to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, allowing Crl.M.P. No.894/2003, passing an order of discharge of A.3 and A.4 in C.C. No.460/2000. It is the official favour, according to the prosecution, pending with A.1 towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. 21. However, it is contended by A.1, that it is not an official favour as such, which

in fact was a duty, cast upon him as the Presiding officer of the said Court. Undisputedly, it was his duty to dispose of Crl.M.P. No.894/2003, upon hearing the petitioners as well as the respondent therein, passing a judicial order. It is the

premise, of which according to the prosecution, A.1 intended to make benefit for himself. Thus, a duty cast upon him was taken as an opportunity by A.1, as if he was extending a favour to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, who was the advocate for the petitioners. Therefore, the premise, on which the prosecution has built up its case as to the pending official favour with A.1 towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, is well made out, basing on admitted facts. May be that the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003

:: 15 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

in C.C. No.460/2000 were the real beneficiaries, if an order of discharge is passed in their favour. Nonetheless, this application was filed by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as their advocate, and he too stands to gain on account of passing of such order in favour of his clients. Therefore, the official favour, sought to be projected by the prosecution in this case, is very much made out and it cannot be taken as a duty simplicitor, to be discharged by A.1, in the facts and circumstances. 22. It is contended for A.2, that absolutely there was no obligation cast on him,

towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in this respect, and therefore, no official favour as such, is proved and established by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that, A.1 had taken services of A.2 to collect, receive and deliver the gratification for such purpose, when A.1 was intending to pass favourable orders in the petition filed by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Therefore, the liability of A.2 in this respect, is made out vicariously, on account of A.1. 23. On behalf of A.1, it is contended that if pendency of the petition or a case is

treated as an official favour, then for each and every case pending before the Presiding Judge, there can be an official favour, pending towards the accused in that case. Thus, it is contended by A.1, that taking advantage of pendency of such

petition, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had attributed an official favour in implicating him, out of malice and ill-motive. Reasons are assigned supra, rejecting such contention of A.1 and situation was made use of converting the official duty into an official favour, as set out by the prosecution. 24. The accused relied on the case of Babu Lal Bajpai, Appellant v. State of

U.P., [1994 CRI.L.J. 1383 (SC)] in this respect. Their Lordships of Supreme Court, in this authority, observed in para 5 in relation to facts, as under: ... we have gone through the judgment of both the courts below, as well as the evidence on record and have come to the conclusion that there was no tangible reason for the High Court to interfere with the finding of

:: 16 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the first instance, the trial Court has recorded a finding that at the relevant time, there was no motive for demanding and accepting the bribe because no bill was pending before him for pre-audit. 25. Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan, [1998 CRI.L.J. 3155 (Rajasthan High

Court)] is also relied on by the accused in this respect, where, in given facts and circumstances, it was observed in Para 21, as under: ... From the prosecution witnesses it is proved that there was no work of Radhey Shyam pending with the accused appellant therefore he could not have given any money as bribery. Secondly, the case of the prosecution is contradictory to its story. First the prosecution tried to say that the accused appellant demanded money on 16-3-78 in order to sanction subsidy to be granted to deepen the well but the demand was not proved. Then it is said that amount was demanded by Shri Vaishnav but there was no work pending with Shri Vaishnav or in the office of Project Officer. Then the prosecution came with the version that the amount was given to the accused appellant to pass over to the Assistant Engineer but there was no work pending with the Assistant Engineer as well. There was no demand by the Assistant Engineer even. The third story of the prosecution is that the money was given to the accused appellant to accelerate the work but when no work was pending, question of acceleration did not arise. 26. State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao, [2004 CRI.L.J. 1412

(SC)], is also relied on for the accused, wherein their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court in given facts and circumstances of the case, observed in para 6 as under: We think the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the contract for which PW-1 had offered his bid was only under consideration and was not finally accepted therefore, the question of the respondent agreeing to give the work order on payment of bribe did not arise.. 27. C. Sivakumar Reddy, Vs. State of A.P., [2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 863 (A.P.

High Court)] is also relied on for the accused, wherein, it was observed on facts, in Para 13, as under:

:: 17 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

... It is not the case of any of the officers that the accused officer is entitled to do any official favour. Merely because, the M.R.O., stated that any application filed for grant of patta, remarks will be called from the Village Officer, it cannot be said that the Village Administrative Officer is entitled to do any official favour or dis-favour. 28. All these authorities, referred to particular fact situation and such

observations were made holding that there was no pending official favour as such, or that the accused was not in a position to extend such so-called favour to the complainant. However, in the present case, it was open for A.1, to extend such favour by allowing Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000. Therefore, on facts, all the cited authorities for the accused, cannot be made applicable to this case. Hence, rejecting the contention of the accused, it has to be held that, pending official favour with A.1 towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is established by the prosecution. respect. 29. Thus, this point is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused. POINT No.2: Whether the alleged demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju by A.1 is true, and if the prosecution proved that A.2 had received Rs.5,000/as bribe from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.1? 30. The prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to prove A.2 should also take the liability along with A.1 vicariously in this

the fact of prior demands on 09.06.2003 and on 15.7.2003. In respect of demand on 19.7.2003 i.e., on the date of trap, it is relying on the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana in part, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, apart from the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11mediator reports as well as the circumstances, relating to and surrounding recovery of MO.7-cash from A.2 in the course of trap proceedings.

:: 18 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

31.

Both the accused have denied all such circumstances, sought to be projected Whereas, A.1 has denied specifically the prior demands, on

by the prosecution.

09.06.2003 and 15.7.2003, alleged to have been made by him on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for payment of bribe of Rs.5,000/-. 32. According to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, on 09.06.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., A.1

called him into his chambers and demanded Rs.5,000/- to pass favourable orders in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000. According to him, on 15.7.2003, at about 7.00 p.m., he went to a Daba Hotel at the outskirts of Palamaner town at Palamaner Chittoor road. By the time he went there, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.1 was found in that Daba, and as soon as PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju saw him, he offered salutation to A.1. Then, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.1 reminded him that he would pass favourable orders in the afore-said petition, if he happened to give him Rs.5,000/- as early as possible, either to him directly or to A.2. 33. Such version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is consistently set out by him in Ex.P.1,

which is the complaint, preferred by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to Joint Director, AntiCorruption Bureau, Hyderabad, on 17.07.2003. In Ex.P.1, in respect of demand on 15.7.2003, the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is that, A.1 had reiterated his earlier demand for Rs.5,000/-, asking him to pay as early as possible to A.2 who was working as Court Constable, attached to Palamaner Police Station. 34. According to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he was not willing to pay bribe to A.1, and

since the matter pertained to judiciary, he preferred Ex.P.1 to Joint Director (Rayalaseema), A.C.B., Hyderabad, under Ex.P.1, on 17.7.2003, who directed him, to meet Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, thereon. Therefore, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, on 18.7.2003, in between 9.00 p.m., and 9.30 p.m., he met PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in his office at Tirupati, who directed him to come to his office next morning i.e., on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m., along with the intended bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m., as per PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he

:: 19 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

went to the Office of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, at Tirupati, with the intended bribe amount. 35. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati also deposed in this respect, that on

18.7.2003 at about 9.00 p.m., he received a sealed cover through a special messenger from the office of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad. Upon opening this cover,

according to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., he noticed Ex.P.20-Memo of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, dated 17.7.2003 with instructions to register a case against A.1 and A.2, and to proceed with the trap. This cover also contained Ex.P.21-the letter of the then

Registrar (Vigilance), Honble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, addressed to D.G., ACB, dated 17.7.2003, informing that pursuant to letter of D.G., ACB, dated 17.7.2003, Honble the Chief Justice of A.P., was pleased to grant necessary permission to lay trap against A.1. On the strength of it, according to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., after conducting necessary discrete enquiries about bonafides of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and the reputation of A.1 and A.2, he registered Ex.P.22-FIR on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m., on the strength of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21. 36. According to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., he found the information in Ex.P.1 being

genuine and that there was no ill-feeling for PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju against A.1 and A.2. He also found that the reputation of A.1 was bad and corrupt. 37. Before registering FIR, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, was under an

obligation to cause preliminary enquiry in relation to antecedents like reputation of the accused, if the complainant had any ill-will or motive to prefer such complaint against the accused and to verify the information contained in the complaint. It is mandated in the case of P. Sirajuddin, etc., vs. State of Madras, etc, [1971 CRI.L.J. 523 (SC)], by Honble Supreme Court. The pertinent observations in this respect of Honble Supreme Court, in Para 17, are as under: Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there

:: 20 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. 38. This authority was followed and applied in the case of P. Chandra Sekhar

Reddy, Vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad [2009 (3) ALT (Crl.) 210 (A.P.)], holding that, conducting such preliminary enquiry is not an empty formality. 39. As seen from Ex.P.1 or Ex.P.22, there is no endorsement as such as to

outcome of the preliminary enquiry, said to have had been caused by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati in this case. The same is admitted by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in cross-examination for A.2. But, he stated that since they were

discrete enquiries, they need not be disclosed anywhere, and hence, he did not endorse to that effect on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.22. He further stated, that during his

entire service in ACB, he had never made any endorsement in respect of antecedents against public servants on the complaints as well as FIR. He also

stated, that he informed D.G., ACB, about it, and a copy of such communication according to him, was available in the case diary file. Later on, he resiled from this statement, stating that he did not find a copy of his report, submitted to D.G., ACB, in respect of preliminary enquiry in the C.D. File, brought by him to this Court on the day he deposed, namely, on 01.08.2011, relating to antecedents. When suggested to him, on behalf of A.2 that he had never submitted such report to D.G., ACB, he denied. 40. In cross-examination, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, stated that he

caused discrete enquiries from his Tirupati Office, through his informant during night in between 18.7.2003 and 19.7.2003 in respect of antecedents of A.1, A.2, and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Using informants for this purpose, is seriously assailed on

:: 21 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

behalf of A.2, stating that there was never such practice and purposely, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., came out with a false statement in this respect. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., further stated, that he did not send a written message to D.G., ACB, before pre-trap proceedings, or before trap proceedings, in respect of his enquiry relating to antecedents of A.1, A.2, and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. But, he added that he informed Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Hyderabad, on phone, in this respect, before registering FIR. He did not enter this fact in Case Diary file. He denied the

suggestion for A.2, that he did not so inform J.D. (R), ACB, Hyderabad, nor inform in writing to D.G., ACB, after trap about the antecedents or in relation to preliminary enquiry and he denied. 41. Thus, basing on these statements, elicited from PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Tirupati, it is strenuously contended for the accused, that there was no preliminary enquiry at all by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, before registering Ex.P.22-FIR, and the material, so placed by the prosecution itself is making out that such version of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., is false, to his knowledge. Thus, it is stated, that a

mandatory requirement has been flouted by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., and therefore, the entire investigation is vitiated. 42. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, as the Investigating Officer, gave reasons,

in his evidence, why he did not choose to endorse on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.22 in respect of the outcome of preliminary enquiry. His evidence is positive, that he did conduct such enquiry. Necessarily, such enquiry should be through his own sources, being discrete in nature. Had he made an endorsement on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.22, it would have definitely added to acceptability of his version at the trial. Nonetheless, he came out clearly in his evidence, that he did make such discrete enquiries, and upon his satisfaction in relation to the reputation of the accused, being corrupt, finding the contents of Ex.P.1 being genuine, and upon observing that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had no ill-will or motive to wreak vengeance against both the accused, registered Ex.P.22-FIR on Ex.P.1.

:: 22 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

43.

It should also be noted, that the accused are none other than a serving

Judicial Officer, and a Police Constable, at Palamaner. Making such enquiries during the night in between 18.7.2003 after receiving a sealed cover from the Office of D.G., ACB, at 9.00 p.m., and before registering FIR at 6.00 a.m., on 19.7.2003, in respect of these officers, located at Palamaner, cannot be found fault with. He could gather information, according to his evidence, within that time and possibly, so since one of them being a Police Constable, he could have received information and another, being a Judicial Officer, it would not have been a difficult affair for him, to gather about his reputation at Palamaner, which is a small town. Therefore, the evidence of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in this respect, can be relied on, holding that he did cause enquiries relating to antecedents of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.1 and A.2, as well as the contents of Ex.P.1. 44. It is contended by A.1, that there is only the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

against him in relation to prior demands, on 09.6.2003 and 15.7.2003. It is further contended by him, that he is a highly interested witness, who had a strong motive and desire, to wreak vengeance against him. A.1 relied on the background of PW.1Sri Y. Nagaraju in this respect, contending that he was expelled from Bar Association, Palamaner, who had faced a number of criminal cases and who was also convicted in one of the cases against whom a rowdy sheet was opened in Palamaner Police Station. Thus, A.1 contended, that the sole testimony of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in this respect, has to be rejected from consideration, while advancing that as Presiding Officer in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrte of I Class, Palamaner, he had occasions to check the behaviour of the accused, who was given to rude and unruly conduct. 45. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was specifically cross-examined in this respect, by A.1.

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated, that Sri Sivarama Krishna was the predecessor of A.1 at Palamaner. He denied the suggestion of A.1, that when Sri Sivarama Krishna was

:: 23 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

learned Junior Civil Judge at Palamaner, he was expelled from Bar Association, Palamaner, in respect of which, he caused a lawyers notice, dated 05.4.2000 from the Office of Sri B.S. Kumar, Advocate, Palamaner, to Sri V.K. Ramesh Babu, advocate, Palamaner (then President, Bar Association, Palamaner), Sri Uppalapati Lakshmana Murthy, Resident Editor, Vaartha Daily Newspaper, Renugunta, Tirupati and to Sri L. Bhaskar, advocate, Palamaner.cum-daily newspaper reporter of Vaartha paper of Gangavaram Mandal. He also denied the suggestion of A.1, that a reply to lawyers notice was issued by then President, Bar Association, Palamaner, dt.21.4.2000, from the Office of Sri Markonda Reddy, advocate, Palamaner, to Sri B.S. Kumar, advocate, Palamaner. He also denied suggestion, he was expelled from Palamaner Bar Association on the allegation that he was given to rough behaviour and assaulting public servants and others. However, A.1 had chosen to examine DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy in this respect, to substantiate his version. 46. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy is the President, Bar Association, Palamaner. He

has been practicing at Palamaner, since 25 years. He knows both A.1 and A.2 as well as PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. He stated that Sri Sivarama Krishna was predecessor of A.1 as learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Palamaner. He further stated, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and Sri Sk. Basha have been practising advocates from Palamaner Bar, and even to this day. He further stated, that PW.1Sri Y. Nagaraju and Sri Sk. Basha had complained against Sri Sivarama Krishna, to the then President, Bar Association, Palamaner, requesting to boycott the Court and from attending the Court. Thereupon, according to DW.1-Sri Mohan Reddy, their Bar Association had decided by a resolution, to boycott and abstain from attending the Court in or about the year 2000 or 2001, when Sri Sivarama Krishna was learned Presiding Officer of the Court at Palamaner. It went on for about a day or two,

according to DW.1-Sri Mohan Reddy, which was later withdrawn on the advice of learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, when a representation was presented by Bar Association, Palamaner, in this respect.

