“Doubts About Manner in Which Trap Was Laid”: Telangana High Court Acquits Revenue Official, Sets Aside Corruption Conviction Due to Procedural Irregularities and Inconsistent Evidence
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, Single Bench of Justice K. Surender acquitted a Special Revenue Inspector who had earlier been convicted by a trial court under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and one year for the respective offences. Upon appeal, the conviction was set aside on the basis of procedural lapses, evidentiary inconsistencies, and the resulting benefit of doubt.
The appeal was filed by L. Venkateshwara Rao, who at the time of the alleged incident was serving as Special Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Himayatnagar Mandal. According to the prosecution, the complainant, examined as P.W.1, held the General Power of Attorney for one Nawab Mohd. Kabiruddin Khan. On August 4, 2003, he submitted an application at the MRO office for certified copies of Fasil Pahani documents related to Survey Nos. 1355 and 1356 situated in Sy.No.2002/2, Bagh Lingampally, Hyderabad.
P.W.1 stated that after waiting for a month without any response, he approached the MRO office again and was referred by the Deputy MRO, T. Damodar Reddy (P.W.4), to the appellant. P.W.1 claimed that the appellant instructed him to return after three days. Upon doing so, the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.500 as a bribe to process the issuance of the requested documents.
On November 3, 2003, P.W.1 approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), P.W.7, and filed a written complaint (Ex.P1). The next day, P.W.1 returned with the marked currency notes for trap proceedings. The ACB registered an FIR (Ex. P7) after verifying the complaint's content. P.W.7 introduced P.W.5, an independent mediator, and another person as witnesses, and pre-trap proceedings were conducted and documented as Ex. P2.
At approximately 5:00 p.m. on November 4, 2003, the trap team, along with P.W.1 and P.W.2, who was allegedly picked up from Gandhi Bhavan Bus Stop, proceeded to the MRO office. P.W.1 handed over Rs.500 to the appellant, who reportedly placed the money in his left pant pocket. P.W.3, another official present in the room, asked the appellant for Rs.200, which was then handed to him from the same pocket. P.W.3 allegedly passed this amount to P.W.4. Following a pre-arranged signal, the ACB team entered the premises.
Subsequent tests for phenolphthalein powder showed positive results on the hands of both the appellant and P.W.3. Upon questioning, the appellant produced Rs.300 and stated that he had given Rs.200 to P.W.3. Further proceedings were conducted under Ex. P5, including a follow-up to recover the Rs.200 from P.W.4. When the trap party reached his residence, P.W.4 was not present, but he returned at 8:30 p.m. Sodium carbonate tests on his hands were negative, but positive results were recorded on his pant pocket and car steering wheel. P.W.4 claimed that he had thrown the money into the Musi River.
The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and presented documentary evidence through Exs.P1 to P10 and material objects MOs.1 to 16. The defence examined two witnesses: D.W.1, C. Rajender, a circumstantial witness initially enlisted by the prosecution but later examined by the defence, and D.W.2, the appellant himself. The defence also submitted Ex. D1, an alternate complaint dated November 4, 2003, in which the bribe amount was mentioned as Rs.1,000 instead of Rs.500.
D.W.1 stated that on the trap date, he entered the MRO office at around 5:00 p.m. to inquire about his application. He observed P.W.3 handing over Rs.300 to the appellant, who then kept the amount in his pocket. Shortly afterward, ACB officials entered. D.W.2, the appellant, testified that the money he received from P.W.3 was a hand loan repayment and that he was on leave on the date of the alleged demand, i.e., November 3, 2003. This was corroborated by Ex. P8, the attendance register.
Justice K. Surender noted multiple procedural inconsistencies and evidentiary gaps. The judgment recorded: "According to Ex. P8-attendance register, the appellant was on leave on 03.11.2003." The Court further remarked: "P.W.1 admitted that he gave Ex. D1 on 04.11.2003. The complaint Ex. P1 was already given on 03.11.2003. No reason is given as to why another complaint, Ex. D1, was given on 04.11.2003."
On the role of P.W.2, who was stated to be a witness to the trap, the Court noted discrepancies in the timeline. The judgment observed: "According to P.W.2, one ACB constable met him at 2.15 p.m., and he was taken to the ACB office at 4.15 p.m. The first mediators’ report/Ex. P2 was drafted at 4.00 p.m on 04.11.2003. However, the name of P.W.2 is not mentioned in Ex. P2."
Regarding the role of P.W.5, the independent mediator, the Court referred to his inconsistent statements. Initially, P.W.5 could not recall who produced the relevant documents (Ex. P3 and Ex. P10), but after being allowed to review the post-trap proceedings, he stated that the appellant had produced the documents. The Court held: "Learned Special Judge had committed an error in permitting P.W.5 to go through the second mediators’ report after he deposed that he does not remember who produced Exs.P3 and P10."
The Court elaborated on the application of the Indian Evidence Act in such situations, stating: "Under Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, once the examination-in-chief is complete, the question of ‘further chief-examination’ does not arise." It further clarified: "To overcome such confined scope of re-examination, permitting the prosecution to conduct further chief-examination is not the procedure that can be followed and is contradictory to the scheme of examination of witnesses under Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act."
The judgment acknowledged the conflicting narratives: "There are two versions, one presented by the prosecution... On the other hand, the defence of the appellant is that D.W.1-C. Rajener... stated that P.W.3 entered the chambers of the appellant and handed over Rs.300/- as repayment for an earlier loan." The Court remarked on the failure to recover the Rs.200 allegedly passed to P.W.4 and found P.W.4’s claim of discarding the money in the Musi River as insufficiently supported.
The trial court’s reliance on a partially recovered amount and contradictory witness statements led to doubts about the bribe demand itself. The Court recorded: "These circumstances create doubt regarding the correctness of the prosecution version... especially when P.W.1 admits to submitting two complaints-Ex. P1... and Ex. D1... but was suppressed by the prosecution."
The Court found the presence of unexplained discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution case sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
The Court stated: "The judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.43 of 2005 dated 07.12.2010 is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted." It further directed: "Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor
Case Title: L. Venkateshwara Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.1567 of 2010
Bench: Justice K. Surender
[Read/Download order]
