V.GOPAL REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/petitioner by name V.Gopal Reddy, Senior Divisional Engineer (West), South Central Railway, Secunderabad, is the appellant, impugned the conviction judgment dated 01.09.2014 in C.C.No.3 of 2011, passed by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, where prosecution laid by S.P.E., C.B.I., Hyderabad, covered by Crl.R.C.No.18(A)/2010 - CBI/HYD, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short 'the P.C. Act'), where from the investigation and from the final report of CBI that was taken cognizance by the learned Special Judge for the offences supra against the accused and after framing of charges under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the P.C.Act from his denial of prosecution version and sustainability of the accusation, put to trial and in the course of the trial from the thirteen witnesses examined with 19 exhibits P1 to P19 and five material objects as MOs.1 to 5, marked with defence evidence of the accused covered by DWs.1 to 11 and Exs.D1 to D30 in the judgment running in 53 paragraphs and from paras - 46 to 38, the trial Court came to a conclusion in holding that the prosecution is successful in proving the charges under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the P.C.Act, against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence is found to be guilty for the charges and is convicted accordingly for the offences and from hearing of sentence covered by paras 49 to 52, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and with default sentence of six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act by saying both sentences shall run concurrently under Section 31 Cr.P.C. by giving set off of the period undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The impugnment in the grounds of appeal are that the learned Special Judge erred in convicting the accused for the offences supra by mere copying the prosecution evidence without giving any credence to the defence evidence and against law, weight of evidence, probabilities from the case in the absence of clinching and acceptable evidence to prove any demand and acceptance of alleged bribe amount and also failed to see that the complainant-PW1's allegation of met the accused - appellant on 17.06.2010 and later made demand is false, as accused appellant was away on track inspection, which fact is evident from the official record, the Special Judge should have held, in the circumstances of the case, that the alleged demand was invented by the complainant in foisting false case deliberately and also failed to see that the complainant manipulated in such a way that the amount of alleged bribe was given to the appellant on the date of trap, which is after 8 days, stating that the amount represented the dues which the appellant had given to labour on 17.06.2010, as revealed by DW3, DW10 and DW11 - railway contractors, learned Special Judge also failed to see that the complainant did not take mediator into the office of the appellant though he was specifically instructed PW12 to keep it as a secret and then give pre-arranged signal. The appellant accused innocently received the amount which was paid by him to the labour on 17.06.2010 and the learned Special Judge failed to see that the complainant having come to know that the appellant was in the office, gave a report to the S.P., C.B.I. on 25.06.2010 at 03.30 p.m. and the trap was laid at 04.30 p.m., learned Special Judge also failed to see that Exs.P7 and P8, pre and post trap proceedings got prepared through computer after one hour and the originals were not placed before the Court, even in those suspect trap proceedings there is no reference of the Chemical powders having been carried to the office of the accused appellant, the mediator PW2 stated that "TLO did not give any opportunity to the A.O. to explain", nor PWs.12 or 13 gave any notice or opportunity to the A.O. to explain about the money received. The learned Special Judge should have in the circumstances given credence to the written statement of the accused appellant shortly after the trial. Learned Special Judge also failed to see that very receipt of complaint and registration of crime were defective and the C.B.I. Officers fell into the scheme of the complainant, who is a rich and influential railway contractor, there is no proof of official favour which the appellant could extend. The evidence of PWs.5,6,8 and 13 would reveal that no bill of the complainant was pending, much less, the bill for Rs.40 lakhs and the learned Special Judge should have noted from the written statement filed by the accused as to how much of grudge the complainant had against the accused appellant. The learned Special Judge erred in relying upon solitary evidence of PW1, without corroboration from any other, much less, independent evidence to accept much less to come to a conclusion of demand and acceptance of any amount as bride. Even the learned Special Judge failed to see the testimony of PWs.2 and 12 that no way corroborates the evidence of PW1 to prove above ingredients which are essential to make out the offence and the sanction order issued by PW10 who is of equal cadre under Ex.P12 is not valid, that was not considered by the Special Judge and PW10 himself admitted that the President of India is the competent authority to remove the officers like Senior Divisional Engineer (Group - A officer) and the learned Special Judge should not have presumed under Section 20 of the P.C.Act, without there being any basis on validity of sanction and competence of sanctioning authority and thereby sought for allowing the appeal by acquitting the accused appellant, setting aside the conviction judgment of the trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant accused by reiterating the same, placed reliance on several expressions of the Constitutional Courts viz., Dasarath Singh Chauhan v. C.B.I.(2017) 8 SCC 136, Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) Through his L.R.s vs. State of Punjab (2017) 15 SCC 560 , State through C.B.I. v. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava (2016) 3 SCC 108, Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi (2016) 1 SCC 713, N.Sunkanna vs. State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152 , P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector Police, State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 3 SCC 247, M.R.Purushotham v. State of Karnataka (2014) 13 SCC 143 , Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi (2014) 13 SCC 55, B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2012) 11 SCC 642, State rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB vs. D. Anjaiah (2009) 15 SCC 200 , State of Punjab v. Madan Mohanlal Verma (2009) 3 SCC 779, Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 3368 2013(2), M.Janardhan vs. State of A.P.(1996) 11 SCC 720, State of Maharastra v. Dnyaneswar Laxman Rao Wankhede 1987 (Supp) SCC 266 , C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala (1979) 4 SCC 725 , M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala 337 AIR 1973 SC 707, G.V.Nanjundiah vs. State (Delhi Administration), Suraj Mal vs. State (Delhi Administration), Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, Union Territory, Chandigarh vs. Pradeep Kumar, in support of the contentions referred in the grounds of appeal by Crl.A.No.1276 of 2010 dt.09.10.2018 Crl.A.No.735 of 2006 dt.27.12.2014 ALT (cri) 91=(1)ALD(cri)Civil Appeal No.67 of 2018 dt.08.01.2018 drawing attention of this Court with reference to the law and facts from the material on record, in seeking to allow the appeal.