IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT

AMARAVATI

* * * *

Criminal Appeal No.1821 of 2007

Between

S. Vijaya Bharath

.… Appellant

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by its Spl.PP for ACB

…. Respondent

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 17.03.2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY :

1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers : YES/NO

may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : YES/NO

marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to : YES/NO

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

2

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

+ Criminal Appeal No.1821 of 2007

% 17.03.2025

# S. Vijaya Bharath

…Appellant

Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by its Spl.PP for ACB

… Respondent

!Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. Sodum Anvesha

^Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

<Gist :

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

1. Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of AP (Crl.Appeal

No(s).Nil of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).9091 of

2022, dated 10.07.2024).

2. (2014) 13 SCC 55.

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

3

APHC010053202007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND A ND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K . SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO .1821 OF 2007

Between:

S. Vijaya Bharath ...APPELLANT

AND

The State of AP., rep by its

Spl. PP for ACB

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. SODUM ANVESH A

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the

judgment, dated 20.12.2007, passed in CC No.20 of 2003 by the

learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

4

2. The sole accused officer is the appellant herein. He was

tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)

read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for

short „the Act‟). By his Judgment, dated 20.12.2007, the learned

Additional Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with

13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted him of the said

offences, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6)

months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. The accused

officer was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of

one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for

the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2)

of the Act. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run

concurrently. The tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- i.e. MO.3, was

ordered to be confiscated to the State and MOs.1, 2 and 4 to 8 were

ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. The office was

directed to initiate separate proceedings for the offence of perjury

against PW.1.

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

5

3. The sum and substance of the charges against the accused

officer is that he, being a public servant, employed as Deputy

Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Tadipatri from

01.07.2002 to 25.09.2002, demanded Rs.30,000/- on 18.09.2002

as bribe for check measuring the work of one Devana Ramanjula

Reddy (PW.1) and when the said Devana Ramanjula Reddy

(PW.1) pleaded his inability to pay the bribe, the accused reduced

the amount to Rs.25,000/- and accepted illegal gratification on

20.09.2002 for doing official favour, thereby committed the offence

punishable under Section 7 of the Act. In the course of same

transaction, on 20.09.2002, by corrupt or illegal means by abusing

his position as public servant obtained for his pecuniary

advantage to an extent of Rs.25,000/- from Devana Ramanjula

Reddy (PW.1) as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration

for doing official favour i.e., for check measuring the work, thereby

the accused officer committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d)

read with 13(2) of the Act.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused

officer worked as Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and

Buildings, Tadipatri from 01.07.2002 to 25.09.2002, as such he is

a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

6

The de facto complainant namely D. Ramanjula Reddy is a native

of Boppepally village of Yellanur mandal of Ananthapur district.

He is a Registered Class-II Contractor. About seven (7) months

prior to 19.09.2002, he participated in the tenders and got the

contract work of repairing 4 KMs of Tadipatri-Bukkapuram road

with an estimate of Rs.7.00 Lakhs. He completed the said work

two months prior to 19.09.2002. After completion of work, Junior

Engineer recorded the measurements in the M. Book and the

Divisional Engineer had to check measure the work. It is alleged

that the de facto complainant met the accused officer several

times and requested him to undertake the check measurements.

The accused officer made the de facto complainant to move

around him for one month prior to 19.09.2002. On 18.09.2002,

the de facto complainant met the accused officer at his residence

and requested him to check measure the work. On that, the

accused officer is alleged to have demanded a bribe of

Rs.30,000/- for check measuring the work. When the de facto

complainant expressed his inability to pay the said bribe amount,

the accused officer is alleged to have reduced the bribe amount

to Rs.25,000/- and asked P.W.1 to give the said amount at his

residence on 20.09.2002, at 08.00 AM. Unwillingly, the de facto

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

7

complainant agreed to pay the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- to the

accused officer. On 19.05.2002, at 10.30 AM, the de facto

complainant approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB, Ananthapur range, Ananthapur and gave a written

complaint, which was registered as a case in Crime No.12/RCT-

ATP/2002. On 20.09.2002, the accused officer was trapped by

the ACB officials when demanded and accepted an amount of

Rs.25000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration

from the de facto complainant to show official favour in the matter

of check measuring his work. The phenolphthalein test conducted

on both the hand fingers of the accused officer and on the cloth in

which tainted amount was wrapped up proved positive, and the

tainted amount of Rs.25000/- was recovered at the instance of

the accused officer. After completion of investigation and on receipt

of prosecution sanction proceedings dated 01.05.2003, charge sheet

was filed against the accused officer for the aforesaid offences.

