K. NAGESH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/appellant filed this application to receive additional evidence i.e. letter No.HMWSSB/Revenue-Wing/PIO/RTI/2017-18/2216, dated 12.03.2018 issued by the General Manager (Rev) and Public Information Officer, Revenue Circle, pending Criminal Appeal No.1106 of 2006. The appellant filed the above said appeal assailing judgment dated 28.08.2006 in CC No.15 of 1999 passed by Additional Special Judge fort SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner herein filed the present I.A.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that soon after the trap proceedings by ACB Officials, he was kept under suspension, he could not attend the duties and he has no access to the files pertaining to the transaction showing favour to PW.1 before and at the time of trap. It is his further contention that subsequently, even during the time of trial, he had no access to the relevant proceedings as the entire file was in the custody of ACB officials and due to the said reasons and circumstances, he could not take effective defence to prove that there was no occasion either to demand and accept the bribe as alleged from PW.1. It is his further contention that even during the trial also he was unable to locate the corresponding communication which could have helped him to take his defence. Due to the said reason and non-availability of the said proceedings, he could not take proper and effective defence except putting a suggestion to the Investigating Officer. According to him he has obtained letter dated 12.03.2018 issued by the General Manager (Rev) and Public Information Officer, Revenue Wing, under Right to Information Act (for short 'RTI Act'). According to him, non-filing of the said document during the trial before the trial Court is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the reasons stated above. With the said contentions, he prayed to receive the said letter dated 12.03.2018 as additional evidence in the present appeal.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter opposing the said petition. It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/appellant did not show any sufficient reason for non-filing of the said document during the trial. He was having knowledge and despite giving opportunity, he did not file the said letter before the trial Court. It is the further contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the letter dated 12.03.2018 is the information furnished to the petitioner under RTI Act and it cannot be taken as additional evidence. It is also his further contention that the information furnished under the RTI Act is based on the database of the Officer concerned and it is not admissible as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. With the said contentions, learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the IA.