:: 24 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

47.

DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy further stated, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and Sri Sk.

Basha, were expelled from the Bar Association in or about the year 2000 or 2001 during the tenure of Sri Sivarama Krishna, since they insisted that abstaining from attending the Courts should be continued without heeding the advice of learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, that was not relished by the Bar Association. According to DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy, as stated by him in cross-examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and Sri Sk. Basha were aggrieved on account of behaviour of Sri Sivarama Krishna, who was given to shouting in open Court, and hence, they gave a requisition to boycott the Court, to their Bar Association. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy further stated in cross-examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, that there was no other reason for their expulsion from the Bar, and nonetheless, both of them have been actively practicing in the Court at Palamaner even to this day. 48. Thus, the evidence of DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy makes out, that PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju is continuing to practice at Palamaner as an advocate, and is in active practice. The evidence of DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy, Head Constable of

Palamaner Police Station also makes out, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is a Municipal Councilor and he will be participating in agitations as a politician. Expulsion of

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju did not come in his way in practicing in the Court at Palamaner. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a circumstance by itself, to make out nature and conduct of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy, did not suggest or state about the conduct and behaviour of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in open court or any where, as an advocate, or as a politician. 49. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is subjected to cross-examination by A.1, in respect of

several criminal cases, which he faced as an advocate, or his family members, or such cases, which he filed against others. There are 14 cases either initiated

:: 25 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

against him or filed by him in the Court at Palamner. The relevant portion of his deposition is desirable to extract, and it is as follows: A case in Cr. No.207/1998 was registered in Palamaner P.S. against me and my family members on 15.6.1998. Witness adds :This case was registered on account of a Civil dispute with neighbouring land owners. We also filed a complaint against the complainant in the above Case. Thus there were case and Counter case which were ultimately compromised and we were all acquitted in this case. The counter case filed was based on a Private complaint filed by me, since the Police did not file Charge sheet on my complaint against the accused therein. It is not true that Cr. No.167/1996 was registered against me, relating to C.C. No.203/1996 on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner. But it was a case registered against my father and there was also a counter case filed by my father, basing on a Private complaint against the complainant therein. Both these cases also ended in compromise and in acquittal. It is true that Cr. No.2000/2000, of Palamaner P.S., was registered against me on the allegation that I assaulted Superintendent, SubJail, Palamaner, when he was discharging duties in the Court. Witness adds: The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Palamaner had beat me with a Chappal at my face and I filed a Private complaint against him under Section 355 IPC in the Court of learned JMFC, Palamaner. Thereafter, as a counter to it, he got Cr. No.2000/2000, registered against me in Palamaner P.S. ended in compromise. I was added as an accused in Cr. No.103/2001, of Palamaner P.S., on 14.7.2001 on a complaint given by Sri G. Narasimha Reddy, Asst. Engineer, R&B, Palamaner for an offence Under Sec.332 IPC. Witness adds :I was acquitted in this case after a full fledged Trial. C.C.297/2003 was on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner, pending against me for offences under Section 452 IPC and under Section 323 IPC. Witness adds I filed a case, on Private complaint against the defacto complainant in C.C.297/2003 and both these cases ended in an acquittal, after full fledged trial. It is true that Cr. Witness adds No.95/2003 was registered under Section 353 IPC in Palamaner P.S., on the allegation that I assaulted a Excise Constable on 7.6.2003. This case ended in acquittal, after full fledged trial. I did not file any private complaint against the defacto complainant in Cr. No.95/2003 of Palamaner P.S. It is true that Sri Rajendra, husband of then advocate Smt. Sobha, was an accused along with me in Cr. No.95/2003. I do not know if Sri Rajendra filed a Both these cases

:: 26 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Private complaint against the defacto complainant in Cr. No.95/2003 of Palamaner P.S., on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner. Cr. No.88/2004 of Palamaner P.S., under Sec.341, 506 and 323 IPC, r/w Section 34 IPC, was registered against me and a Charge sheet was filed in this case in C.C. No.220/2004 on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner. Witness adds I also filed a complaint, against the defacto complainant in the above case before police in Palamaner P.S., and a charge sheet was also filed on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner. acquittal. A case in Cr. No.129/2005 in Palamaner P.S., U/s.324 IPC and U/s. 506 IPC was registered against me. Witness adds It was referred as false after due investigation. On the complaint of one Sri K.S. Gopi, a case in Cr. Cr. No.93/2007 of Palamaner P.S., was registered, U/s.353 IPC, against me. Witness adds This case also ended in an acquittal, on contest. the complaint of Sri Y.R. Hema Naidu against me. No.192/2007 of Palamaner P.S., was registered on 24.12.2007 U/s.324 IPC on Witness adds It was relating to a civil dispute, relating to lands and a Private complaint was filed by me against him, on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner. Both these cases ended in acquittal, since we compromised. Sri Y.R. Hema Naidu is my elder brothers son. 50. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was an accused in C.C. No.118/2010 on the file of Both these cases ended in compromise and in

learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, filed for offences under Sec.353 IPC, Sec.309 IPC, and under Sec.506 IPC, relating to Crime No.266/2009 of Palamaner Police Station. It is a case, later to trap incident in this case, relating to abusing Smt. S. Nagamani, then Tahsildar at Palamaner under intoxication stage, obstructing her from her legitimate duties, on 07.11.2009 at about 5.30 p.m., at Tahsildars Office, Palamaner, as per the allegations of the prosecution in that case. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was found guilty, in this case and he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for an offence under Sec.353 IPC, in default, to suffer SI for three months, was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for an offence under Sec.506 IPC, in default, to suffer SI for three months, and was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for an offence under Sec.309 IPC, in default, to suffer SI for two months. Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of the judgment in

:: 27 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

C.C. No.118/2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, dated 03.06.2011. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated, that he preferred Criminal Appeal No.131/2011 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, on 24.6.2011 against conviction, sentence, and this judgment, and it is now pending, according to him. Therefore, the conviction, so recorded against him, is subjudice and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was chosen to challenge it. It has not become final. 51. A rowdy sheet was opened against him assigning No.10 in Palamaner Police

Station. DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy, Head Constable, attached to Palamaner Police Station, has deposed in respect of it. He also produced Ex.X.1-file relating to PW.1Sri Y. Nagaraju, describing him as rowdy No.10, and it was opened on 20.8.2003. A photocopy of it, is Ex.D.5. Serious contentions are advanced in respect of opening Ex.X.1-file against PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, pointing out several procedural irregularities and lapses, while stating that purposely it was brought out. The evidence of DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy itself makes out that, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had challenged, declaring him as a rowdy sheeter, before Honble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy stated, that they received a Radio Message from the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, in respect of a case filed by him on the file of Honble High Court of A.P., for removal of his name, as a rowdy sheeter, of Palamaner P.S., while directing to present the material to the State Public Prosecutor, to represent in that case. Therefore, from the evidence of DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy, it is clear, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had challenged such an order, declaring him as a rowdy sheeter, on the file of Honble High Court of A.P. Therefore, the same is also subjudice. Hence, either his conviction, or declaring him as a rowdy sheeter, cannot be the circumstances, that can be relied on by A.1, to castigate PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as such. 52. A.1 suggested to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, that about 2 or 3 months prior to trap

in this case, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had requested him not to permit Police to have access to FIRs, and other records, relating to him, available in Court Office, since

:: 28 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Police were intending to open a rowdy sheet against PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and thereupon, A.1 had informed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, that he would not interfere in this matter. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju denied this suggestion. The same is also the

contention, by A.1, stating that it was one of the reasons for PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to foist this case against him. It is rather far fetched to believe that such request

would have been made by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to A.1, who was then Presiding Officer of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. It is beyond imagination, as to how A.1 could have acted upon such representation, preventing Police from gathering necessary material against PW.1Sri Y. Nagaraju, even if such version is taken, being true. 53. A.1 also pointed out that there was a case of highhanded behaviour against

one Mr. Vamsidhar Goud, then Sub-Inspector of Police at Palamaner Police Station, by hitting against a wall, causing an injury to his fore-head. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju denied, when so suggested by A.1, to him. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju added, that Mr. Vamsidhar Goud had come to their fields in their village, and had assaulted his parents in his presence, and had beat him with a stick, when he questioned him in respect of his highhanded behaviour. In respect of it, according to PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, he complained to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, and also filed a private complaint against him on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. He further stated, that on account of interference by elders, and when Mr. Vamsidhar Gowd tendered apology to his parents, he withdrew this case. 54. It is contended by A.1, that such background of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju should

necessarily be taken into consideration, and it should not be forgotten, while appreciating his evidence. Gulam Mohamood A. Malek, v. The State of Gujarat, [1980 CRI.L.J. 1096 (SC)], is relied on by A.1 in this respect. Their Lordships of Supreme Court, in this authority, with reference to facts, observed as under:

:: 29 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Where the complainant in a prosecution for acceptance of bribe was an accused in four cases and had stated without compunction that he used to give money to the accused, a Bench clerk in court, on several occasions and had launched complaint about demand of bribe after ten days after alleged demand and, though the payment of bribe was made in Court hall the money was recovered in another room after about twenty minutes and no independent witness from the hall was examined, the accused could not be convicted for accepting bribe on the corroborating testimony of the panch witness as to recovery of money. In appreciating the evidence in such case the background should not be forgotten. 55. A.1 also relied on the case of Laxman, Vs. State of Rajasthan [2001

CRI.L.J. 1150 (Rajasthan)] in this respect. In Para 6 of this reported decision, the observations are as under: It is improbable that negotiation for deciding the amount of bribe to be accepted would give (sic) on for a month and half. This witness was prosecuted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was in jail for about 4 months, he admits this also in his cross-examination. He has also admitted concealment of this prosecution and conviction of his from the corporation. trustworthy. 56. In the case of Manohar Dhondu Sawant, Vs. State of Maharashtra & In such circumstances, his evidence cannot be accepted as

Another, [2006 CRI.L.J. (NOC) 144 (Bom.)] is relied on by A.1, and it was found on facts, that the defacto complainant had reason to have grudge, against the accused. 57. Ganga Kumar Srivastava, Vs. State of Bihar [2005 CRI.L.J. 3454 (SC)] is

also relied on by A.1, where, in factual context, their Lordships of Supreme Court, in Para 24, observed, accepting the defence version, as under: Even otherwise, the defence of the accused was more probable and, therefore, it should be accepted. It was one of the defences of the appellant that because of starting a criminal case against the complainant, the trap case was initiated by the vigilance department at the instance of the complainant. It is not in dispute that a complaint at the instance of the

:: 30 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

appellant was made against the complainant and another for alleged theft of electricity and the complainant was found guilty which was, however, set aside in appeal. In the background of this fact and other circumstances as noted hereinearlier can it not be said that the defence case was more probable than that of the prosecution case and that in the facts and circumstances and evidence on record the defence case must be accepted. The aforesaid dramatic case was initiated by the Vigilance department at the instance of the complainant. 58. The case of Ganapathi Sanya Naik, Vs. State of Karnataka, [2007 CRI.L.J.

4689 (SC)] is relied on by A.1 in the same context. In this authority, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court, on facts, observed in Para 8, as under: We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the view taken by the trial court was clearly possible on the evidence in the case. The Court had observed that the plea of the defence at the very initial stage was that PW-6 had serious animosity towards the appellant and that the currency notes had been put on the table by the former was a plausible explanation. It is in the evidence that the currency notes had not been touched by the appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the prosecution case that the relevant documents had been handed over to Nagaraja immediately after the money had been put on the table. The argument therefore that there was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible. 59. In the factual backdrop, such observations were made in all these authorities,

referring to animosity between the accused and the defacto complainant. Such are not the circumstances in this case, whatever criminal cases either instituted against PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or instituted by him, or his family members, were on account of his private affairs. They had nothing to do with the discharge of duties by A.1, as the Presiding Officer of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. It can neither be stated that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had grouse against Police Department, and which is reflected, on account of implicating A.2 in this case. In fact, it is demonstrating nature of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, that he was a person, who was taking upon himself to face the challenge whatever he came across and was resisting them, resorting to due process of law. Therefore, on such

:: 31 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

premise, as sought to be contended by A.1, his evidence cannot be discarded, as such. 60. Background of the case should necessarily be taken into consideration, in

appreciating the evidence, on record. At the same time, such nature of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, when found to be in active public life, cannot altogether make his evidence in this case unworthy of credence. 61. Observations of Honble Supreme Court, in State of A.P., Vs. C. Uma

Maheswara Rao and another [2004 CRI.L.J. 2040 (SC)], are apt to consider and should be borne in mind, while appreciating the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. In Para 26, in this context, their Lordships observed in this authority, as under: The evidence of PW-1 cannot be ignored on the ground that he had earlier made grievances against some other officials. The trial Court had carefully analysed his evidence and found the same to be credible. Even if PW-2 did not support the prosecution version on some aspects yet his evidence also prove giving of money. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with those of Pws-3 and 5 is sufficient to bring home the accusations. 62.
(Emphasis supplied)

The case of the prosecution that the foremost demand was on 09.6.2003 in

the chambers of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, by A.1, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. On that day, Crl.M.P.894/2003 in C.C.460/2000, came up for hearing. It cannot be expected, that anyone would have been in the chambers of A.1, when such demand is made, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. The version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.1 alone will be available for determination in such circumstances. Considering the consistent version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju at the trial, as well as in Ex.P.1, it cannot be brushed aside, as such. 63. The demand on 15.7.2003 was in a Punjabi Dhaba at Palamaner Bangalore

road, on the outskirts of Palamaner town, said to have been made at 7.00 p.m. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had come across A.1 in that Dhaba, who reminded him of his demand for Rs.5,000/- to get an early order in the above petition in his favour. May

:: 32 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

be that, Ex.P.1 is setting out that A.1 had directed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to pay the demanded amount of Rs.5,000/- to A.2, and whereas, at the trial, it is the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju that A.1 had asked him to pay either to him directly, or to A.2, for this purpose. In cross-examination by A.1, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated that