5. On appearance of accused officer, copies of documents were

furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter,

charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act were

framed against the accused officer and the contents of the charges

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

8

were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and

got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and MOs 1 to 8.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused officer was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating

material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,

for which he denied.

8. The accused officer filed written statement. He also got

examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2 on his behalf.

9. In the written statement, the accused officer stated that PW.1

has not completed the work by July 2002; the Assistant Engineer has

to record the measurements in the presence of the contractor; no such

recording of measurements by the concerned Assistant Engineer was

done in the M.Book of PW.1 in his presence; PW.1 has not commenced

and completed the work within the stipulated period and PW.1 has not

filed any application for extension of time even by the date of trap. It

is further stated that PW.1 never met the accused officer for extension

of time and there was no demand of bribe by him at any point of time

before the trap. PW.1 showed the tainted amount to the trap party,

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

9

who in turn removed the same, and at the instance of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ananthapur, the tainted currency was

shown and it was recovered; he has not recorded anything on the file

of PW.1 in his presence on the date of trap; he check measured the

work of PW.1 on 21.07.2002 as in Ex.P2 and prepared the bill on

24.07.2002 itself under Ex.P3. It is further stated that no official

favour that can be done by him to PW.1 on the alleged date of trap

and there was no any demand of bribe made by him. It is stated that

the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB enquired with PW.1 about

his file for which the services of Attender by name Sunkanna were

taken and the file of PW.1 was brought from the office; that on perusal

of the said file of PW.1 by the trap party members on the date of trap

incident, it was evident that he check measured the work of PW.1 and

some objections were raised while forwarding the same to the

Executive Engineer for payment; that PW.1 stated that he himself

planted the currency notes under the cot in the bed room of his facing

the hall in his absence; that the statements of Sunkanna, Attender and

his wife were not recorded by the ACB personnel. He protested the

Deputy Superintendent of police, ACB, Ananthapur for not

incorporating his true version in the mediator report. No preliminary

enquiry was made against him by the ACB authorities before

conducting trap proceedings.

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

10

10. The learned Additional Special Judge, on appreciation of entire

oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused officer

guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of

the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Against the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal

has been preferred.

11. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the

appellant, submits that the entire prosecution case rests on the

solitary testimony of PW.1. According to the learned Senior

Counsel, PW.1 did not support the prosecution case and he was

treated hostile by the prosecution. He further emphasized that in

order to prove the aforesaid offences, it is essential that there

should be demand by the accused officer and thereafter the

amount has been accepted by him. In the present case on hand,

there is absolutely no evidence to prove the demand made by

the accused officer. He further emphasized that the bribe

amount of Rs.25,000/- has not been recovered from the

possession of the appellant/accused officer. Learned Senior

Counsel further submitted that PW.1 himself wrapped the tainted

currency notes in a piece of cloth and placed the same

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

11

underneath the cot in the house of the appellant/accused officer

and after planting of the said money, the de facto complainant

shook his hands with the accused officer and by virtue of the

same, the fingers of the accused officer were turned into pink

colour during Sodium Carbonate solution test. He further

submits that the learned Special Judge, without considering the

said aspects in a right perspective, erred in convicting the

accused officer, hence the conviction and sentence recorded

against the accused officer are liable to be set aside. In support

of his contention, he relied on the decisions reported in Mir

Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of AP, (Criminal Appeal

No(s).Nil of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).9091 of

2022, dated 10.07.2024) and B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra

Pradesh

1

.

