9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand has also been stated. The essential ingredient of demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution based on the factum of the case. It has been witnessed by the key eye witnesses and their testimonies have also been corroborated by other material witnesses. The offence Under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the unchallenged recovery of the tainted amount. Thus, it is the obligation to raise the presumption mandated by Section 20 of P.C. Act. It is for the accused Respondent to rebut the presumption, by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence, that the money recovered was not a reward or motive as mentioned Under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Thus, the accused Respondent has not successfully rebutted the presumption Under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The prosecution, on the other hand, has established the demand and acceptance of the tainted money. The recovery also has gone unchallenged. The appeal is allowed. - Hon'ble Judges Pinaki Chandra Ghose and U.U. Lalit, JJ. For the Appellant : S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Advs. and D. Mahesh Babu, Adv. (NP) For the Respondents : T. Anamika and B.V. Chandan, Advs. JUDGME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the office of the Respondent and gave the Will deed to the Respondent, who after examining the Will deed, obtained the signatures of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 K. Srinivas Rao, who were present there. When the complainant enquired about the registration fee of the document, the Respondent said it would amount to Rs. 81/-. The complainant took out Rs. 81/- from inner pocket of his banian (vest) and gave it to Respondent, who placed it in the table drawer. Thereafter, he prepared a receipt and handed it over to the complainant. It was subsequently alleged that the Respondent demanded the bribe of Rs. 500/- and that the complainant took out the tainted amount from his shirt pocket and gave it to the Respondent, who kept the amount in the table drawer. Then P.W. 1 came out of the office and gave the pre-arranged signal, pursuant to which the trap party entered into the office and P.W. 8 - the Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACB) asked the Respondent whether he has received the bribe amount to which the Respondent denied. Then the phenolphthalein test was performed on fingers of both the hands of the Respondent and the test on the right hand fingers prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord the statement of the so called complainant Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution got the statement of P.W. 1 recorded, but not that of the complainant, Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the High Court noticed that it was not imperative in the instant case. The alleged trap was dated 21.3.1995 and the complainant died on 10.6.1997. Thus, the prosecution cannot take the plea that the complainant was not available for the recording of statement Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. Another circumstance favouring the accused as noticed by the High Court was that whether it was necessary for the complainant to execute a Will in favour of his wife. The High Court was of the view that the complainant was a petty vendor, having no legal heirs, with only a second wife. In such a situation the property would automatically devolve upon her and there was no necessity to execute a Will deed. The Court was of the view that the positive result of the phenolphthalein test was not enough to hold the accused guilty. The High Court observed that it was not disputed that the complainant was carrying one set of amount in his banian pocket and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le drawer in the office of Respondent. The evidence of P.W. 1 makes it clear that on 21.3.1995, he went to the house of the complainant where he was informed that the de facto complainant had given a complaint against the A.O. for demanding a sum of Rs. 500/-. Both of them went to the Penuballi Guest house, where they were introduced to the mediator (P.W. 7) by the D.S.P. (P.W. 8) and was given instructions regarding the trap. His evidence further showed that after the Will was presented and registration fee paid, the A.O. demanded from the de facto complainant to pay the bribe amount. From the evidence of P.W. 2, it becomes clear that on 21.3.1995, he went to the office of the M.R.O. on account of personal work and was reckoned by Bora Venkateshwara Rao and P.W. 1 to attest the Will Deed. His evidence further goes to show that he accompanied P.W. 1 and de facto complainant to the office of the A.O. where he witnessed that the A.O. firstly collected the registration fee of Rs. 81/- and later demanded and accepted the tainted amount. He has thus fully corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 on the question of presence, on the question of signing as identifying witness and also on the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has and then it can be held by the court that the prosecution has proved the accused received the amount towards gratification. In the instant case, the defense has raised various presumptions to disprove the prosecution case. However, it has not been able to adduce evidence before us, on the basis of which the presumption Under Section 20 of P.C. Act could be rebutted. 12. On the question of demand, learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that the allegations in the complaint with regard to prior demand were false as the A.O. was on election duty on 9.3.1995 and 10.3.1995. The defense contended that the bribe was made for the first time on 9th or 10th of March 1995 as alleged in the complaint. The defense has tried to take the plea of alibi. However, in the complaint the exact date of visit is not mentioned. On the basis of an approximation, we ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derabad, in C.C. No. 10 of 1996, convicting the accused Respondent Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and sentence him to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment under each count and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under each count, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under each count. Both the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. This appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit. 16. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment as follows: Thus, the accused Respondent has not successfully rebutted the presumption Under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The prosecution, on the other hand, has established the demand and acceptance of the tainted money. The recovery also has gone unchallenged. Therefore, we strike down the order of acquittal passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2000. We restore the judgment and order dated 24.1.2000 rendered by the Principle Special Judge for SPE ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