Ex.P.1 did not reflect that A.1 asked him to pay such amount directly. It is a minor aberration in the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, which is not going to the root of the matter. 64. The prosecution had cited Sri Sukhawat Singh and Smt. Pradeep Kaur, who

were stated to be running this Punjabi Dhaba. They could not be examined at the trial, since prosecution reported on 21.7.2011 that they had left Palamaner for Punjab, and their whereabouts were not known. However, the fact that such

demand was made on him by A.1, was stated by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, in his earliest version under Ex.P.1. 65. Thus, in respect of prior demands, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for gratification of

Rs.5,000/-, the evidence on record from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, is required to be accepted, rejecting the contention of A.1. It is further making out that A.1 had also suggested PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju that such gratification should be paid as early as possible, to get favourable orders. 66. A.1 also relied on Harishankar Vajpai, Vs. State of M.P. [1998 (1) Crimes In the cited decision, while referring to

549 (MP)], in the same context.

appreciation of evidence of the defacto complainant, being highly interested in a case of this nature, that his evidence must be considered with great caution, which should be accepted only when corroborated, on facts, it was observed in Para 13 and Para 14 as follows: From the statement of Shri Dubey (DW 1) and on perusal of the report Exh. D/18, D/19-C, D/20-C, D/27-C and D/28 it appears that the complainant Omprakash (PW 1) is of criminal character and number of criminal cases have

:: 33 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

been registered against the complainant. On perusal of the judgment dated 31.1.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Mandleshwar in Spl. Cri. Case No.2/89 it is also found that in presence of the trap party, on 4.1.1989 when Omprakash (PW 1) wanted to pay currency note of Rs.500/- by way of bribe to the accused/appellant, the accused/appellant refused to take the aforesaid currency notes and registered the case against the complainant Omprakash (PW 1) under Crime No. 1/89 at PS Karhi under Sections 161 and 165 of the IPC. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is also found that in the aforesaid criminal case registered against the complainant Omprakash, he was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 165-A of the IPC. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law applicable to the case on hand, the trial Court has committed an error in relying on the statement of Omprakash (PW 1) and interested witness, whose statement does not get corroboration in material particulars from the statement of other prosecution witnesses and the evidence on record of the case. 67. From the material on record, particularly, the witnesses, who turned hostile in

this case, who worked in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/JMFC, Palamaner, when A.1 was learned Presiding Officer of this Court, namely, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy, PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna, and PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, there is not even whisper that there was any occasion for PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to behave in a rude manner, and exhibiting a conduct unbecoming of an advocate, at A.1. The defence, set up by A.1, did not specifically suggest a specific ground for PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to entertain grudge against him to the extent of lodging a complaint to ACB, alleging that there was demand for bribe by A.1, on him, to do a particular favour. The suggested defence of requesting inference of A.1 not to open a rowdy sheet against him, nor allow the Police to verify the records of the Court, prior to trap or his rude behaviour with others, cannot be taken as a reason, having substance. 68. Further, reference to preliminary enquiry before such rowdy sheet against the

accused is made for the first time in the written arguments for A.1, and it was never

:: 34 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

specifically suggested that there was such preliminary enquiry against PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, when he was cross-examined by A.1, or any material was elicited, when DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy and DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu were examined in support of his defence as well as the defence of A.2. Therefore, any amount of contentions advanced on behalf of A.1 in this respect, have to be rejected. No basis for such defence is made out basing on material record on preponderance of probabilities, nor made out as a plausible explanation for alleged foisting of this case against A.1 by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Therefore, the background, sought to be set up by A.1, is not substantiated on a plausible account. 69. Another contention, advanced on behalf of the accused is that, there is delay

in sending FIR to this Court by the Investigating Officer, and it is fatal to this case. 70. Ex.P.22-FIR was registered on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m., by PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

ACB, Tirupati. It was received in this Court on 19.7.2003 at 1.50 p.m., through P.C. 3216. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., stated that FIR must be forwarded to the Court in these type of cases, forthwith. According to him, the journey time between Tirupati and Nellore by bus or train is, 3 hours, and that P.C.3216, who delivered Ex.P.22 in this Court, did not participate in pre-trap proceedings. Basing on these statements, it is contended for A.2, and by A.1, that Ex.P.22 was not registered at 6.00 a.m., on 19.7.2003 and even otherwise, there is a delay of 4 hours, which is not explained by the prosecution, in any manner. 71. Ex.P.1 was presented by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to Joint Director

(Rayalaseema), ACB, Hyderabad initially, on 17.7.2003 and it was received by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in a sealed cover along with Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21. It cannot be stated in such circumstances, that Ex.P.1 itself was manipulated. Therefore, in the light of receipt of Ex.P.1 along with Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21, it cannot be stated that a delay of 4 hours in receiving Ex.P.22-FIR in this court, is abnormal, nor can it affect the credibility of Ex.P.1 or the entire case of prosecution. The scope

:: 35 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

of manipulation of Ex.P.1 by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tiruapti, is altogether ruled out inasmuch as it was forwarded to Honble High Court of A.P., by D.G., ACB, for consideration of Honble Chief Justice of A.P., and it was returned as per Ex.P.21 to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, by this letter of the Registrar (Vigilance), Honble High Court of A.P., on 17.7.2003 specifically referring that original complaint was returned to D.G., ACB, for necessary action, while retaining a xerox copy. Therefore, in these circumstances, such contention of the accused, cannot be accepted. The delay

itself is not fatal and it did not affect the credibility of the prosecution case, nor did affect the very basis of the prosecution case. 72. According to the prosecution, the third demand for the gratification by A.1

was during the course of trap proceedings on 19.7.2003, in the chambers of A.1. The trap proceedings, as per Ex.P.11-Mediator report, took place in between 12.15 p.m., and 3.30 p.m., in the premises of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/JMFC, Palamaner. 73. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.3-Sri G.

Prabhakar Rao, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, apart from Ex.P.3-the mediator report relating to pre-trap proceedings, and Ex.P.11-the mediator report relating to trap proceedings, apart from the circumstances surrounding recovery of cash, the colour test conducted on A.2, seizure of his Uniform shirt in the course of such proceedings. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

according to the prosecution, were the mediators in whose presence, all these proceedings took place. But, PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana partly resiled in-part from the case of the prosecution and turning hostile to it. Nonetheless, his evidence to the extent stands, in consonance with proof offered by the prosecution by other material in respect of both these proceedings, needs to be taken into consideration. 74. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana deposed in respect of pre-trap proceedings.

He was instructed in the course of pre-trap proceedings by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., to

:: 36 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

follow PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju as a shadow witness to observe as to what goes on between PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.1, or PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.2, relating to exchange of marked and tainted currency notes according to the prosecution. But, on such crucial aspect of following PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for such purpose, his alleged observation of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju going up to the chambers of A.1 along with him, that he and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju waited for some time outside the chambers, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju entered his chambers thereafter, that there was no possibility for him, to listen the conversation between A.1 and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, or as to what went on in the chambers of A.1, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and a Police Constable in uniform came out of A.1s chambers, and that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju handing over the tainted currency to the same Police Constable, who had kept in his left pocket of Uniform shirt, who proceeded into Head Clerks Room, he did not support the prosecution version. He denied having had made such

statements in respect of these circumstances, before the Investigating Officer, which portion is specifically marked Ex.P.5(A) in his statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. He also denied having had made statement before the Investigating Officer in respect of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju giving signal, sometime thereafter, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati and other members of trap party rushing towards Head Clerks room, whom he had also followed, observing the transaction that went on, and in respect of preparation of Ex.P.11-mediator report. 75. As seen from the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi

Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tiruapti, along with Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11, there is material to the effect that in the course of pre-trap proceedings, which took place between 7.00 a.m., and 8.00 a.m., ten currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/-, of Rs.5,000/-, when produced by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju at request of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., were applied phenolphthalein powder. Such evidence is also proving that PW.13-then Dy.S.P., had instructed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju not t touch these currency notes, that were kept in his left upper pocket of

:: 37 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

shirt, unless and until there was further demand by A.1, or by his nominee, including A.2, and when such currency notes were delivered, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was instructed to wipe his face thrice, using his kerchief, as signal, to enable the trap party, to apprehend the recipient of the tainted currency. 76. The evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., and the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11 is also making out, that A.2 was apprehended after receiving the tainted currency from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and was questioned in the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, who was then Head Clerk in that Court. Such evidence is also making out that tainted currency, being MO.9, was recovered from A.2, which was in right upper pocket of his uniform shirt. Their evidence is also making out, that A.2 was subjected to Sodium

Carbonate solution test, when he was directed to rinse his both hand fingers in Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned pink. 77. The evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., and the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11 is further making out, that MO.6-Uniform shirt of A.2, was seized and the inner linings of right upper pocket of this shirt were subjected to Sodium Carbonate solution colour test, by rinsing it in Sodium Carbonate solution, and this solution turned pink. 78. Apart from the evidence of these witnesses, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-

Sri M. Ramachandrudu, whose presence during this transaction on 19.7.2003, in the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, can never be doubted, supported such version of the prosecution. 79. The evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., is also to the effect that, the serial numbers of the seized currency notes, in the course of trap proceedings, were compared, with the one, noted in Ex.P.3, and they were found tallying.

:: 38 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

80.

Admittedly,

PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., Inspectors, who accompanied PW.13-then Dy.S.P., attested Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11-Mediator reports. Their signatures are found, in these mediator reports, where they ought to be raising a presumption, that they had signed these mediators reports, having had gone through the same, and knowing their contents. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, in cross-examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, admitted that in the departmental enquiry against A.1, he had completely supported the version of the prosecution. Therefore, his version, that he was not read-over the contents of these mediator reports, is apparently false . 81. It is obvious, that PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was gained-over by A.1 and

was made to depose to omit such material, to afford corroboration to the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in this case. 82. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was cross-examined on 18.7.2011 during trial The relevant portion of his statements, elicited in the cross-

in this case.

examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, are as follows: I deposed in Departmental enquiry against A.1, supporting the version in all the mediators reports. A.1 met me in the verandah of this Court once, during lunch break, this day. I and A.1, had met together at the entrance of the Court hall of learned I Addl. District Judge, Nellore and we wished each other. It is not true that A.1 had informed me when we met together during that time, as to what I shall depose in this case and similarly during lunch break, he had refreshed as to what I should depose in t his case. It is not true that the mediator reports incorporated the actual happenings and now, I am giving different versions at request of both the accused, being gained over. 83. These statements of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana clearly reflect what went

on to make him to depose in such manner. It is manifest, that he had chosen to suppress the actual version, at the instance of A.1, to help him. PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana was aware that his service conditions were no more applicable to him,

:: 39 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

since he retired about 4 years prior to 18.7.2011, and had chosen to depart from the prosecution version, while choosing to support it in part. Such portion, supporting the case of the prosecution, can well be considered and can be relied on by the prosecution, in terms of Section 154 (2) of Indian Evidence Act. 84. Attempts are made by the accused to question the veracity of the

prosecution version in respect of pre-trap proceedings and trap proceedings, relying on certain statements, elicited in the cross-examination from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, the evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, as well as PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati. 85. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., had received sealed cover from the office of D.G., ACB,

on 18.7.2003 at 9.00 p.m., through special messenger. He further stated, that he attempted to secure the mediators after registering Ex.P.22-FIR on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m. He also stated, that he did not have any information relating to this case till he received sealed cover, on the night of 18.7.2003 at 9.00 p.m. But, the

evidence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana is that, on 18.7.2003, at about 8.00 p.m, or 9.00 p.m., his Divisional Manager gave a memo, directing him to attend ACB Office at Tirupati on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m. By that date, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana was working as Junior Assistant in Girijan Cooperative Corporation at Tirupati. PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao stated in cross-examination for A.2, as on 18.7.2003, Executive Engineer, R&B, Tirupati, had sent a memo at 7.00 p.m., to his house, asking him to attend ACB Office at Tirupati on 19.7.2003 by 5.30 a.m. 86. According to the accused, these are contradictory versions, from the

prosecution witnesses, and that they point out that even before receiving the sealed cover on 18.7.2003 at 9.00 p.m., PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, had made arrangements to secure mediators for the trap, to be laid on 19.7.2003 and that even before registering FIR, such arrangements were made. In re-examination,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., stated that on 18.7.2003 night, he had instructed one of his

:: 40 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Inspectors, to keep mediators ready for next days proceedings. He further stated, that he had sent written requisitions to the concerned authorities after receiving Ex.P.22-FIR. In cross-examination for A.2, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., further stated that he gave such instructions to the Inspector to secure mediators and to keep them ready, after he received sealed cover containing Ex.P.20, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.1. 87. Nonetheless, the evidence of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., makes out that he should

have instructed his Inspector after 9.00 p.m., on 18.7.2003 to secure mediators for next days event. Though the evidence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao is contra to such version of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., such discrepancy or inconsistency is trivial in nature. The memos or requisitions issued by PW.13then Dy.S.P., to secure presence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, as mediators, were not produced at the trial. 88. Contentions are advanced for the accused in relation to pre-trap proceedings

basing on discrepancy relating to reading over Ex.P.2-copy of FIR to the mediators and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as well as commencing of pre-trap proceedings. The

contents of Ex.P.3 reflected that pre-trap proceedings were commenced at 7.00 a.m., in the Office of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, at Tirupati. According to PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, had read over the contents of Ex.P.2 and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju affirmed its contents. He further stated, that by the time he reached ACB Office, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao was already reading over its contents. However, he denied the suggestion for A.2, that the contents of Ex.P.2 were not read over to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, nor he affirmed its contents, being true. PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao stated that Ex.P.2 was read over to them by Dy.S.P., and thereafter, he and PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana subscribed their signatures to it. 89. As seen from the contents of Ex.P.3, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati gave

Ex.P.2 and these mediators went through the same, subscribed their initials thereto, and ascertained facts, mentioned therein, from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Therefore, the

:: 41 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

contents of Ex.P.3 are not to the effect that either PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao or PW.13-then Dy.S.P., was reading over the contents of Ex.P.2 and that PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao themselves went through its contents. PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao expressed his ignorance, when suggested, if

PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana was already in attendance in that office, by the time he went there. In chief-examination, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana stated, that he and PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao went to ACB Office at Tirupati on 19.7.2003 at 6.30 a.m. It is corroborated by PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao as well as contents of Ex.P.3. In such circumstances, his version, that PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao was already reading over Ex.P.2, by the time, he went to ACB Office, is not correct. 90. These circumstances, pointed out for the accused, are trivial in nature, and

they are not affecting the credibility of the prosecution in any manner, nor affect its substratum. The purpose of pre-trap proceedings is only limited. It is a record, to prepare the currency notes, with application of phenolphthalein powder,

demonstration of chemical reaction between phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate solution, appraising PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or the defacto complainant, the caution, to be observed in respect of delivering the tainted currency to the accused, or with reference to instructions to shadow witness or ACB staff to follow and in respect of receipt of signal on acceptance of the tainted currency. These facts are proved in this case from the very evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., and Ex.P.3. Therefore, the so-called lapses in respect of timing and the sequence of commencement of such proceedings, cannot have any bearing. 91. It is contended for the accused, that when pre-trap proceedings was

conducted in between 7.00 a.m., and 8.00 a.m., on 19.7.2003, preparing Ex.P.3, it should have been forwarded along with Ex.P.22-FIR to this Court. Since PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, did not forward Ex.P.3 along with Ex.P.22 to this Court, preparation of Ex.P.3 itself is rendered to be doubtful.