12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, submits that merely

because a witness was treated hostile, his entire evidence will

not efface from the record. He further submitted that the

evidence of P.W.1, coupled with seizure of the tainted amount

from the house of the accused officer and result of the chemical

1

(2014) 13 SCC 55

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

12

test i.e. in Sodium Carbonate solution test, the fingers of the

accused officer turned into pink colour, can be basis for

convicting the appellant/accused officer. According to him, the

said evidence is sufficient enough to convict the accused officer

in the present case and the learned Special Judge has rightly

convicted the accused officer, which calls for no interference by

this Court.

13. Heard. Perused the record.

14. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the entire

prosecution case rests on the solitary testimony of PW.1. PW.1

deposed that he is a registered contractor and he knows the accused

officer, who worked as Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Department,

Tadipatri, Ananthapur district; the contract work to lay metal road from

Tadipatri to Bukkapuram for 4 KMs was entrusted to him by the R & B

Department for Rs.7,00,000/- in the year 2002; he executed an

agreement in favour of the department to complete the said work

within three months; he could not complete the work within three

months time, but later he completed the work, and after completion of

work, concerned the AE recorded the measurement of work in the

measurement book, and the Deputy Executive Engineer i.e. the

accused officer, has to check measure the work; PW.1 met the AE

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

13

namely Srinivas Reddy and enquired about the check measurements of

the work; then the AE demanded PW.1 to pay Rs.30,000/- to meet the

office expenses; that when PW.1 expressed his inability to pay the said

amount, the AE said that without the said amount, the DE will not

check measure the work and prepare the bill; that when the AE was

demanding the money, PW.1 met the local MLA and informed about

the demand made by AE; the said MLA appears to have advised PW.1

to lodge a complaint against AE and DE; on the next day, PW.1 went

to the DSP, ACB Office, Ananthapur and met the DSP, ACB. PW.1

further deposed that his MLA told that he would talk to the DSP about

the said matter; PW.1 prepared a written complaint against AE and DE;

the DSP received the said complaint and verified it. PW.1 further

deposed that the DSP enquired about the demand of amount by the AE

and he questioned PW.1 as to why he gave report against AE, who

already recorded the measurements of the work, and asked him to

give report only against the accused officer, who has to check measure

the work; accordingly, he wrote a complaint against the accused officer

and gave it to the DSP, ACB. PW.1 further deposed that the DSP

asked him to bring the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- on the next day.

After complying with the formalities, as suggested by the DSP, PW.1

had gone to the accused officer quarters and enquired with the

Attender about the accused officer; the Attender informed him that the

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

14

accused officer was inside and he asked PW.1 to wait for five minutes;

PW.1 sat in the house of the accused officer for about 15 to 20

minutes. PW.1 further stated that as he did not find the accused

officer in the house, he kept the tainted amount after tying it in a piece

of cloth and kept the same underneath the cot in the bed room of the

accused officer; after having kept the amount in the bed room of the

accused officer, PW.1 came and sat in a chair in the hall. Few minutes

later, the accused officer came to the hall wearing a lungi and he

enquired PW.1 as to why he came to his house; then PW.1 informed

him that the work executed by him has to be check measured.

thereafter, the accused officer asked his Attender to go and bring

concerned record from the office; accordingly, the Attender brought

the files to the residence of the accused officer, and after verification,

the accused officer informed to PW.1 that he already check measured

the work about two months back and asked him to meet the Executive

Engineer and thereafter, the files were handed over to PW.1 by the

accused officer; after receiving the files from the accused officer, he

shook hands of the accused officer and came out from his residence.

PW.1 informed to DSP, ACB that he did not handover the tainted

amount to the accused officer and he kept the same in the bed room

of the accused officer. PW.1 also informed to DSP that the accused

officer did not ask any amount from him. At this stage, learned Special

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

15

Public Prosecutor sought permission of the Court to treat PW.1 as

hostile and accordingly PW.1 was treated hostile by the prosecution.

