STATE OF A P Vs. S JANARDHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially four persons, namely, S. Janardhana Rao (A-1) , Mohammed omar Bin Moin (A-2) , S. Indira (A-3) and S. Prasanth (A-4) were made accused, but as A-2 turned to be an approver, pardon was granted to him and he was examined as PW-21. Thus, trial proceeded against the remaining three accused persons and the learned Special Judge upon the conclusion of trial acquitted A-3 and a-4 whereas convicted A-l under Sections 7 and 13 (l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of rs. 3,000/-; in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months on each count. The sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. Against the order of conviction, a-l preferred an appeal before the high Court of Andhra Pradesh whereas the state preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of A-3 and A-4 and the High Court dismissed the State appeal whereas allowed the appeal filed by A-l and acquitted him of all the charges. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed two petitions for grant of Special Leave to appeal; one against the order whereby the High Court dismissed appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of A-3 and A-4 by the trial court, which SLP was dismissed; and the second against the order whereby the High Court acquitted A-1 of all the charges in which leave was granted.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, was that a-l was the member of Andhra Pradesh Higher judicial Service and posted as IIIrd Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, at the relevant time and residing in Flat No. 402 of garudagagan Apartments, Padmaraonagar, secunderabad, A-3 was his wife, who was working as a teacher in Government New High school, Kotteru, Hanumakonda, and A-4 was their 19 years' old son, who was deaf and dumb by birth. A-2 was a police constable attached to the court of A-1. Before A-1, Sessions Case no. 186 of 1989 was pending trial in which besides others, Sant Esher Singh (PW-1) and rajinder Singh (PW-2) were accused. As the trial of the said case was at its final stage, A-l is alleged to have sent message through PW-21 to PWs 1 and 2 demanding a sum of Rs. 6 lacs as illegal gratification for recording their acquittal in the said case, but ultimately the amount was reduced by A-l to Rs. 3 lacs. As pws 1 and 2 were not agreeable to pay even the reduced amount, PW 1 approached the officials of Anti Corruption Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'acb') for conducting a trap, but as it was a case in which a judicial officer was involved, they expressed their inability to do anything without any order from the High court. Thereafter, on 3rd and 4th September, 1996, PW-1 met the learned Chief Justice of andhra Pradesh High Court and permission was granted by the High Court to conduct trap and register case. Thereupon, PW-1 went to the office of ACB with Rs. 3 lacs which was kept in a plastic cover and gave it to S. Sreeramulu (PW-3) whose services were secured by R. Suryanarayana, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, (PW-23). PW-23 noted down the numbers of all the currency notes which were in the denomination of Rs. 500/- in six bundles, on a separate sheet of paper. One of the officials of ACB treated the currency notes with the layer of phenolphthalein powder. Thereupon, officials of ACB organized a trap and they went to the court of A-1 on 4th September, 1996 which was a date fixed in the case where A-l pronounced in open court the code word that "all the matters will be adjourned to 6th September, 1996" which could be taken as confirmation that PW-21 approached PWs 1 and 2 on his behalf and the work would be done. Then, on the same day, PWs 1 and 21 along with the trap party went to the house of a-l at Hanumakonda in which his wife and son were residing. While members of the trap party were waiting at some distance from the house, PWs 1 and 21 went to the said house and as it was bolted from inside, PW-21 pressed the call bell whereupon wife of A-1 opened the door and both PWs 1 and 21 went inside the house where son of A-1 was also present. When PW-21 tried to hand over the plastic cover containing sum of Rs. 3 lacs, wife of A-1 asked him to count the money in her presence and after the same was counted, as directed by her, PW-21 kept the plastic cover containing the aforesaid amount on the teapoy which was shifted by her son to the cup-board in the same room. Thereafter, PWs 1 and 21 came out from the house and gave pre-arranged signal to the members of the trap party consisting of G. Bal Reddy (PW-22) , PW-23 and the mediator (PW-3) who entered the house, met wife of A-l and asked her about the receipt of the sum of Rs. 3 lacs, which she denied. Thereafter, son of A-l, who was deaf and dumb, led the members of the trap party to the bathroom attached to the master bedroom by making gestures and signs; and removed the lid of the flush tank where plastic bag containing sum of Rs. 3 lacs was found in water, photograph of which was taken, and after the same was taken out therefrom, the numbers of the currency notes, contained in the plastic bag, were compared and the same tallied with the numbers already noted down by PW-23 on a separate sheet of paper. After seizure of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3 lacs, PW-21 informed A-l about the payment of the said sum of Rs. 3 lacs to his wife and A-l fixed up time to meet PW-1. According to pre-arranged programme, PWs 1 and 21 went to the flat of A-l in the Apartment at secunderabad in the right between 4th and 5th september, 1996 at 1. 00 O'clock. After some time, PW-21 came out and remained outside the apartment. In the meantime, according to pre-arranged plan, the officials of ACB came there, entered the flat of A-l and found that a-l was entertaining PW-1.

(3.) Stating the aforesaid facts, a first information report was lodged for prosecution of a-1, his wife (A-3) , his son (A-4) besides PW-21 and investigation proceeded, on the completion whereof chargesheet was submitted against all the aforesaid four accused persons after obtaining the required sanction. On receipt of the chargesheet, cognizance was taken.