:: 42 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

92.

On behalf of the accused, the case of G.D. Mariswamy, Vs. State of

Karnataka, [2004 CRI.L.J. 3584 (Karnataka)], is relied on in this respect. It was observed in this cited decision, in Para 25 with reference to fact situation, as to preparation of mahazars being doubtful, as follows: It is pertinent to note that the complaint Ext. P. 9 is dated 19-3-1993. The entrustment mahazar Ext. P.10 is dated 19-3-1993. Ext. P. 11 another mahazar at Lokayuktha office is dated 19-3-1993. Similarly, Ext. P. 12 is a mahazar prepared at the Lokayuktha office to evidence the fact of keeping the notes in the shirt pocket of the complainant and on the same day Ext. P.13 a mahazar dated 23-3-1993 was prepared as the trap was not materialized. Though all these mahazars were prepared on 19-3-1993 and 23-3-1993, Exts. P.10 to P.13 were not sent to the jurisdictional Judge on the respective date by keeping it in sealed covers. On a perusal of the above mahazars Exts. P.10 to P.15, it is seen that they were produced to Court only on 26-3-1993 as per the endorsements made on them by the concerned judicial officer. By the above facts, it shows that the very preparing of the mahazars Exts. P.11, P.12 and P.13 and P.14 becomes doubtful. That apart, to prove the fact of preparing the mahazars Exts. P.10 and P.11 dated 19-31993, Exts. P.12 and P.13 dated 23-3-1993 and Ext. P.14 dated 26-3-1993, the prosecution has neither examined the material witness Raghaendra Rao nor the Investigating Officer. The non-examination of the material witness viz., Raghavendra Rao, who is said to have successively handled the notes on all the occasions by keeping the notes in the pocket of the complainant and removing it by keeping them in a sealed cover, and the Investigating Officer not seizing the sealed covers is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 93. But, in the facts and circumstances, when the evidence of the prosecution is

otherwise making out the pre-trap proceedings and proved it as a fact, mere omission to forward Ex.P.3 along with Ex.P.22, is not fatal by itself, nor preparation of Ex,.P.3, as such, can be doubted. 94. The evidence of prosecution from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi

Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., as well as Ex.P.11 is to the effect that, the trap party including PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju left the Office of

:: 43 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, at 8.30 a.m. PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, however, stated that they reached Green Park Hotel at Palamaner at about 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence through PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, is that, he reiterated the instructions to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and H.C. Venkata Swamy, while directing PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, to follow PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and H.C. Venkataswamy, to follow at a small distance from both of them. 95. The evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is that, he left other members of trap

party, went to the chambers of A.1 in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, followed by PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and H.C. Venkataswamy. After reaching chambers of A.1, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he found him busy. Therefore, he waited for a while and after observing that A.1 was free, he entered the chambers. 96. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju further stated, that after entering the chambers, A.1

asked him, if he had brought the demanded amount and PW.1-Sri Nagaraju answered in affirmative. According to PW.1-Sri Nagaraju, A.2 was in the chambers of A.1, during that time. Then, according to PW.1-Sri Nagaraju, A.1 directed him, to handover the cash to A.2, who was available in the chambers. Then, both of them came out of the chambers and in the Court premises, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he handed over the tainted currency notes to A.2, from his shirt pocket, which were received by A.2, using both hands, and had kept them in the right upper pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.2 proceeded towards the Head Clerk Room. Then, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he wiped his face thrice, using his handkerchief, and this signal was received by H.C. Sri Venkata Swamy. Thereupon, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, other members of trap party rushed towards Head Clerks Room in that premises. 97. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati and other members of trap party came

opposite to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., directed him to wait

:: 44 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

outside for some time, and to come in only when called again, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. He further stated, that PW.13-then Dy.S.P., Inspectors, PW.2-Sri R.

Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, and other members of trap party went towards Head Clerks room. 98. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju further stated, that PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana

observed him, handing over tainted cash to A.2, which A.2 counted, using both hands, and kept it in his right upper pocket of shirt, as well as proceeding towards Head Clerks room. 99. In cross-examination by A.1, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated that when he came

at the chambers of A.1, he observed him smoking cigarette, and therefore, he felt that he was busy. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju further stated, that he waited at the

entrance of the door for few seconds. He denied the suggestion of A.1, that he did not directly enter the chambers of A.1, that he approached an attender, who was at the entrance of the chambers for permission, to enter, that the attender approached A.1, informed that an advocate was waiting to meet him, and when A.1 permitted him to enter the chambers, he entered. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated in cross-

examination for A.2, that he came to the chambers of A.1 from Green Park Hotel, within five minutes. 100. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana stated that he got down the vehicle at Green

Park Hotel, Palamaner, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had just entered the Court compound. He further stated, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju left at good pace while he followed him slowly. 101. The evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana is also that, he observed

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju handing over cash to A.2 at the steps of main building. He further stated, that within five minutes, he saw PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.2 coming out of the verandah of the Court together with hands on shoulders. According to him, he saw PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju handing over cash to A.2, which A.2 counted and

:: 45 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

had kept the same in his pocket on the right upper shirt. According to PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, in the mean time, H.C. Sri Venkataswamy came there, caught hold of the hand of A.2. According to PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, after releasing himself from H.C. Sri Venkataswamy, A.2 went towards Head Clerks room in that building, and in the mean time, Dy.S.P., and other members of trap party came there, who went towards Head Clerks room. He further stated, that he was at the steps of main entrance, and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was not found there. He further stated, that he too followed members of trap party into Head Clerks room. 102. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana gave the distance between the main gate at

the Court compound and the place, where their vehicle was stopped at 200 or 300 Sq. yards. According to PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, this distance is about one

furlong. PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana further stated, that the distance between the main gate of the compound and Court building proper, is about 20 to 30 yards, and whereas, PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao gave this distance at 50 to 60 feet. According to PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana had left other members of trap party a minute after PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju left them towards the Court. PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana further stated, that by the time he entered the Court premises, he did not observe PW.1-Sri Nagaraju. According to contents of Ex.P.11 and the evidence of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., as well as PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju left them at about 11.10 a.m., and the signal was received at 12.10 p.m. The evidence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, is not to that effect, and he did not state in respect of signal given by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or the time, when such signal was given. 103. The accused pointed out such differences and discrepant nature of evidence, They also relied on the statements of PW.13-then

adduced by the prosecution.

Dy.S.P., in cross-examination that his investigation disclosed that PW.1-Sri Nagaraju entered chambers of A.1 before 12.00 noon. He further stated, that PW.1-Sri

Nagaraju waited outside the chambers of A.1 between 11.00 a.m., and 12.10 noon,

:: 46 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

as per his investigation. But, he stated, that PW.1-Sri Nagaraju did not specifically state the time, when he entered the chambers of A.1. 104. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, manifestly gave a different account, drifting

away from the prosecution version to accommodate the defence of A.1, and therefore, his statements in this respect, cannot be taken being true. 105. According to the accused, going by the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he

should have entered the chambers of A.1, by 11.15 a.m., or 11.20 a.m. It is further contended, that when the evidence of prosecution is that, the signal was received at 12.10 p.m., it remained unexplained, why there was a delay of an hour in giving signal by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. It is further pointed out, that considering the case of the prosecution that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.2 were in the chambers of A.1, when A.1 is alleged to have directed PW.1-Sri Nagaraju to deliver the bribe amount to A.2, and according to his case, when both of them came out together, the unexplained situation of receipt of signal at 12.10 p.m., raises any amount of suspicion about the story of prosecution in this respect as well as the evidence of PW.1-Sri Nagaraju. 106. A.1 and A.2 have denied the case of the prosecution to the effect that, A.1

had directed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to deliver the bribe amount to A.2, and presence of A.2 in the chambers of A.1, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had met A.1. 107. The evidence of prosecution is specific, that after receiving signal at 12.10

p.m., from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, the entire trap party rushed into the Court premises, and into the room of Head Clerk, namely, PW.4-Sri Hasheem. 108. Apart from the evidence of PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

ACB, Tirupati and contents of Ex.P.11, in respect of apprehension of A.2 by trap party, there is evidence of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, then Head Clerk (since retired) as well as the typist-cum-assistant, being PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, supporting

:: 47 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

them. Their evidence points out that it was at about 12.15 or 12.20 p.m., A.2 was brought into the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem. The version presented by PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana that H.C. Sri Venkataswamy caught hold of hands of A.2, who got himself released, and entered the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, is manifestly false. PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu also stated, that A.2 was brought into the room of PW.4-Sri Hasheem, when he was in his seat in that room, attending to the work, by two persons, holding out hands and A.2 was shouting to set him free. But, the same is not the version of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, though he stated that A.2 was brought into his room by two persons. Both these witnesses were treated hostile by the prosecution, and were subjected to cross-examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor. 109. PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem worked in Judicial Department for 38 years, who had

experience in civil as well as criminal work. He was associated with A.1 for more than two years in the same Court. He had also known A.2, who was attending the Court, as concerned Constable of Palamaner Police Station. Similarly, PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu was associated with A.1 for about 1 years, when he was learned Presiding Officer in that Court, and he had known A.2, as the Court Constable. Therefore, they too, though supported the prosecution to some extent, in respect of bringing A.2 into the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, gave a slightly different version in the above manner. But, the fact remained proved from such evidence on record including from the evidence of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M.

Ramachandrudu, is that at about 12.15 p.m., or 12.20 p.m., A.2 was apprehended and was found in the room of Head Clerk (PW.4-Sri Hasheem) in that Court. Thereafter, further trap proceedings took place. 110. In the light of such circumstance, the discrepancy in respect of the time gap,

found from the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and other witnesses, examined by the prosecution, or giving signal, did not bear significant effect.

:: 48 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

111.

On 19.7.2003, undisputedly, there was a Lok-Adalat sitting in that Court.

Both criminal and civil matters were posted for settlement in that Lok-Adalat. A.2, and other Constables of different Police Stations, within the jurisdiction of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, attended this sitting. Presence of A.2 on that day in the Court premises, is undisputed, and is admitted. 112. According to A.1, he came to the Court and was in Chambers at 10.30 a.m. It

is also deposed to by PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy, his Personal Assistant (Stenographer), PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, the Criminal Bench Clerk, PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna and PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, who are the attenders on duty. At about 11.45 a.m., he went into the Court hall to attend Lok-Adalat sitting. 113. The version of PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, who was the attender on 19.07.2003 is

that, Smt. Seetha Mahalakshmi, a member of Lok-Adalat, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Palamaner, Miss Barkath, Lady advocate and Sri Shoukath Ali, advocate, came at the chambers and informed that they intended to meet A.1. By then, according to PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was moving about in the verandah of Court hall. Thereafter, according to PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came to him and informed that he intended to speak to A.1 in his chambers. By then, all of the afore-stated four persons were in the chambers of A.1, at which time, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju entered and spoke to A.1 in his chambers. Thereafter, according to PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju came out of the chambers immediately. Others, who were in the chambers, also came out,

according to PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi. Thereafter, according to him, A.1 entered the Court hall. 114. This witness was treated hostile, and with the permission of the Court, he was

cross-examined by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor. He expressed his ignorance, if he did not make a statement before the Investigating Officer about the presence of four persons, referred to above, in the chambers of A.1. He stated that he did not

:: 49 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

state before the Investigating Officer, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, while entering the chambers of the learned Magistrate, stopped, waited outside for some time, later went inside and that after a brief spell, A.1 came out into the Court hall, attended the Lok-Adalat and that A.2 was caught by ACB Officers, from whom, Rs.5,000/- was recovered, and thus, he denied having had made such statement, marked Ex.P.15. 115. PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi stated in cross-examination by A.1, that PW.1-Sri

Nagaraju came to the chambers at about 11.00 a.m., or 11.15 a.m., at which time, there was none, except the four persons, stated above, in his chambers. Again, he stated that, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju entered the chambers of Presiding Officer at about 11.10 a.m., and another version of this witness, elicited in cross-examination by A.1, is that no Police Constable, including A.2, entered the chambers when A.1 was in the chambers between 10.30 a.m., and 11.45 a.m., on 19.7.2003. 116. Thus, this witness, namely, PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, supported the version of A.1

in this case. Apart from the evidence of PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, A.1 also examined DW.4-Smt. J. Seethalakshmi. She has been a member of Lok-Adalat at Palamaner for the last 10 years, and her husband Sri Subrahmanyam, is a senior advocate at Palamaner. According to her, she went to the chambers of A.1, on 19.7.2003, since she had received a communication relating to Lok-Adalat sitting on that day. She deposed about the presence of Miss Barkath, a Lady advocate of Palamaner, and then Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Palamaner, in the chambers of A.1 by the time she entered. Later, she added presence of Mr. Shoukath Ali, advocate, in

cross-examination for A.2. She stated, that PW.1-Sri Nagaraju came into the chambers about 20 minutes later, and represented that his father-in-law was unwell and requested adjournment of his matters. But, she added, that she did not hear his representation properly and attentively. According to her, thereupon, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju, left when A.1 was stating as to why he should represent in chambers, which he could represent in open Court. She stated, that she was in chambers of A.1 up to 11.30 a.m., or 11.45 a.m., sitting quiet, when A.1 was attending to his

:: 50 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

work.