Though PW.1 was cross-examined at length by the learned Special

Public Prosecutor, nothing incriminating has been elicited from the

evidence of PW.1 against the accused officer.

15. PW.2, who worked as Industrial Promotional Officer in the office

of the District Industries Centre, Ananthapur, acted as a mediator. He

stated that, on the instructions of his superior officer, he went to the

office of the DSP, ACB, Ananthapur on 20.09.2002 and, on their

instructions, he went along with PW.1. He categorically stated that the

DSP gave instructions to PW.1 that he should give tainted currency

notes to the accused officer on his demand only and also instructed to

him that in case the accused officer receives the bribe amount from

PW.1 he should come out and gave pre-arranged signal by wiping his

face with his hand kerchief to the Inspector, ACB.

16. Learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that when once

the de facto complainant, who was examined as PW.1, did not support

the prosecution case and when he was treated hostile by the

prosecution, the entire prosecution case has to be thrown out. He

further contended that PW.2, who accompanied PW.1 and acted as a

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

16

mediator at the time of trap, did not state anything with regard to

demand of bribe amount by the accused officer.

17. In the case on hand, there is no evidence on record to show

that the accused officer made a demand of bribe amount from PW.1 on

the fateful day. Neither PW.1, who is the defacto complainant, nor

PW.2, who accompanied PW.1 and acted as a mediator, states that at

the time of the trap, any demand was made by the accused officer. It

is an admitted fact that much prior to the date of the trap i.e. two

months back, the accused officer check measured the work done by

PW.1. If really such is the situation, the question of accused officer

demanding PW.1 to pay the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- does not

arise.

18. In Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi’s case (supra), relied on by the

learned counsel for the appellant/accused officer, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as follows.

“51. The complainant(PW-1) alleged that after he

lodged the complaint(Exhibit P-1) to the DySP(PW-10) on

22

nd

January, 2003, he was called by the appellant(AO1) and

AO2 and was directed to come to the Hotel Quality-Inn with

the proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-. Acting on his own

wisdom, the complainant(PW-1) asked his friend PW-2 to

accompany him to the ACB office. The complainant(PW-1)

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

17

further alleged that when he and Ramesh Naidu(PW-2) were

about to proceed to ACB office, he received another phone

call from the appellant(AO1) and AO2 in the morning of 23

rd

January, 2003 and who instructed him to reach Hotel Quality-

Inn. This fact, however, does not find place in the

complaint(Exhibit P-1) and is thus a very significant omission.

When the pre-trap panchnama(Exhibit P-4) was drawn, the

complainant(PW-1) modified his version and alleged that it

was AO2, who telephoned him in the morning and asked him

to come to the Hotel Quality-Inn with the bribe amount. This

apparent modulation by the complainant(PW-1) regarding the

accused who had made the demand again throws a doubt on

his conduct and credibility. The call detail records proved by

PW-6 again decimates the version of the complainant(PW-1)

because they clearly established that no call was made from

the mobile number of the appellant(AO1) to the mobile

number of the complainant(PW-1) after 17

th

January, 2003.

As against the noting in the pre-trap panchnama(Exhibit P-4),

the complainant(PW-1), during his sworn testimony, deposed

that the phone call was made on 21

st

March, 2003 by both the

appellant(AO1) and AO2. The complainant(PW- 1) also

alleged that after the pre-trap proceedings, the DySP(PW-10)

called Ramesh Naidu(PW-2) and instructed him to act as a

shadow witness. However, the fact remains that Ramesh

Naidu(PW-2) had already been asked by the

complainant(PW-1) to accompany him in the trap

proceedings. The complainant(PW-1) further alleged that a

little while after he and Ramesh Naidu(PW- 2) had occupied

one table in the said coffee shop, the mediators and Inspector

N. Chandrasekhar(PW-11) also came to the coffee shop and

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

18

occupied a nearby table. The appellant(AO1) entered the

coffee shop after some time and took the chair opposite to the

ones wherein the complainant(PW-1) and the shadow witness

were sitting. The appellant(AO1) asked the complainant(PW-

1) whether he had brought the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- to

