TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offence under Section 7 was not established. The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7182 of 2019) - - - Dated:- 21-2-2022 - AJAY RASTOGI And ABHAY S. OKA , JJ. JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA , J. Leave granted. 1. The Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the PC Act ) convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The order of conviction has been confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Telangana. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Secunderabad. PW1 Shri R.Seetharamulu @ Sharma is the complainant. PW1 was working at the relevant time as a supervisor in Farmers Service Co-operative Society (for short the said Society ). He was doing the work of filing returns of commercial tax of the said Society. Though the assessment of the said Society for the year 1997-98 was completed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. When the appellant was questioned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, she showed her right-hand side table drawer. She took out the key of the drawer from her handbag and opened the table drawer. She took out the diary from the drawer and placed the same on the table. After the diary was opened by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he found a wad of currency notes. The numbers on the currency notes tallied with the serial numbers of currency notes described in pre-trap proceedings. After that, the seizure was carried out, and necessary formalities were completed. The Special Court found that the demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe was proved by the prosecution. The High Court has affirmed the said finding. 4. Mrs. V. Mohana, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Her first submission is that the demand for a bribe by the appellant was not proved, and the evidence of PW1 to that effect is an improvement. Moreover, LW8, who was instructed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of ACB to accompany PW1 inside the chamber of the appellant, did not enter the chamber along with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s demands made by the appellant is trustworthy as there is no reason for PW1 to make any false allegation or falsely implicate the appellant. She submitted that the tainted notes were found in the diary of the appellant, which was kept in her table drawer. She was in possession of keys of the table drawer. She herself opened the table drawer and produced the diary from her custody in which tainted notes were kept. Her submission is that though communication may have been served on the said Society on 15th March 2000 recording that the Society is not liable to pay any amount, the appellant did not issue the final assessment order. She pointed out that the demand made by the appellant was for issuing final assessment order, which was issued on the day of the trap. Her submission is that the Special Court and the High Court, after appreciating the evidence, have recorded findings of fact based on evidence on record. Her submission is that under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. According to his case, at that time, initially, the appellant reiterated her demand of ₹ 3,000/-. But she scaled it down to ₹ 2,000/-. Admittedly, on 15th March 2000, the said Society was served with a notice informing the said Society that an exemption has been granted from payment of commercial tax to the said Society. Therefore, the said Society was not liable to pay any tax for the year 1996-97. The issue of the final assessment order was only a procedural formality. Therefore, the prosecution s case about the demand of bribe made on 23rd March 2000 by the appellant appears to be highly doubtful. 9. PW1 described how the trap was laid. In the pre-trap mediator report, it has been recorded that LW8, Shri R.Hari Kishan, was to accompany PW1 - complainant at the time of offering the bribe. PW7 Shri P.V.S.S.P. Raju deposed that PW8 Shri U.V.S. Raju, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, had instructed LW8 to accompany PW1 - complainant inside the chamber of the appellant. PW8 has accepted this fact by stating in the examination-in-chief that LW8 was asked to accompany PW1 and observe what transpires between the appellant and PW1. PW8, in his evidence, accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACTO came to AO along with record. After going through the Ledger and Cash Book etc., AO signed on the last page of the said Ledger and Cash Book mentioning 26.02.2000 below her signature in the said register though she signed on 27.03.2000 in my presence. AO directed her attender to affix official rubber stamp below her signature in the Ledger and Cash Book and accordingly attender affixed the same. AO also signed on the office note of Final Assessment Orders at that time. Thereafter, I collected the General Ledger and Cash Book from the attender after affixing the said rubber stamp thereon and came out of the office of AO and relayed the pre-arranged signal to the trap party. (underlines supplied) 11. Thus, PW1 did not state that the appellant reiterated her demand at the time of trap. His version is that on his own, he told her that he had brought the amount. What is material is the cross-examination on this aspect. In the cross-examination, PW1 accepted that his version regarding the demand made by the appellant on various dates was an improvement. The relevant part of the cross-examination of the appellant reads thus: I did not state to ACB Inspector in section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he evidence of PW1 about the demand for bribe by the appellant is not at all reliable. Hence, we conclude that the demand made by the appellant has not been conclusively proved. 13. PW2, Shri B.D.V. Ramakrishna had no personal knowledge about the demand. However, he accepted that on 15th March 2000, the said Society received a communication informing that the said Society need not pay any tax for the year 1996-97. PW3 Shri L. Madhusudhan was working as Godown Incharge with the said Society. He stated that on 15 th March 2000, when he visited the appellant s office, ACTO served the original notice dated 26th February 2000 in which it was mentioned that the Society was not liable to pay any tax. It is his version that when he met the appellant on the same day, she enquired whether he had brought the demanded amount of ₹ 3,000/-. However, PW3 did not state that the appellant demanded the said amount for granting any favour to the said society. 14. PW 4 Ahmed Moinuddin was ACTO at the relevant time. He deposed that on 27th March 2000, the appellant instructed him to prepare the final assessment order, which was kept ready in the morning. He stated that he was called at 6 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