She further stated, that at 11.45 a.m., when Lok-Adalat proceedings

commenced, on being informed by the Court staff, she, Miss Barkath, Branch Manager, SBI, Palamaner, came out of the chambers of A.1, and entered the Court hall. The proceedings went on, according to her, up to 2.30 p.m., or 3.00 p.m. 117. In cross-examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, she stated that, only

for the purpose of intimating her presence for the sitting of Lok-Adalat, and to greet A.1, she entered his chambers on 19.7.2003. According to her, A.1 offered tea to all those present in his chambers and after they were served tea within 10 or 15 minutes. After taking tea, they came out, according to her. 118. When her version that after taking tea, all of them came out from the

chambers of A.1, which was served within 10 or 15 minutes after A.1 offered it, makes out that she was not in the chambers of A.1 till 11.45 a.m. Such inference has to be drawn, basing on her statement, when considered with the version of PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, in his chief-examination in this respect. The version of PW.9Sri S. Pitchandi makes out that, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came out of chambers after making representation to A.1, others who were in the chambers, also came out. Therefore, as soon as PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came out, from the evidence of PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi and DW.4-Smt. J. Seethalakshmi, if their presence is to be believed in the chambers of A.1, they should have come out within 10 to 15 minutes after offering tea by A.1. Nonetheless, she chose to depose that she was in the chambers up to 11.45 a.m., along with Miss Barkath and others. It is manifest, that she came forward out of sympathy for A.1, to help the accused in his defence. She is an interested witness in A.1. Hence, she gave such version, supporting such

defence, as rightly contended for the prosecution. 119. In respect of presence of DW.4-Sri J. Seethalakshmi or others, found in the

chambers of A.1, on 19.7.2003, it is significant to note that PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna, who was another Process Server, attending the duty, did not come out with such

:: 51 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

version. He is silent in this respect. It is worthy to note, that A.1 did not suggest to PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna in cross-examination, that DW.4-Smt. J. Seethalakshmi, Miss Barkath, Mr. Shoukath Ali, and Branch Manager, S.B.I., Palamaner, were with A.1, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju entered the chambers of A.1. He and PW.9-Sri S.

Pitchandi were attending to the duty in the court hall, though according to them, PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi was attending at the chambers. The chambers and court hall are attached, and if there was presence of others in chambers of A.1, during that time, it would not have gone out from the notice of PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna. It is manifest, that PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, being an associate of A.1, being his attender, did not support the prosecution version, came out with a new version at the trial to help A.1. Therefore, the evidence of DW.4-Smt. J. Seetha Lakshmi, cannot be

implicitly relied on. 120. The version of A.2 in this respect is that, he was in the Court hall, attending to PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, the Bench

Lok-Adalat matters up to 12.10 p.m.

Clerk, deposed that A.2 was in the Court hall on that day up to 11.45 a.m. According to A.2, he went out of the Court hall along with other Constables, when the civil work was taken up. According to A.2, when they went to the canteen in the Court premises, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came to them, offered tea, and paid for tea. During that time, according to the version of A.2, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju gave away Rs.5,000/-, stating that he had to pay fine in Lok-Adalat sitting on behalf of Senthil Kumar and Moula for an offence under Sec.338 IPC as per suggestion made to PW.1Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.2. His version is also that, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju further represented that he was going to Bus stand to make his father-in-law board a bus, and if his father-in-law happened to see the cash with him, he would take it away. Therefore, for such purpose, according to version of A.2, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju gave him Rs.5,000/-, which he counted and kept it in his shirts pocket. 121. In support of such version, A.2 relied on the evidence of DW.3-Sri A.G.

Vadivelu, who was then working as a Police Constable in Gangavaram Police Station.

:: 52 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

He supported such version of A.2 in chief-examination. But, in cross-examination, he stated that he had known A.2, since about 6 months prior to 19.7.2003 and he has been on speaking terms with him even now. There is no record to prove his presence on 19.7.2003, produced in this case on behalf of A.2, and DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu stated that he cannot produce any record, to the effect that he was deputed on Court duty on 19.7.2003. According to him, he and three other

constables had witnessed A.2, being apprehended by ACB Officers in Court premises. He further stated, that he and other Police Constables did not inform any of their superiors or any one about this incident. He categorically stated, that for the first time he came out with such version, as DW.3 in this trial, which he did not inform anyone. He denied the suggestion of learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, that he did not meet A.2 or any other PCs., on 19.7.2003, and since A.2, being his friend, he has been deposing false, to save him from this prosecution. 122. Consideration of evidence of DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu, makes out that on

account of affinity between him and A.2, he came out with such version. There was a possibility of producing record to prove that he was deputed on Court duty on 19.7.2003. If such version has been really true and correct, a representation could have been made on behalf of A.2, as rightly contended by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, to their superiors, and DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu as well as other Constables could have presented such version, during the course of investigation itself. For the first time, he had chosen to come out with such story, as DW.3, in the course of trial, only to help A.2. Hence, the evidence of DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu, cannot implicitly be relied on, nor it is inspiring confidence, nor found to be acceptable. 123. Contentions are also advanced for the accused, that A.2 made a spontaneous

statement when he was apprehended, setting out similar version, presented in his defence. It is further stated, that another version was added in the guise of

confronting the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to him, implicating himself and A.1.

:: 53 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Thus, two different versions from A.2, were brought out by the Investigating Officer, as per contents of Ex.P.11, and whereas, the first version being true, and later version was purposely included, to support this false case. 124. Such statements, incorporated in Ex.P.11, were made in the course of

investigation, and they are clearly inadmissible under Sec.162 Cr.P.C. ( vide D.V. Narasimham, Vs. State [1969 CRI.L.J. 1016 (SC)] ). Therefore, such contentions cannot be accepted. 125. The versions, presented by A.1 and A.2 in respect of demand in the chambers

for payment of Rs.5,000/- by A.1, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, directing him to deliver to A.2, are highly interested. Their denial of the prosecution version itself is interested. Their attempt to prove their defence for the reasons stated above, is not acceptable, and it lacks substance and credibility. 126. Therefore, relying on the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, it has to be held

that, there was a demand on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju by A.1 in his chambers, in enquiring him, if he had brought Rs.5,000/- and when answered in affirmative by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.1 directed him to pay to A.2, which he received, after coming out of chambers in the Court premises. 127. The accused also relied on a contradiction marked from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju,

under Ex.D.2, in relation of the manner, in which both PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.2 came out of the chambers, either together or one after another. The accused also relied on Ex.D.3, a contradiction, marked from PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana in respect of keeping the tainted cash by A.2 in his left shirt pocket. These two

statements are found, in their versions, recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., by the Investigating Officer, and both of them have chosen to deny the same. Nonetheless, they represent only minor contradictions. It did not matter much, if PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or A.2 came first out of chambers, or together, or one after another. The fact remains that, both of them were in the chambers of A.1, and then

:: 54 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

they came out. The proof is offered and established in respect of acceptance of tainted currency in the court premises. Though PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana gave a different version in this respect, it is making out that, in the court premises itself, A.2 had received cash of Rs.5,000- from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. The place of receipt of cash by A.2 from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, is found to be within the Court premises. 128. Contentions are also advanced for the accused, that the versions of PW.2-Sri

Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, and PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, are making out that Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11-mediator reports were dictated by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, and that PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar ao did not prepare these mediator reports on his own. According to PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao, a major portion of mediator report was prepared by him and on certain aspects, he had guidance from PW.13-then Dy.S.P. Even if it is taken that these mediators reports were dictated by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., for arguments sake, they may at best make out that they presented interested version of the prosecution, and their independent nature is affected. But, when the core of the prosecution case is established in respect of recovery of cash from A.2, soon after its receipt by him in the premises of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, having regard to quick succession and manner in which such recovery was affected, of such marked currency, a reasonable presumption can be drawn under Sec.114 of Evidence Act, that it was the tainted currency, which was received by A.2, a short period ago, for the purpose for which, it was delivered. 129. In this respect, the observations of their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court,

in the case of Hazarilal Vs. State of Delhi (Delhi Administration), [AIR 1980 SC 873], as to application of presumption under Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, should be borne in mind, which are as under: It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only

:: 55 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

inference that the money was obtained by the accused from PW.3. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. One of the illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. 130. Contentions are advanced for the accused, that the evidence of mediators as

such, cannot be relied on, and they are interested. The case of Som Parkash, Vs. State of Punjab [1992 CRI.L.J. 490 (SC)], is relied on, in this respect to the effect that, the evidence of mediators cannot be relied on, since they are not independent witnesses. It is pertinent to note the observations of Lordships of Honble Supreme Court in Para No.2 of this authority in this respect, as under: ... We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that in the face of the finding that the witnesses who formed part of the raiding party were not independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. 131. It is contended for the accused, that the manner, in which the case of the

prosecution presented, makes out as if the cash was accepted in a public place and it is beyond comprehension. The case of Pooran Chandra Rastogi, Vs. State of

U.P. [1992 CRI.L.J. 2430 (Allahabad)] is relied on for the accused in this respect. The relevant observations in the cited decision in Para 32, are as under: The prosecution story as well the statement of prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court also for the reason of the fact that on the appointed date, to receive the bribe the accused in spite of the fact that he was all alone at about 4.30 p.m., at the stair-case of his house when P.W. 1 Jaiprakash came to him, would refuse to accept the bribe but in full public view on a public street in presence of the rickshaw puller and persons standing nearby, while he was going to board the train along with his wife he would have accepted the bribe.

:: 56 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

132.

But, the facts in this case are different. It is on account of direction of A.1,

after coming out of chambers in Court premises, A.2 had received MO.7-tainted currency from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as per the proof lead by the prosecution. It was on account of a prior arrangement, directed by A.1. There was possibility of A.1 himself receiving directly from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in his chambers or A.2 could have been asked by A.1, to receive the same from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in the chambers itself. But, the mode of arrangement was differently directed by A.1,

probably, with a view to avoid receipt of such amount in his chambers. Therefore, receiving MO.7-currency by A.2 from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in Court premises, is not an artificial circumstance by itself, nor it affects the credibility of the version of prosecution in any manner. 133. Thus, the prosecution has also established that there was a demand on

19.7.2003 in the chambers on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, by A.1, and consequent receipt of the same by A.2. The contention of A.2 that there is no proof that he demanded any money directly from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, either in Ex.P.1 or at any stage, set out by the prosecution, is not a factor of consideration. He had tacitly abetted such demand of A.1, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, in receiving such amount, as per his direction. The process of receipt of such amount itself imbibes such acceptance on account of demand on behalf of A.1. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established, that there was prior demand for gratification by A.1 on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, on 09.6.2003 as well as on 15.7.2003, that culminated, in receipt of such money by A.2 on behalf of A.1, pursuant to his further demand on 19.7.2003, in his chambers, in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. 134. It is contended for the accused, that H.C. Sri Venkataswamy is stated to have

had followed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, from their vehicle, up to the court building, following them in close quarters. Yet, according to the accused, there is absolutely no whisper from PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao or

:: 57 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, that H.C. Sri Venkataswamy had observed acceptance of bribe by A.2 from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and in respect of signal, received by him from PW.1-Sri Nagaraju. Therefore, according to the accused,

neither PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, nor H.C. Sri Venkataswamy, follow PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, or witness anything, as alleged by the prosecution. 135. The purpose of directing H.C. Sri Venkataswamy to follow PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju and PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana was only to receive the signal, as arranged, from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, soon after acceptance of receipt of the bribe amount. There is no reference in the evidence of PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, that H.C. Sri Venkataswamy had observed the above transaction, nor apparently, it was the purpose, for which he was deputed to follow them. PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana had referred his presence, stating that he had held the hands of A.2, soon after accepting bribe amount from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Reasons have already been assigned, holding that PW.2-Sri Lakshmi

Narayana became a pliable witness for A.1, and purposely resiled from the prosecution version. Thus, to that extent, the evidence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi

Narayana is already held to be untruthful. In such circumstances, omission to refer the role of H.C. Sri Venkataswamy by PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, is not a matter of considerable significance in this case. 136. On behalf of the accused, it is contended that, in the absence of proof of

demand, it cannot be stated, that mere recovery of currency notes from A.2, will make out any of the charges against the accused. Reliance is placed i this respect, apart from Pooran Chandra Rastogi, Vs. State of U.P. [1992 CRI.L.J. 2430 (Allahabad)] referred to supra, reliance is also placed on case of V. Venkata Subbarao, v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P., [2007 CRI.L.J. 754 (SC)], and the case of Babu Lal Bajpai, Appellant v. State of U.P., [1994 CRI.L.J. 1383 (SC)], which are already referred to supra. The case of Amrishbhai

:: 58 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Manubhai Brahmbhatt & Another, Vs. State of Gujarat [2007 CRI. L.J. 3651 (Gujarat)], wherein, it was observed in Para 25 and Para 26, on facts, as under: ... The strong probability is emerging that when the accused was preparing a receipt, the amount was put on the table and receipt was given to the complainant and then the amount was lifted by the accused. Receipt was to be prepared on completion of Form : F only. The complainant must have simply walked away after putting the amount on table. Though it was indicated that Rs.60/- was octroi fees, he put one currency note more of same denomination i.e. Rs.20/- denomination and walked away, otherwise the anthracene powder marks would have been also at many other places then the place where the same are actually found. In this background, the explanation given by the accused while answering the questions to the Court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., appears to be very probable. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 had ever demanded any amount. ..... 137. The case of B. Doraswamy, Vs. State, [2003 CRI.L.J. 4055 (A.P. High

Court)] is also relied on for the accused. In Para 11 of the cited decision, on facts, it was observed as follows: This evidence clinchingly establishes that the appellant was present at the Conference from 10.30 a.m., to 5 p.m., on that day and he took lunch arranged at the office of P.W.-4. Neither P.W.-4 was declared hostile nor was he examined by the prosecution to explain this circumstance. That being the situation, the version presented by PW-4 has to be accepted. When once that is so, the theory of PW-1 meeting the appellant at his residence on 22-21994 at 1.30 P.M., becomes unbelievable. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution as to existence of demand is rather shaky. 138. The case of V. Subramaniam v. State, reported in 2006 CRI.L.J. (NOC)

556 (Mad.), is also relied on for A.2, in the same context. 139. The case of Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat,[2002 CRI.L.J.

