Witness' Entry At Trap Venue Doubtful, Bribe Demand Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Telangana HC Quashes Conviction Under PC Act

Setting aside the conviction of an assistant engineer under Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe to extend the benefit of a State-sanctioned housing scheme to certain individuals, the Telangana High Court said that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer demanded a bribe. 

Referring to judgments on the Supreme Court the court further said that the prosecution cannot rely on recovery of the amount allegedly sought as a bribe by the accused to infer demand.

Justice K. Surender further pointed out that all prosecution witnesses including the de facto complaint had turned hostile. It noted that the only evidence was that of an independent mediator who was stated to have witnesses the officer demand a bribe on the date of the trap proceedings. However it noted that mediator's report did not reflect that the mediator in question was directed to go the place where trap was laid out. 

"The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A1 demanded bribe. P.W.1/complainant and P.Ws.3 to 11 beneficiaries have turned hostile. Further, as already discussed, there was no official work pending with A1. The prosecution cannot rely on the recovery of the amount from the appellant as the basis to infer demand," the court said. 

It also noted, “The only evidence is that of P.W.2 (independent mediators), who states that on the date of trap, he witnessed A1 (appellant) demanding and accepting bribe. P.W.16 admitted that Ex.P3/first mediators' report does not reflect that P.W.16 (DSP) instructed P.W.2 to accompany P.W.1 (de facto complainant) to the house of A1. P.W.16 further admitted that apart from his oral evidence, there is no other evidence to show that he has instructed P.W.2 to accompany P.W.1. P.W.2 admitted that he had earlier acted as a mediator in another case. P.W.2 further admitted that in Ex.P10, 2nd mediators report, it is not reflected that A1 (appellant) demanded bribe and when P.W.1 (de factor complainant) affirmatively replied, A1 accepted the amount and kept in his hip pocket”. 

The court further referred to Supreme Court's decision in  N.Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu where it was held that "unless the demand aspect is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the question of relying on recovery of the amount, to prove the case against appellant is unacceptable". 

The order was passed in a batch of criminal appeals, one filed by the convicted accused and the other preferred by the State against the acquittal of the second accused.

The case of the prosecution was that the State had launched the Indiramma Adarsha Grama Housing Scheme to help individuals in the construction of pucca houses by providing raw materials and other monetary assistance.

According to the de-facto complainant (PW1), only a few individuals in his locality were given cement, while the other were not even given that. All were not extended any other benefits that were part of the scheme. The de-facto complaint along with others approached the convicted accused (appellant) who demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 from each individual, totalling to Rs. 22,000.

This led to the filing of the complaint and initiation of the trap proceedings. According to the complainant and others accused no.2 (Work Inspector in A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited) had also insisted on the payment of the bribe and was in cahoots with appellant. Accused No. 2 further was alleged to be closely involved in the sanctioning of funds.

However, since the bribe was to be paid to Appellant, the trap proceedings were initiated against him. The trap officer alleged to have sent an independent witness along with the complainant, to observe the situation and report back.

Once the trap was set, Appellant along with the mediator went to the former's house, and once the bride alleged to have been accepted, signalled to the officers, who entered the house of the accused and found the tainted note in the pocket of the accused and residue trap powder on the hands of the accused.

Based on the same criminal proceedings were initiated against Appellant (accused 1) and Accused 2. The trial court convicted Appellant under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and acquitted Accused 2. 

The bench noted that the files had not reached the office of A1 yet and the question for sanction would not even arise yet. Further, the bench emphasized that all witnesses had turned hostile and the sole evidence for the prosecution was the report provided by the independent mediator could not be established. It also noted that in State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha which was relied by the prosecution, the demand was tape recorded and Supreme Court found that the burden was on the accused to rebut the prosecution that the bribe was a legal fee or for repayment of loan. Hence the court noted that in the present case facts were different. 

“The defacto complainant and all other beneficiaries have turned hostile. No instruments were used to record video or audio during trap proceedings. The entry of P.W.2 into the house of A1 on the date of trap is doubtful as already discussed,” it said. 

Thus, the appeal filed by Appellant was allowed and the appeal filed by the State was dismissed.

Case title: B.Balkishan vs. The State ACB, CIU Range AND The State rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, CIU Range vs Shaik Waheeduddin

Counsel for accused: Vinod Kumar Deshpande, Senior Counsel

Counsel for State: Special PP T Bala Mohan Reddy Assisted by Mohammad Nazeeruddin Khan

Click Here To Read/Download Order