which the complainant(PW-1) replied in affirmative. When the

complainant(PW-1) was about to handover the tainted

currency notes, the appellant(AO1) hesitated and said that

the amount should not be given in the coffee shop. The

complainant(PW-1) was directed by the appellant(AO1) to

proceed to the cellar of the hotel and accordingly, both he and

PW-2 proceeded to the cellar and reached the generator

room. There, the appellant(AO1) opened the zip of his rexine

bag and instructed the complainant(PW-1) to place the bribe

money inside the same. The complainant(PW-1) complied

and placed the tainted currency notes in the rexine bag of the

appellant(AO1). The appellant(AO1) then handed him the

papers which were prepared during the inspection of the saw-

mill by the Flying Squad. This version of the complaint was

corroborated only by Ramesh Naidu(PW-2). However, the

version of the complainant(PW-1) and PW-2 that the

appellant(AO1) while sitting inside the coffee shop, initially

demanded the bribe and then refused to accept the same

does not find corroboration from the evidence of K. Srinivas

Rao(PW-3) and the Inspector(PW-11). If at all, the

complainant(PW-1) and the appellant(AO1) were sitting on

the table adjoining the one on which the panch witnesses and

the Inspector, N. Chandrasekhar(PW-11) were sitting then,

these persons would not have missed out hearing the

appellant(AO1) demanding the bribe from the

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

19

complainant(PW-1). In total diversion to the version of the

complainant(PW-1) and PW-2, the panch witness(PW-3) and

the Inspector(PW-11) did not utter a word in their testimonies,

that they both went to the coffee shop and occupied a table

adjacent to the table where the complainant(PW-1), PW-2

and the appellant(AO1) were sitting. This can be supported

by post-trap panchnama(Exhibit P-11), which also doesn't

elucidate on the fact that K. Sriniwas Rao(PW- 3) and

Inspector(PW-11) heard the conversation of the

complainant(PW-1) and the appellant(AO1). Thus, it can be

presumed and put the Court on guard that the testimonies of

PW- 3 and PW-11 and the post-trap panchnama(Exhibit P-

11) distorted the facts.

52. Thus, there is a grave suspicion on the story as put forth

by the prosecution that the accused, the appellant(AO1)

demanded the bribe money from the complainant(PW -1)

while in the coffee shop of Hotel Quality-Inn.

53. In view of the above analysis and elaboration of

evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the

prosecution miserably failed to prove the factum of demand of

bribe against the appellant(AO1) by reliable direct or

circumstantial evidence. The allegation regarding acceptance

of bribe by the appellant(AO1) is primarily based on the

evidence of the complainant(PW-1) and PW-2 and the

DySP(PW-10). From the extracted portion of the deposition

of the complainant(PW-1) supra, it is comprehensible that he

admitted that the appellant(AO1), forgot his rexine bag in the

coffee shop and that the complainant(PW-1) picked up the

same and handed it over to the appellant(AO1). Thus,

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

20

unquestionably, the complainant(PW-1) had the opportunity

to plant the tainted currency notes into the bag being carried

by the appellant(AO1).

54. As we have observed above that the entire case seems to

have been planned at the behest of M. Ashok, it is clear that

the complainant(PW-1) was simply used as a tool to get the

appellant(AO1) trapped on made up allegations. The High

Court while discussing the case, brushed aside the said part

of the evidence of the complainant(PW-1) by observing that

the same was an afterthought. However, the fact remains that

these vital facts were elicited during the cross-examination of

the complainant(PW- 1) and hence, the benefit thereof would

have to be given to the appellant(AO1) more particularly as

the prosecution did not make any effort to clarify this anomaly

by way of re-examination. If at all, the prosecution felt that

the captioned admission extracted above as appearing in the

cross-examination of the complainant(PW-1) was a material

deviation from the case set up by the prosecution, then, the

public prosecutor was under an obligation to re-examine the

witness to remove the anomaly. Having failed to do so, the

prosecution cannot be permitted to cry foul that the decoy

complainant(PW-1) modulated his testimony in the cross-

examination so as to favour the accused. It is admitted that

the DySP(PW-10) and the other members of the trap party

were standing outside the coffee shop and thus, they could

not have seen the sequence of events wherein, the

complainant(PW-1) picked up the bag of the AO1(appellant).