2787 (SC)] is also relied on for A.2 in this context, where, in Para 5 and Para 6, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court, observed as follows: -

:: 59 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

In our view, mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13 (1)(d)(i). .... .... Therefore, for convicting the person under Section 13 (1)(d), there must be evidence on record that accused obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. 140. A.2 did not deny his apprehension by ACB Officers, during such time,

recovery of MO.7-tainted currency from him, conduct of colour test on him, seizure of his Uniform shirt and subjecting it to Sodium Carbonate solution colour test, at the trial, and answers in his examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., are to that effect. In respect of proof of acceptance of gratification by A.2, reliance is placed for him in the case of Prabhakar Balaji Bhoge & Another, Vs. State of Maharashtra [2007 CRI.L.J. 532 (Bom.)]. In the cited decision, it was observed in Para 12 on facts, as under: In view of the aforesaid fact that the evidence of P.W. 5 Damaji clearly falsifies the evidence of P.W. 2 Devidas, the complainant, in respect of demand of money by appellant-Prabhakar and since both P.W. 2 Devidas and P.W. 5 Damaji did not state that appellant-Prabhakar had received the money, the charge of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be held to have been proved against appellant-Prabhakar. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that appellant-Muralidhar had been instructed by appellant-Prabhakar to get the notes changed from the shop of P.W 8 Nalini, except the word of P.W. 2 Devidas, which has to be discarded, because it is contradicted to that of P.W. 5 Damaji. The possibility of P.W. 12 PSI Shendes having an axe to grind against appellant-Prabhakar, cannot be ruled out because of his service record as also his evidence. ...

141.

There is no dispute in respect of proposition that prior demands, should

necessarily be established by the prosecution on account of which, the gratification

:: 60 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

is accepted by the accused.

The settled proposition of law is also that, mere

recovery of tainted and marked currency is not sufficient by itself, to bring home any of the charges either under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, or under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act. 142. In this context, the effect of Sec.20 of P.C. Act, should necessarily borne in

mind, which directs the Court, to raise a mandatory presumption that the gratification, if proved that it was accepted, it must be treated that it was so accepted as a motive or reward for the official favour, namely, discharge of official functions by the public servants, towards the defacto complainant. It cannot be stated, that Section 20 of P.C. Act is confined only in respect of person, who actually accepted the gratification. If such person had accepted such gratification on behalf of any other person, the mandatory presumption should also be raised against him, having regard to Section 7 of P.C. Act. Therefore, it cannot be contended that since A.1 was not the recipient of the gratification directly from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, Section 20 of P.C. Act cannot be made applicable. Neither it can be contended for A.2, that since there is no proof of demand for such gratification, nor subsisting official favour towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for him, Section 20 of P.C. Act cannot be made applicable. 143. The evidence on record is clearly making out that there was a subsisting

official favour towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for A.1 on account of pendency of Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. On account of such favour, a demand was made on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for a gratification of Rs.5,000/- by A.1, on 09.06.2003, on 15.7.2003 and finally on 19.7.2003. On account of it, such gratification of Rs.5,000/- was received on further demand by A.1 from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as directed by A.1, by A.2. Therefore, the factual basis or foundation, laid in this case, is clearly attracting application under Sec.20 of P.C. Act, against both the accused. It is not as though MO.7-bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- was received by A.2 on his own, as per the

:: 61 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

evidence on record. The effect of Sec.20 of P.C. Act is not repelled or rebutted by any acceptable or satisfactory evidence, on behalf of the accused. It is a rebuttable presumption, and yet the circumstances, relied on for both the accused, and evidence let-in on their behalf, is not proved to be satisfactory or acceptable to repel it. Therefore, in such circumstances, the legal presumption under Sec.20 of P.C. Act, should be raised in this case. 144. In this context, it is desirable to rely on the observations of Honble Supreme

Court in the case of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra [2001 CRI. L.J. 175 (SC)]. Their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court, in Para 12 of this authority, observed as under: The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So that word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the Court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for the official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. 145. These observations were consistently followed with approval in all later

decisions of Honble Supreme Court, including M. Narasinga Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2001 CRI.L.J. 515 (SC)], State of A.P., Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao [2004 CRI.L.J. Page 620 (SC)], T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of A.P.,[2004 CRI.L.J. 884 (SC)], and State of A.P., Vs. C. Uma Maheswara Rao and another, [2004 CRI.L.J. 2040 (SC)].

:: 62 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

146.

On behalf of the prosecution, the case of Manikrao Abaji Thonge, Vs. The

State of Maharashtra [1993 CRI. L. J. 3796 (Bom.)] is relied on in this context. In the cited decision, in Para 22, with reference to application of Section 161 IPC and Sec.5 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1947, it was observed as under: In my view, to constitute an offence under Section 161 of the I.P.C., it is sufficient that there is an offer of a bribe to a public servant in the belief that he has an opportunity or power in the exercise of his official function to show the offerer a desired favour, although, the public servant has, in reality, no such power. Performance of the act which is the consideration for the bribe is not essential but it is essential that the bribe should be obtained as a motive or reward. Similarly, whether the complainant desires the accused to perform by way of consideration of the bribe whether it is actually performed or not at the time of the acceptance of the bribe, is not relevant. What is relevant is that the amount of bribe has been received by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as a public servant. Once it is shown that the amount has been received by a public servant by abusing his position as a public servant and that amount is received by corrupt or illegal means, the offence is complete. Hence, even if the illegal gratification is received after the official act is done, yet, it will constitute an offence under Section 161 of the IPC. As far as the wordings of Section 5 (1)(d) are concerned, the same are wider than the wording of Section 161. The said Section 5 (1)(d) provides that a public servant would be guilty of committing criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or through any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. .... 147. The case of Prakash Shankarrao Kamble, Vs. State of Maharashtra [2000

CRI. L.J. 2110 (Bom.)] is relied on for the prosecution in this respect. In this cited decision, in Para 17 and in Para 23, the following are the observations, made: As rightly observed by the trial Court, for succeeding in the case under Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused made demand of bribe and accepted amount pursuant to that demand. It may be that accused could not directly do any favours to the person from whom he was accepting the demand. However, if the accused is capable of doing certain work and he holds a post or position which can ordinarily be taken to be capable of giving him necessary powers then nothing more is

:: 63 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

required to be proved by the prosecution that the fact of demand, the representation made by the accused, of doing favours and the fact of acceptance of bribe.
[Para 17]

It will therefore be clear that prosecution has succeeded in proving the demand of bribe by the accused and also succeeded in proving that the accused accepted the bribe. The explanation of the accused that money was thrust in his pocket on account of rivalry or enmity is not at all acceptable and has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. 148.
[Para 23]

On behalf of the accused, in this respect, reliance is placed on Subash

Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat,[2002 CRI.L.J. 2787 (SC)], V. Venkata Subbarao, v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P., [2007 CRI.L.J. 754 (SC)], Babu Lal Bajpai, Appellant v. State of U.P., [1994 CRI.L.J. 1383 (SC)], and M. Narasinga Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2001 CRI.L.J. 515 (SC)], referred to supra, relied on in the same context. 149. In the factual context of this case, basing on the principles laid down in all the

above authorities, the irresistible inference to be drawn in this case is that the mandatory nature of Section 20 of P.C. Act, raising a presumption that gratification was accepted and received by A.2 on behalf of A.1 for passing favourable orders in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000, has to be drawn. Bearing in mind, the principles laid down by their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court, in respect of the premise, to be established in the case of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra [2001 CRI. L.J. 175 (SC)] referred to supra, inasmuch as such premise is established in this case, the operation of Section 20 of P.C. Act against both the accused, shall be made applicable, since unrebutted by the accused. 150. Contentions are advanced on behalf of the accused that the sole testimony of

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is not safe to rely on without there being any corroboration, and hence, the benefit of the same shall be given to the accused. Reliance is placed in this respect, in the case of Jaswanth Singh, Vs. State of Punjab, [1973 CRI.L.J.

:: 64 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

664 (SC)]. Their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court, in Para 8 of this authority, on facts, observed as under: As PW 1 is the complainant, his evidence will have to be considered with great caution and it will not be ordinarily safe to accept his interested testimony unless there is material corroboration found in the other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Such evidence, in our opinion is available in this case. No doubt PW 3 has turned hostile, but in his statement to the police under section 161 he has given a version supporting the prosecution case. But in the court he has stated that though PW 1 paid the amount to the accused as bribe, the appellant threw the amount thereby implying that PW 1 was, so to say, thrusting a bribe on an unwilling taker. It is not as if PW 3s evidence can be discarded altogether. One thing that emerges from his evidence is that PW 1 and the appellant travelled together in his rickshaw at about 1-15 P.M. on April 30, 1968. If the plea of the appellant is that PW 1 attempted to bribe him and that he threw the amount then the matter will have to be considered from a totally different angle. On the other hand we have already mentioned that the plea of the appellant was one of total denial. 151. The case of Panalal Damodar Rathi, Vs. State of Maharashtra, [1979

CRI.L.J. 936 (SC)] is also relied on for the accused in the same context. The relevant observations are in Para 9, which are extracted hereunder: It will be seen that the version of the complainant that the appellant asked the complainant whether he had brought the money and that the complainant told him that he had and that the appellant asked him to pay the money to the second accused is not spoken to by the Panch witness P.W.3. According to Panch witness on the complainant asking the appellant whether his work will be achieved, the appellant assured him in the affirmative and the appellant told the complainant what was to be given to the second accused. It is significant that P.W.3 does not mention about the appellant asking the complainant whether he had brought the money and on the complainant replying in the affirmative asking the complainant to pay the money to the second accused. Omission by P.W.3 to refer to any mention of money by the appellant would show that there is no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand for the money by the appellant. On this crucial aspect, therefore, it has to be found that the

:: 65 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant on this aspect cannot be relied on. 152. The case of Gurucharan Singh, Vs. State of Haryana, [1994 CRI.L.J. 1710

(Punjab & Haryana High Court)], is also relied on for the accused. In this cited decision, in Para 14, it was observed as under: To prove the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by an accused person, the evidence of the complainant or trap witnesses cannot be safely acted upon in the absence of some independent corroborative evidence. In such a situation, bribe giver is normally treated as no better than an accomplice and so his evidence needs corroboration from an independent source. The same value is to be attached to the evidence of the shadow witness specially when he is not proved to be an independent witness. Independent corroboration to the evidence of such witnesses is generally required by the Court, if not as a rule of law, then at least as a rule of caution and prudence. 153. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, who had set the law in motion by presenting

Ex.P.1 to the Police. It cannot be a factor by itself, to reject his evidence. If it is proved to be otherwise trustworthy and believable, it cannot be discarded lightly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be stated, that the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, is not corroborated by any other material or circumstances. 154. Circumstances are made out by the prosecution on account of recovery of

bribe amount from A.2, which he had received on behalf of A.1, in quick succession, soon after its receipt, and it is the marked and tainted currency, which had passedon from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to A.2, on the same day, a few hours prior to its recovery by PW.13-then Dy.S.P. In such circumstances, when corroboration is

afforded and supporting consistent version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in this case, particularly, having regard to effect of Sec.20 of P.C. Act, favouring presumption of acceptance of such gratification for a reward and with a motive, these contentions, advanced on behalf of the accused on account of interestedness of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, have to be discarded.

:: 66 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

155.

It is contended for the accused, that each and every aspect pertaining to pre-

trap proceedings and trap proceedings, are not proved by appropriate evidence, nor there is evidence, adduced by the prosecution, which is corroborated by other material or independent evidence. Inconsistencies and discrepancies, pointed out by the accused, according to their contention, clearly make the entire version of the prosecution, a suspect. Relying on the case of Prem Singh Yadav, Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation [2011 (3) Crimes 426 (Del.) (Short Notes)], such contention is advanced. 156. None of the so-called inconsistencies or uncertain versions, pointed out for

the accused, has any significant bearing to affect the acceptable nature of the prosecution. It did not affect the core of the prosecution case in respect of demand, receipt and acceptance of gratification for a specific favour, to be extended to PW.1Sri Y. Nagaraju by A.1, and the assistance, offered by A.2 to A.1, in this respect. 157. Thus, on a careful analysis and consideration of the entire material on record,

it has to be held that, the prosecution has successfully established that there was a demand for a gratification of Rs.5,000/- by A.1 on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to pass favourable orders in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000, when he was discharging his functions as a public servant, namely, as learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, on 09.6.2003, on 15.7.2003 and again, on 19.7.2003. It is also proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, that A.2 had received MO.7-Rs.5,000/- being the gratification for such purpose on behalf of A.1, and pursuant to such demand. Thus, A.2 had abetted committing of such offence by A.1 on account of his participation in such criminal act, knowingly, consciously making out his tacit as well as patent approval and in following the directions of A.1 in this respect. Affinity of A.1 and A.2, while both of them were working at Palamaner, in the circumstances, cannot be ruled out, which apparently had made A.1 to take A.2 as a conduit, to receive such gratification. Thus, the prosecution has successfully

:: 67 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

established this point and against the accused. Thus, this point is held in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. POINT No.3: Whether the investigation in this case is appropriate and fair? 158. Serious contentions are advanced on behalf of the accused, pointing out that

there are lapses in investigation and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, has shown unnecessary and unwanted anxiety and enthusiasm in this case. 159. The manner, in which attempts were made by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Tirupati, to procure presence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, issuing requisitions on 18.7.2003 before receipt of Ex.P.1, as alleged, commencement of pre-trap proceedings and the manner, in which Ex.P.11 was prepared, apart from Ex.P.3, are pointed out for the accused, in this respect. Reasons have already been assigned supra, holding that such lapses are minor and they are not going to the root of the prosecution case, affecting its veracity or credibility. 160. However, in respect of Ex.P.6-rough sketch, contentions are advanced for the

accused, stating that it is a clear manipulation by PW.13-then Dy.S.P. PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, in cross-examination stated that he prepared Ex.P.6-rough sketch, and the handwriting, found in it, is his handwriting. But, he stated, that one of the Inspectors, in fact had prepared the rough sketch of the place of trap, and since it was not neat, as directed either by Dy.S.P., or Inspectors, he prepared a rough sketch again, as in Ex.P.6. He also stated that he did not prepare rough sketch on his own at the place of trap, and that Ex.P.6 is only a neat and fair copy of rough sketch, without any addition or deletion, from the rough sketch, prepared by the Inspector.

:: 68 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

161.

