State vs R. Krishnaiah

R. Kantha Rao, J.—This criminal appeal is at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, in CC No. 3 of 1996 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Heard Sri Gani-A-Musa, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for ACB and Sri M. Venkatanarayana, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.

On the allegation that the respondent demanded an amount of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification from PW1 for the purpose of doing official favour, namely, for issuing certified copies of two settlement deeds and accepted the bribe, charges were framed by the trial Court against him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was tried for the said charges.

The prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined before the trial Court PWs. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P1 to P19 besides marking MOs. 1 to 6. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW1, acquitted the respondent of the aforementioned charges. Challenging the order of acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal.

The brief facts according to the prosecution are that one Smt. Chengamma, a close relative of PW1 contrary to the agreement executed by her before the elders in respect of disposal of her property executed two settlement deeds in favour of one Mr. K. Babu in respect of certain property. PW1, who wanted to obtain certified copies of the settlement deeds made an application before PW4 the Sub-Registrar on 9.2.1994. The Sub-Registrar instructed the respondent to cause verification of the documents for the purpose of issuing the certified copies. According to the version of PW1, the respondent for the purpose of issuing certified copies demanded from him an amount of Rs. 200/- initially, subsequently however collected an amount of Rs. 50/- for the purpose of purchasing requisite nonjudicial stamp paper and demanded bribe of Rs. 100/- for issuing the certified copies of the required document. It is said that PW1 who was not willing to pay the bribe, approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB Tirupati and lodged a report with him on 14.2.1994. At about 8:00 a.m., on the strength of the said report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB registered a case against the respondent under Sections 7, 11, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at 12 noon on the same day. Thereafter, he got laid a trap on the same day during the course of which it is alleged that the respondent in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagiri demanded from PW1 an amount of Rs. 100/- as bribe for issuing the certified copies, accepted the same and placed the amount on his table. Thereafter, it is said that PW1 went outside and gave signal to the raiding party which on receiving rushed in and in the course of post-trap proceedings the chemical test conducted on the fingers of the respondent yielded positive result and thereafter an amount of Rs. 100/- was recovered from the table of the respondent.

One of the crucial issues considered by the learned trial Court is that as per Order 848 of the Madras Registration Manual, the party has to make an application for grant of certified copies directly to the Sub-Registrar and the Sub-Registrar has to receive the same personally and issue the certified copies. There is also however no dispute about the procedure to be followed for the grant of certified copies in the Sub-Registrar''s Office. At the trial, PW4 the Sub-Registrar in his evidence stated that on 8.2.1994 PW1 submitted an application to him for grant of certified copies and he instructed the respondent to verify the documents for the purpose of issuing certified copies. According to him, the respondent verified the documents and informed that as the settlement deed relates to an open site, a certificate to the effect that the property is open site without any structures has to be obtained by PW1 from the Sarpanch of the village. When PW1 was informed about the same by the respondent, PW1 told the respondent that it was not possible for him to obtain certified copies from the Sarpanch of the village, as he is inimical to him. Ultimately the respondent brought about these facts to the notice of Sub-Registrar PW4. The version of the respondent is that as he brought to the notice of the Sub-Registrar about the requirement of obtaining certificate from the Sarpanch, PW1 developed grouse against him and got him involved falsely in the instant case. His specific version is that on the date of the trap, PW5 the Attender handed over the documents to PW1 and thereafter PW1 made an attempt to give money to the respondent, for which the respondent warded off and thus he came into contract with the currency notes thereafter PW1 kept the currency notes on the table came outside and gave the prearranged signal.

Admittedly in this case PW4 the Sub-Registrar is the person who has to personally receive the application for grant of certified copies and he is the authority to issue certified copies. In fact PW1 presented the application for certified copies directly to PW4. Moreover the seats of PW4 and other staff members are situated in one room and several persons were also present in Sub-Registrar''s Office, Nagiri on the alleged date of trap. Such being the position, it is most unlikely for the respondent to demand and accept the bribe openly before all the people. It is settled law that merely because chemical test was found to be positive and the amount was recovered from the respondent, it cannot be said that the prosecution proved the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe. The demand and acceptance of bribe has to be proved by the prosecution either by direct or circumstantial evidence.

In the instant case, the evidence on record clearly shows that PW5 Attender after obtaining the signature of PW1 gave him the certified copies of the sale deed. According to PW1, he purchased the stamps on 7.2.1994, prepared copy application and submitted the same to the Sub-Registrar on 9.2.1994. The prosecution failed to prove that PW1 went to the Sub-Registrar''s Office on 8.2.1994 and met the respondent. Therefore, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution showing that PW1 met the respondent either on 6.2.1994 or 8.2.1994. PWs. 4 to 6 did not state in their evidence that PW1 came to the Sub-Registrar''s Office either on 6.1.1994 or 10.1.1994 or 8.1.1994. Another important aspect which the learned trial Court considered was that according to PW1 the copy application along with nonjudicial stamps was not handed over to the Investigating Officer and it was with him. If really as contended by PW1 that after receiving the bribe amount the respondent had handed over him the certified copies of the documents, the documents should have been handed over to the Investigating Officer but the prosecution did not explain as to what happened to the copy application.

Thus, in this case there is no direct or circumstantial evidence showing the respondent demanded bribe from PW1. In the absence of any such evidence, the alleged recovery of the currency notes or the chemical test yielding positive result is of no consequence. There was no official favour pending with the respondent on the alleged date of trap. Further the very theory of the prosecution that the respondent demanded bribe on 14.2.1994 openly in the Sub-Registrar''s Office and accepted the same in the presence of the Sub-Registrar and other staff members as well as the public is wholly unconvincing and the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the version of PW1. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court will interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court only when the findings are perverse or not based on evidence, Merely because another view is possible, the appellate Court is not supposed to upset the findings recorded by the trial Court. For all these reasons, I am of the considered view that there are no valid grounds to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Consequently the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court against the respondent is confirmed and the appeal preferred by the State is dismissed.