R VENKAT REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by A-1 in C.C. No. 1/89 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against confirmation of his conviction under S. 193, IPC and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts of the case as deposed to by the material prosecution witnesses are : The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau Anantapur Range, filed complaint alleging that the 2nd accused, Raghava Rao, who, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, was acquitted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on a separate appeal filed by him, reported to the Inspector of Police, ACB at Anantapur on 14-11-1984 that one M. Narayana Reddy, S.I. of Police of Patnam Police Station, Kadiri Taluk was demanding a bribe of Rs. 2,000.00 from him. It was also alleged by A-2 that the said sub-inspector also demanded Rs. 2,500.00 towards illegal gratification for release of Velluka Reddy and when an amount of Rs. 350.00 was paid by A-1 to the S.O. of Police the said Velluka Reddy was released. A-2 made a further allegation that he was wrongfully detained by the said S.I. of Police from 12-11-1984 to 13-11-1984 and when he promised to pay Rs. 1,000.00 within four or five days, the said S.I. of Police released him, and that since he was unwilling to pay the bribe, he was reporting the matter to the ACB. On the said report of A-2 a case in Cr. No. 19/ACB/Kurnool/84 u/S. 161, IPC and u/S. 5(2) and S. 5(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the S.I. of Police, a regular investigation was initiated and the 2nd accused was sent to him with 'ten' hundred rupee notes to trap him but the same could not be successful as the S.I. of Police was not available in the Police Station. It is further alleged in the complaint that a case before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') was filed and the same was numbered as 47/86 and during the course of inquiry of the said case, A-1 was examined as P.W.1 on 16-1-1987 and cross-examined on 17-1-1987 while A-2 was examined on 17-1-1987. A-1 in his examination-in-chief on oath on 16-1-1987 deposed that he paid Rs. 350.00 to the S.I. of Police, Narayana Reddy by way of bribe to release his relative Velluka Reddy. However, A-1 who was cross-examined on oath on 17-1-1987, resiled from his earlier evidence in Chief-examination on oath contradicted his own statements in Chief-examination by deposing in cross-examination that what all he deposed on 16-1-1987 is false and what all he is deposing on 17-1-1987 is true and thereby he supported the S.I. of Police against whom a charge of bribe is levelled. Thus the petitioner herein turned hostile to the prosecution. So he was cross-examined by the prosecution, but he supported the S.I. of Police, the charged officer.

(3.) After completion of enquiry, the learned Member of the Tribunal observed in his order dated 27-2-1987 that both the accused contradicted their statements. A-1 contradicted his own statement in Chief-examination given on oath whereas A-2 deliberately contradicted his earlier report given to the police with a view to help the charged officer they have committed an offence of perjury. The learned Member of the Tribunal issued a show-cause notice to both the accused to explain why action should not be taken against them. Though the accused received notice on 17-3-1987 they did not choose to reply. Then the member of the Tribunal addressed the Government to take action against the accused for an offence of perjury. In pursuance of that, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused u/S. 193, IPC by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.