Ex.P.11-mediator report recorded that this rough sketch was prepared by Sri

Srinivasa Reddy, Inspector, showing vantage positions of members of trap party. But, Ex.P.6 now available on record, did not reflect such vantage positions. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated in cross-examination, that Ex.P.6-rough sketch is correct, except in respect of location of place of receipt of tainted currency, by A.2. 162. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., was specifically cross-examined on behalf of the accused

in this respect. He stated that only one rough sketch was prepared as mentioned in Ex.P.11. He denied that Ex.P.6 was not prepared by Sri J. Srinivasa Reddy,

Inspector, ACB. He also denied that the original rough sketch was suppressed that was prepared by Sri J. Srinivasa Reddy, since it was against the case of prosecution, and hence, he got prepared Ex.P.6 through PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao. 163. As seen from Ex.P.6, vantage positions taken by members of trap party are

not specifically disclosed, nor location of Green Park Hotel, nor distances between different places, namely, Green Park Hotel and main gate of the compound of the Court, or the distance between the compound wall of the court and the building proper, or the distance between the chambers of A.1 and room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem. According to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, the vantage positions could not be shown in Ex.P.6, since the members of trap party, went on changing their positions time to time. But, it is against the contents of Ex.P.11, which clearly stated that vantage positions taken by every member of trap party was shown in the rough sketch. 164. Thus, in respect of preparation of rough sketch, as such under Ex.P.6, there

are two different versions. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, went to the extent of denying the contents of Ex.P.11 in this respect, giving his own explanations, which are apparently false, in respect of preparation of Ex.P.6. It is clear that Ex.P.6 was not prepared by Sri J. Srinivasa Reddy, Inspector, and the evidence of PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao has to be accepted in this respect, that he made a neat and fair copy

:: 69 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

of the rough sketch already prepared, which though is not a replica, prepared during Ex.P.11-proceedings. Thus, it is a serious lapse, committed by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, and apparently, negligence was exhibited in preparation of rough sketch. Yet, the accused cannot take advantage of this fact in their defence, since the witnesses of the prosecution were cross-examined on behalf of the accused, in respect of topographical features of the place of trap. Hence, it cannot be stated, that on account of this lapse, the accused stood to any prejudice in their defence. 165. A.1 further contended, that there is clear proof that the statement of PW.2-Sri

R. Lakshmi Narayana under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., was not recorded on the date of trap and the statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, produced in this Court were not the original statements, recorded by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati. Thus, A.1 tried to contend that there was substitution of the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. 166. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, stated in cross-examination, that he had

sent a preliminary report to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad in this case, along with statements of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, upon examination, under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Again, he stated, that the statement of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was also sent along with his preliminary report, to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, apart from the above witnesses. In the course of trial, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., was confronted by A.1, a set of statements, said to have been recorded by him from the same witnesses, under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., that were submitted to D.G., ACB, along with preliminary report. But, PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., ACB, denied that these are the copies of the statements, that were submitted to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, along with his preliminary report. 167. In the course of trial, at the request of A.1, the preliminary report of D.G., It was

ACB, Hyderabad, submitted to Honble High Court of A.P., was sent for.

:: 70 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

received from the Registrar (Vigilance), Honble High Court of A.P., by this Court, on 14.9.2011 along with a letter. The entire set of record is marked Ex.D.6 in this case. The preliminary report of then D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, dated 22.7.2003, is now available on record, as a part of Ex.D.6. The enclosures to it, are stated to be the copies of statements of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu. Ex.D.6. Photocopies of these alleged statements, are also a part of Learned Registrar

But, these alleged statements are unattested.

(Vigilance), Honble High Court of A.P., in the letter, dated 08.9.2011, informed this Court that statements, recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., are not available with Honble High Court, though the original preliminary report, dated 22.7.2003 of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, is available. It is further stated, that there is a reference in the final report, dated 21.01.2004, of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, that the statements of witnesses were recorded in detail in Part-II Case Diary, and as such, they are not available with the Honble High Court. Further, it is stated in this letter, that a copy of unsigned Case diary Part-II record containing the statements of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, is available with Honble High Court. 168. DW.5-Sri M. Mohan Reddy is examined by A.1 to prove Ex.D.6 in this case.

DW.5-Sri M. Mohan Reddy is working as an Assistant, attached to the Office of Registrar (Vigilance), Honble High Court of A.P. He deposed in respect of Ex.D.6 and its contents. 169. To prove the fact that thee was substitution of statements of witnesses,

recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., A.1 should have taken steps to confront such versions in the statements to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati. Mere production of statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., in the course of trial, as a part of Ex.D.6, is not sufficient by itself. Form of these statements found in Ex.D.6 is differing with the one, now available on record in this case, which are produced by the prosecution. It is not the form that matters. But, the substance of these statements is really

:: 71 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

required to be considered.

There is no material on record, as to how these

statements found as a part of Ex.D.6, which are unattested, which were available in the record of Honble High Court of A.P., is differing in their contents, when compared with the one, available on record in this case, which are produced by the prosecution. Therefore, A.1 cannot draw any support on account of this situation, for his contention. 170. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, stated in cross-examination by A.1, that

the remand report did not mention that witnesses were examined under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., and their statements were recorded by that date. A.2 was produced under arrest in this Court, and was remanded to judicial custody. The remand report did not have any statements of the witnesses, as its enclosures, which is also admitted by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in his cross-examination. On account of such omission, it cannot be contended that no statements of these witnesses were recorded upon their examination under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. 171. PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy, PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.8-Sri K. Bala

Krishna, and PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi stated at the trial, that they were examined by Dy.S.P., on phone. Therefore, it is contended for the accused, that PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., committed a serious lapse in not physically examining these witnesses, and it is another circumstance, to point out the investigation has been most perfunctory. 172. On a careful consideration of the entire material on record, it cannot be

stated, that PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, proceeded on with the investigation in a satisfactory manner. There are lapses, committed by him in investigation.

Nonetheless, when the core of prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt in this case, it cannot be stated, that on account of such minor lapses in investigation, both the accused stood to any prejudice, or suffered on account of it. Therefore, the contention of the accused has to be rejected.

:: 72 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

POINT No.4: Whether sanction to prosecute A.1 and A.2 under Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 are proved to be legal, proper and in order? 173. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna, who

was then working as Assistant Section Officer, Home Courts-C Department, Government of A.P., AP Secretariat, Hyderabad and Ex.P.17 to prove that valid and legal sanction was accorded to prosecute A.1 in this case. A.1 was working as

learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Palamaner on the date of trap. Therefore, in terms of Sec.19 of P.C. Act, sanction was required to take

cognizance of this case against him, upon prosecution. 174. PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna deposed that their Department received

preliminary report, copies of final report, mediator reports, gist of statements of witnesses from the Office of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, to accord sanction to prosecute A.1. According to him, this file was circulated up to the Chief Minister and the

Governor of A.P., through Assistant Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Secretary (LA & J), Chief Secretary and that the file was returned to the Secretary (LA & J), after approval. Thereupon, after going through the material and on application of mind, the then Secretary Sri G.V. Seethapathy (as His Lordship then was), issued sanction order under Ex.P.17. PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna identified the signature of Sri G.V. Seethapathy (as His Lordship then was), on Ex.P.17, on account of his acquaintance with it, and since he had come across a number of files, containing such signatures. 175. In cross-examination by A.1, this witness stated that a specimen sanction

order was forwarded by Office of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, to their office along with the final report. He further stated, that he was not working in the same Section by the time of Ex.P.17, and that he was not associated with Sri G.V. Seethapathy (as His Lordship then was) in office. Basing on such statements, it is contended that, there is no proper proof offered by the prosecution, of Ex.P.17.

:: 73 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

176.

On consideration of the contents of Ex.P.17, it is manifest that the material

considered for issuance of such order, was appropriate, and it was to the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority. Thereupon, on application of mind and on going through the material, Ex.P.17 was issued by Sri G.V. Seethapathy (as His Lordship then was), then Secretary, (LA & J), Government of A.P. Therefore, the contention of A.1 in this respect, cannot be accepted. 177. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW.12-Sri G. Devendra Rao,

Section Officer, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, and Ex.P.19, to prove the sanction order, issued against A.2 to prosecute him in this case. He was working as a Police Constable, attached to Palamaner Police Station as on 19.7.2003. Therefore, the sanction of the Government was necessary, in terms of Sec.19 of P.C. Act, to prosecute him, in this case. 178. The evidence of PW.12-Sri Devendra Rao is that, their Department received a

fax message, preliminary report, final report along with copies of FIR, mediator reports 1 and 2, and gist of statements of witnesses, requesting to issue sanction orders to prosecute A.2. According to PW.12-Sri Devendra Rao, this file was

processed and examined by their Department and it was put to circulation up to the Chief Minister. It was also forwarded to Law Department. On consideration of such material and on application of mind, as to material on record, according to PW.12-Sri Devendra Rao, the then Secretary to Government Sri A.K. Srivathsava, issued orders, sanctioning prosecution of A.2 in this case. This witness identified the

signature of Sri A.K. Srivathsava on Ex.P.19-sanction order on account of his acquaintance with it, since he had come across the signatures of Sri A.K. Srivathsava, in several files, in regular course of discharge of his duties in his Department. 179. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he was not working in the same He further stated, that he was not

Department, when Ex.P.19 was issued.

:: 74 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

associated with Sri A.K. Srivathsava at any time. He further stated, that a draft sanction order was sent along with final report by ACB, to their Department. He also stated, that there is no specific reference as to documents considered in Ex.P.19. 180. Nonetheless, on a careful consideration of the contents of Ex.P.19, it is

making out that the relevant material was taken into consideration by the sanctioning authority before issuing such an order. Statements of PW.12-Sri Devendra Rao, elicited in cross-examination, did not have any bearing, nor can it be stated that Ex.P.19 is a replica of the draft sanction order, issued by their Office. Contents of Ex.P.19 itself are making out that there was consideration of the material, laid before the sanctioning authority, and on application of mind, it was so issued. 181. On behalf of the prosecution,it is contended that the evidence, so let-in, is

clearly proving that in respect of both the accused, the sanctioning authority, on application of mind and on consideration of the material, accorded sanction. 182. But, it is contended for the accused, that the sanction, so accorded to

prosecute both the accused, did not reflect that it was issued on application of mind and upon consideration of the material. Reliance is placed for the accused in this respect, in the case of Md. Tafazul Rahman, v. State of Orissa, [1985 CRI.L.J. 1971 (Orissa High Court)]. In Para 9 of the cited decision, it was observed: Ext.16 shows that it was a draft sanction order. trial court. It is not known what

happened to the final sanction order. It was not produced nor proved in the The details of material documents which might have been produced before P.W.10, the Superintending Engineer and sanctioning authority which he might have taken into consideration have not been stated in the sanction order (Ext. 16). It does not appear from it that the statement of P.W. 12 who was the most material witness was placed before him and he had perused the same before according sanction. The evidence of P.W. 10, the Superintending Engineer quoted above clearly discloses non-application of mind. When he gave evidence he did not remember as to on the basis

:: 75 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

and on consideration of which material documents he gave sanction for prosecution. On the other hand, it discloses that he was asked to sign the draft sanction order (Ext. 16) and he did so. It was expected of P.W.14, the Inspector of Vigilance who submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and obtained the sanction order from P.W. 10 to have stated the material documents which were placed before P.W. 10 for obtaining the sanction order. Unfortunately, except a general statement that all materials were placed before the Superintending Engineer he did not state the details thereof. Such evidence will give rise to the only conclusion which I have drawn and that is, non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority before according sanction for prosecution of the case. 183. C.B.I./SPE Hyderabad, Vs. P. Muthuraman, [1996 CRI. L.J. 3638 (A.P.

High Court)] is also relied on for the accused. In Paras 14 and 16, it was observed as under: 14. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, I reach the conclusion that the signature, on the sanction should be roved either by the sanctioning authority or by his subordinate officer or, clerk who has seen the sanctioning authority signing the sanction order or who is acquainted with the signature of the sanctioning authority. Merely filing the order purported to be the sanction order alleged to have been signed by the competent authority, does not discharge the burden of the prosecution in proving the sanction according to law. 16. If the sanction order is a speaking order, then the matter ends there; otherwise, evidence should be adduced to prove that the sanctioning authority had perused the material before according sanction which may not be in a particular form. 184. V. Venkata Subbarao, vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.

[2007 CRI.L.J. 754 (SC)] is also relied on for the accused, wherein, their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court, in Para 23, on facts, observed as under: It is also accepted that before the Sanctioning Authority, the vital documents showing involvement of the M.R.O. Had not been produced. The Sanctioning Authority therefore, did not have any occasion to apply their mind to the entire materials on record and in that view of the matter, the sanction is,

:: 76 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

therefore, vitiated in law. Conduct of the officers of the respondent who had taken recourse to suppressio veri deserves serious condemnation. 185. State of Karnataka, Vs. Ameer Jan, [2008 CRI. L. J. 347 (SC)] is another Their Lordships of Honble

authority, relied on for the accused in this context.

Supreme Court, in Para 8 of this authority, observed as follows: ... We have noticed therein before that the sanctioning authority had Even the said

purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. Int he event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as to the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced. 186. A careful consideration of all these authorities cited for the accused, make

out that since there was deficiency in according sanction to prosecute the accused, the observations were so made. In fact, in the case of C.B.I./SPE Hyderabad, Vs. P. Muthuraman, [1996 CRI. L.J. 3638 (A.P. High Court)] referred to supra, in Para 16, it was observed that, once the sanction order is a speaking order, then the matter ends there, and otherwise evidence should be adduced to prove that the sanctioning authority had perused the material before according sanction. A

consideration of evidence of PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna and PW.12-Sri G. Devendra Rao apart from Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19, is making out that the authorities, who issued sanction orders, clearly considered the material on record. Both these sanction

orders are speaking orders, which have clearly referred to the material laid.

:: 77 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

187.

In the case of State, v. K. Narasimhachary, [2006 CRI.L.J. 518 (SC)], their

Lordships of Honble Supreme Court observed that authenticity of sanction order, cannot be questioned, since it being a public document, under Sec.74 of Evidence Act, observing in Para 11, as under: A bare perusal of the order of sanction shows that the allegation as against the Respondent herein for taking into consideration that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, who was the competent authority to remove the said Sri K. Narasimha Chari, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Cuddapah, from the Government Service, after fully and carefully examining the material placed before them in respect of the said allegations and having regard to the circumstances of the case considered that the Respondent should be prosecuted in the court of law; whereupon the order of sanction was issued in the name of the Governor, Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy, Secretary to the Government, merely authenticated the said order of sanction which was issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The order of sanction was, thus, issued by the State in discharge of its statutory functions in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The order of sanction was authenticated. The said order of sanction was an executive action of a State having been issued in the name of the Governor. It was authenticated in the manner specified in the Rules of Executive Business. The authenticity of the said order has not been questioned. It was, therefore, a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-6 proved the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy. He identified his signature. He was not cross-examined on the premise that he did not know the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy. In answer to the only question put to him, he stated By the time the Secretary signed in Ex.P.17 I was in G.A.D. 188. Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 have been authenticated by the Secretaries to

Government, and thus, they stand in the position of public documents. Therefore, issuance of such orders, cannot be questioned by the accused, nor is there any material to hold that they are improper. The prosecution has adduced evidence to prove these two documents, and thus, Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 are proved to be legal and proper. Thus, it has to be held that, proper sanction has been issued to

prosecute both the accused in this case, and the same has been proved by the

:: 78 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

prosecution. accused.