PW-2, of course denied this suggestion, but we cannot be

oblivious to the fact that the star witness of the prosecution,

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

21

namely, the complainant(PW-1) himself made a candid

admission to the suggestion given by the defence in cross-

examination, that he got unhindered access to the bag of the

appellant(AO1) and that this fact remained contraversed by

the prosecution. In addition to the above, this Court has to

remain conscious of the fact that the prosecution made no

effort whatsoever to get the wash taken from the hands of the

appellant(AO1) and the rexine bag examined through the

FSL. Hence, there is no satisfactory evidence on record to

establish that the appellant(AO1) had actually handled the

tainted currency notes as claimed by the complainant(PW-1).”

19. In another decision, relied on by the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused officer, in B. Jayaraj’s case (supra), the Hon’ble

Apex Court held as follows.

“8. In the present case, the complainant did not

support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the

accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined

any other witness, present at the time when the money was

allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to

prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by

the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned

what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext.P-11) before

LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the

accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and

the contents of Ext.P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to

the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the

demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore,

inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

22

High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to

be made by the accused as proved. The only other material

available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from

the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is

admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and

recovery of the currency notes from the accused without

proof of demand will not bring home the offence under

Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the

offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in

the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification,

the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a

public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary

advantage cannot be held to be established.”

20. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act are that; the

person accepting the gratification should be a public servant, he should

accept gratification for himself and gratification should be as a motive

or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or to show any

favour or disfavour to any person. Insofar as Section 13(1)(d) of the

Act is concerned, the essential ingredients are that; he should have

been a public servant and that he should have been used corrupt or

illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as public servant he

should have been obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for

himself or for any other person.

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

23

21. In the case on hand, the entire prosecution case rests on the

solitary testimony of PW.1 with regard to the alleged demand and

acceptance of bribe by the accused officer. When the entire case rests

on the solitary testimony of a witness, the law is well settled that it

must be proved free from doubt and it must be trustworthy and

reliable. In a case where the witness is put in the purview of wholly

reliable, then there is no legal bar to base conviction on the solitary

testimony of the witness. Whereas, in the present case on hand, the

de facto complainant - PW.1 did not support the prosecution case and

he was treated hostile by the prosecution. In the cross-examination of

PW.1, nothing incriminating has been elicited against the accused

officer by the prosecution. Apart from the evidence of PW.1, PW.2,

who accompanied PW.1 and who acted as a mediator at the time of

trap, too did not state to the fact that there was any demand of bribe

amount by the accused officer from PW.1. It is pertinent to mention

here that the tainted amount has not been seized from the possession

of the accused officer. The theory propounded by PW.1 is that he

went into the bed room of the accused officer’s house and planted the

money. The said theory of PW.1 that he went into the bed room of the

accused officer, without there being any permission from any of the

inmates of the house, and planted money, appears to be quite

unnatural, hence the same cannot be accepted. It is also relevant to

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

24

mention here that much prior to the date of trap i.e. about two months

prior to the date of trap, the accused officer check measured the work

done by PW.1. When such is the case, the question of any demand

being made by the accused officer with PW.1 would not arise.

22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and

the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred

decisions, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that

the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused

officer of the alleged charges beyond reasonable doubt and the

accused officer, therefore, deserves to be acquitted of the

charges.

23. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction

and sentence passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for

SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, in the judgment in CC No.20 of 2003, dated

20.12.2007 are set aside. The appellant/accused officer is found not

guilty of the charges leveled against him and accordingly he is

acquitted of the same, and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any,

shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall

be refunded to him.

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

25

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.

_____________________________

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Dated:17.03.2025

Nsr

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1821 of 2007

26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1821 OF 2007

Dated:17.03.2025

Nsr