STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. K PUNARDANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Nellore, for the offences punishable under S. 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Naidupet from 13-7-1991 to 22-8-1992. The de facto complainant-Badri Audhiseshaiah was the proprietor to two firms, by name, Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill and Company and Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders at Gudur. The complainant received notices from the respondent asking him to submit C Forms and affidavits and other account books relating to his firm Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders. The prosecution case is that on 8-8-1992 at about 7.00 a.m., the complainant was to the house of the respondent and sought for a months time for submission of accounts and other documents. The respondent refused to grant time and threatened that the complainant would be visited with penalty in case he failed to submit the books of accounts and other documents in time. Complainant made repeated requests and then the respondent agreed to extend the time provided the complainant paid him Rs. 25,000/- as bribe. The complainant said that the amount demanded was a huge amount and, therefore, the respondent reduced the amount to Rs. 20,000/- and wanted the complainant to pay the amount on the next day. The complainant on 8-8-1992 itself approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau office at Nellore and gave a statement before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who registered a case and decided to lay a trap. On 9-8-1992, at about 8.00 a.m., the complainant went to the house of the respondent and gave him Rs. 20,000/-. Trap party immediately intervened and Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from the possession of the respondent-officer. On being subjected to chemical test, the fingers of the respondent were found positive and the pyjama allegedly worn by the respondent-Officer was also found to be positive on chemical test. On the side of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined and Exhs. P1 to P25 and M.Ps. 1 to 10 were marked. The complainant was examined as P.W. 1. He deposed that he had met the respondent on 8-8-1992 when the latter demanded Rs. 25,000/- and on his request the amount was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- and that he paid that amount to the respondent on the next day. On the side of defence, D.W. 1 to D.W. 5 were also examined. The evidence of P.W. 1 was accepted by the Special Judge.

(2.) The High Court in appeal rejected the evidence of P.W. 1 and held that it was suspicious. The defence of the respondent was that on 8-8-1992, he was not at Nellore and that he had gone to Chirala and attended the Panchayat at the instance of D.W. 3 Major D. Samuel in Chirala. The respondent also contended that on chemical test his fingers were found to be positive only as he had shaken hands with P.W. 1 and his pyjama pockets were also contaminated with chemical substance as a mediator of the trap party had searched his pockets for the tainted money.

(3.) The learned single Judge held that there were certain discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. 1. It was noted that the complainant received notice in respect of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill and Company whereas the assessment was in respect of M/s. Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders. P.W. 1 claimed that he was the proprietor of the M/s. Bharatha Lakshmi Traders as well as Shri Lakshmi Oil Mill and Company. Admittedly, the notices were issued by the respondent to the complainant. Whether the assessment related to M/s. Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill and Company or M/s. Bharatha Lakshmi Traders is inconsequential, as the assessment of both these concerns had to be finally settled by the respondent-Officer. The High Court also was of the view that the turnover of M/s. Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders was only Rs. 1,55,750/-, therefore, the tax payable was only Rs. 6000/- or Rs. 7000/- and the complainant could not have agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as bribe. But it has come in evidence that the total annual turnover of M/s. Bharatha Lakshmi Traders, which was also a concern of the complainant, was Rs. 30-40 lakhs. The whole question was whether the evidence of P.W. 1 could be relied on. According to the respondent, the complainant had visited his house in the early morning of 9-8-1992 for some work and sought time for submitting account books and the respondent asked him to come to his office. Thereafter, his servant D.W. 4 found a bundle of notes lying on the sofa set. D.W. 4 immediately told the respondent about the same whereupon the respondent instructed D.W. 4 to go and find out whether the complainant had gone and to give him back the money he had left. D.W. 4 went out and found that the complainant had already left the place and, therefore, he gave the money to the respondent who kept the same underneath the pillow in his bedroom. The explanation offered by the respondent is highly improbable. D.W. 4 gave evidence in support of the defence set up by the respondent. But his evidence was not at all reliable and even the High Court found that the evidence of D.W. 4 did not inspire confidence.