Thus, this point is held in favour of prosecution and against the

POINT No.5: Whether a charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act and a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act against A.1 is made out? 189. In view of the findings recorded on all the above points, it has to be held that,

on account of pending official favour, namely, to pass an order, discharging A.3 and A.4, who are the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000, A.1, through A.2, had received and accepted a gratification of Rs.5000/-, as a reward, which is other than legal remuneration. Further, on account of receipt of such

amount of Rs.5,000/-, he made a pecuniary advantage by corrupt means, for himself abusing his position, in the course of discharge of his functions as a public servant, namely, learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. Therefore, both the

charges under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, and infraction of Sec.13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, attracting penalty under Sec.13 (2) of P.C. Act, are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against A.1. Thus, this point is held in favour of the prosecution and against A.1. POINT No.6: Whether a charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, and under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act are established against A.2 beyond reasonable doubt? 190. A.2, being a Police Constable, then working in Palamaner Police Station, was

attending to Court duty, undisputedly. PW.10-Sri M. Audi Narayana was then SubInspector of Police, Palamaner Police Station, when A.1 was learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. The evidence of PW.10-Sri M. Audi Narayana is that, A.2 was transferred to Byreddipalli Police Station on 10.6.2003 from Palamaner Police Station by the orders of then Superintendent of Police, Chittoor. according to PW.10-Sri M. Audi Narayana, he was not relieved at request of A.1. But,

:: 79 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

191.

In cross-examination, PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana stated that he was asked by

A.1, not to relieve A.2, in his chambers in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, when PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana attended the Court as a witness in a criminal case. But, he could not give the date, when A.1 asked him likewise. He denied the suggestion that A.1 did not request him in this respect in his chambers, nor he was called into the chambers of A.1 for this purpose. PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana further stated that he did not send any information to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, that A.2 was not relieved on account of request by A.1. According to PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana, A.2 was trapped one month nine days after receiving transfer orders from Palamaner Police Station. According to PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana, he was not under obligation to accede to the request of A.1, and yet, he accepted the request of A.1, since he apprehended that there would be some problem and difficulty in getting cases numbered or attending to any matter relating to their Police Station. Byreddipalle Police Station is also within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, and it is at a distance of 15 K.Ms., from Palamaner, according to him. 192. Such version from PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana is brought out by the prosecution

to prove the affinity between A.1 and A.2. In the departmental enquiry against A.1, this witness was examined and as per Ex.D.4, which is a part of his statement in the departmental enquiry, this witness did not state such reason that A.2 was not relieved on account of request of A.1. But, he stated in that departmental enquiry, that he did not relieve A.2, for want of suitable Constable for court duty, and was searching for a suitable constable. This witness further stated, that he did not issue any order to A.2 for retaining him in Palamaner Police Station, stating that his services were requested by A.1. 193. The version of this witness in this trial is differing with his version, in the

departmental enquiry conducted against A.1. But, both of them were making out,

:: 80 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

that A.2 was the suitable constable, attending on court duty in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, when A.1 was the learned Presiding Officer. It is giving an indication, that A.2 was in a position to get or manage the things well in his court duty, when working at Palamaner. 194. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10-Sri M. Audi Narayana, as such, cannot be

rejected, and it is proving the fact that A.2 was retained in Palamaner Police Station, even though he was transferred to Byreddipalli Police Station, about more than a month prior to the trap, and that A.2 was continuing to attend the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Palamaner till then. 195. On behalf of A.2, legality of his prosecution is questioned, contending that

there is no material to file a charge sheet against him or to prosecute, from the stage of registering FIR or in respect of official favour pending with him, towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or the demands for bribe, which are sine-qua-non to make out charges under Sec.7 of P.C. Act and under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act. 196. Reasons are assigned supra in respect of proof of both the charges against

A.2, accepting the case of the prosecution. In Ex.P.20, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati was not directed to register a case against A.2 and to lay trap against him. It is admitted by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in cross-examination for A.2. He further admitted that there is no allegation that A.2 demanding PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju bribe on behalf of A.1. But, there is reference in Ex.P.1, that A.1 directed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to handover the bribe amount to A.2, when they had met in Punjabi Dhaba at Palamaner on 15.7.2003. Apparently, on such basis, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, had registered Ex.P.22-FIR against A.1 and A.2 and proceeded on, with investigation. Recovery of MO.7-currency from A.2, in Ex.P.11 proceedings, relating to trap in this case, did reveal his complicity in this crime. Therefore, such

contention for A.2 is rejected, accepting the contention of the prosecution.

:: 81 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

197.

The material on record is making out that A.2 assisted and aided A.1 in the

alleged incident of receiving the gratification from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and on behalf of A.1, as per his directions. Section 7 of P.C. Act, as well as Sec.13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, are attracted against A.2, since receipt of such amount by him on behalf of A.1, is also within the scope and ambit of both these sections. Section 12 of P.C. Act, is an independent provision, relating to abetment in respect of offence under Sec.7, applicable to this case. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is proving positive abetment on the part of A.2, in this affair, of A.1, and thus, he had received MO.7-tainted and marked currency from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on 19.7.2003, which was recovered from him and at h is instance, by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati. Therefore, the charge of abetment attracting an offence under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, is also established against A.2. Therefore, it has to be held that, Charges under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, infraction of Sec.13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, punishable under Sec.13 (2) of P.C. Act, 1988, and a charge under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, 1988, stand proved against A.2, by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. 198. In view of the reasons stated above, it has to be held that, the charges under

Sec.7 of P.C. Act, and Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, are proved against A.1, and hence, he is found guilty. Similarly, charges under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, under

Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, and under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, 1988, are proved against A.2, and he is found guilty.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03rd day of January 2012.

SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES, NELLORE.

:: 82 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

199.

Both the accused are heard separately in respect of sentence, to be imposed.

A.1 stated that it is a false case, foisted against him and unnecessarily he has been implicated. He further stated that his parents are quite old, that he has been the eldest son in the family to look after his parents and that he has two tendered children, whose welfare he has to look after. He further stated, that his daughter is studying B.Tech., and his son is studying 10th Standard. Thus, he pleaded mercy. 200. A.2 stated that his wife committed suicide, unable to bear foisting of this case

and on account of humiliation she suffered. He further stated, that he has three daughters, and he performed marriage of one of them. He also stated, that his two other daughters are yet to be married, whose welfare he has to take care of. Thus stating, he requested mercy. 201. On consideration of the same and considering the nature of charges proved

against both the accused, having regard to the positions, they held, one being a Judicial Officer, another, being a Police Constable, it is not desirable to extend any mercy. Inasmuch as Judicial Officer is not expected to resort to such activity as complained of, and proved in this case and if any lenience is shown, the message flows down may encourage similar activity in the generations to come, affecting the institution, very dearly and ultimately the Society will be the sufferer at large. 202. In this context, the observations of their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court

in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao [2004 CRI. L.J. 620 (SC)] have to be borne in mind, particularly, in Para 30 of this authority, it reads as under: When corruption was sought to be eliminated from the polity all possible stringent measures are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One such measure is to provide condign punishment. Parliament measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for giving deterrent impart on other public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. That was precisely the

:: 83 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

reason why the sentence was fixed as 7 years and directed that even if the said period of imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative insistence is reflection of Parliaments resolve to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and to give signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences. If on the other hand any public servant is given the impression that if he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would help him to have the advantage of getting a very light sentence even if the case ends in conviction, we are afraid its fallout would afford incentive to public servants who are succeptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices with immunity. Increasing the fine after reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period can also defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servant could easily raise the fine amount through the same means. 203. Therefore, if A.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months in respect of charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, and if he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months in respect of charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, it meets the ends of justice. Similarly, if A.2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months in respect of charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, and if he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months in respect of charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, and if further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months as well as a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days in respect of charge under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, proved against him,

:: 84 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

it meets the ends of justice. Reasons have already been recorded that no finding is necessary in respect of charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, read with Sec.34 I.P.C., and therefore, no sentence, as such, is recorded thereon. 204. IN THE RESULT, A.1 is found, guilty of a charge under Sec.7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, and is further found guilty of a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 205. A.2 is found guilty of a Charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, that he is further found guilty of a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, and that he is further found guilty of a charge under Section 12 of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) days, under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 206. Both the accused are entitled for set off for remand period, if any, to the MO.7-cash of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five

extent applicable, under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

thousand only) is directed to be confiscated to State on expiry of appeal time. MO.1

:: 85 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

to MO.6 and MO.8 are useless items, and they are directed to be destroyed on expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03rd day of January 2012.

SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES, NELLORE. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined for Prosecution: PW.1 : Sri Y. Naga Raju, son of Sri Gangadharam, Practicing advocate at Palamaner Bar, r/o Gantavuru village, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District (defacto complainant); Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, then Senior Assistant, Girijan Cooperative Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor District (mediator); Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, then Asst. Executive Engineer, R&B, Tirupati (mediator); Sri S. Hasheem, then Head Clerk, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District; Sri M. Ramachandrudu, then Typist-cum-Accountant, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District; Sri N. Narayan Reddy, then Steno-Typist, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District; Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, then Criminal Bench Clerk, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District; Sri K. Bala Krishna, then Attender, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District; Sri S. Pitchandi, then Process Server-cum-Attender, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District; Sri Mopuri Audi Narayana, then Sub-Inspector of Police, Palamaner Police Station, Chittoor District; Sri K. Rama Krishna, Asst. Section Officer, Home Courts-C Department, Government of A.P., A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad; Sri G. Devendra Rao, Section Officer, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad; Sri S. Seshagiri Rao, then Dy.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati Range, Tirupati; and Sri K. Karunakar, then Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Tirupati.

PW.2 PW.3 PW.4 PW.5 PW.6 PW.7 PW.8 PW.9 PW.10 PW.11 PW.12 PW.13 PW.14

: : : : : : : : : : : : :

:: 86 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

for Defence: DW.1 DW.2 DW.3 DW.4 DW.5 : : : : : Sri B. Mohan Reddy, President, Bar Association, Palamaner; Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy, Head Constable, Palamaner Police Station; Sri A.G. Vadivelu, Head Constable, I Town Police Station, Chittoor; Smt. J. Seethalakshmi, Member in Lok Adalat at Palamaner; and Sri M. Mohan Reddy, Assistant, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

DOCUMENTS MARKED for Prosecution: Ex.P.1/17.7.2003 Ex.P.2/19.07.2003 Ex.P.3/19.07.2003 Ex.P.4/19.07.2003 Ex.P.5/19.07.2003 Ex.P.5(A)/ -Ex.P.6/19.07.2003 Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10/ -Ex.P.11/19.07.2003 Ex.P.12/ -Ex.P.13/ -Ex.P.14/ -Ex.P.15/ -Ex.P.16/20.07.2011 Ex.P.17/04.11.2004 Ex.P.18/19.07.2011 Ex.P.19/04.01.2006 Ex.P.20/17.07.2003 Ex.P.21/17.07.2003 : Report of PW.1 given to Joint Director (Rayalaseema), ACB, Hyderabad, at Hyderabad; : Carbon copy of FIR in Crime No.11/RCT-TCT/2003; : Mediators Report No.I, prepared during post trap proceedings; : Mediators Report No.III, prepared at the house of A.2; : Search list for the house search of A.2; : Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2; : Rough sketch of the scene of trap; : Signatures of PW.2 in Mediator Report No.II; : Mediators Report No.II, prepared during trap proceedings; : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4; : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4; : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5; : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9; : Authorization given to PW.11 for giving evidence in this case; : Sanction order, issued to prosecute A.1; : Authorization given to PW.12 for giving evidence in this case; : Sanction order, issued to prosecute A.2; : Memo issued to PW.13, by D.G., ACB, Hyderabad; : Letter of the then Registrar (Vigilance), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, addressed to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad;

:: 87 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Ex.P.22/19.07.2003 Ex.P.23/30.01.2006 Ex.P.24/01.5.1998 Ex.P.25/30.04.1998 Ex.P.26/ -Ex.P.27/ -Ex.P.28/15.4.2003

: Original FIR in Crime No.11/RCT-TCT/2003; : Memo of Joint Director (R), ACB, Hyderabad; : Original FIR in Crime No.144/97-98 of Excise Station, Palamaner; : Original Panchanama concerned to the crime, reported in Ex.P.24; : Original Docket sheets, maintained in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner; : Original Petition in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.c. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner; : Original Memo of Objections filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Palamaner, in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner;

for Defence: Ex.D.1/03.06.2011 Ex.D.2/19.07.2003 Ex.D.3/19.07.2003 Ex.D.4/05.02.2005 : : : : Certified copy of Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No.118/2010; Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1; Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2; Relevant portion marked in the deposition of PW.10 in the matter of Enquiry in Order in ROC. No.1125/2003/Vigilance, dt.03.09.2004 of Hon'ble the High Court of A.P., against A.1; Photocopy of Rowdy Sheet No.10, relating to PW.1; and Letter of Honble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad along with its enclosures, namely, the letter of Sri A.K. Mohanthy, D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, in Rc. No.159/RCT-TCT/2003, dt.22.7.2003 and unattested photocopies of C.D. Part-II relating to Crime No.11/RCT-TCT/2003;

Ex.D.5/ -Ex.D.6/08.09.2011

: :

Ex.C.1/ --

Summons of Station House Officer, Palamaner Police Station.

Ex.X.1/20.08.2003

File relating to PW.1-Sri Y. Naga Raju, Rowdy No.10.

:: 88 ::
C.C. No.17/2006

TrapCase

Material Objects marked MO.1 MO.2 MO.3 MO.4 MO.5 MO.6 MO.7 MO.8 : : : : : : : : Sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate powder; Sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder; Sealed bottle containing right hand wash of A.2; Sealed bottle containing left hand wash of A.2; Sealed bottle containing wash of shirt pocket of A.2; Khaki coloured Uniform shirt of A.2; Cash of Rs.5,000/-; Sealed cover, containing sample of Sodium Carbonate powder.

Spl. Judge
Copies to: 1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad; 2. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, ACB Court, Nellore; 3. Sri V. Sree Rama Sanjeeva Rao, Accused No.1; and 4. Sri K.V. Suresh, advocate for A.2