Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Telangana High Court, in a significant verdict, has reversed an order of conviction and acquitted E. Rama Rao, a public servant working in the Water Works Department, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court, while delivering its decision, upheld the view that “mere recovery of amount divorced from the circumstances cannot be held to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe.”

The court, presided over by Justice K. Surender, was hearing a plea challenging the decision of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at the City Civil Court in Hyderabad which convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

The case commenced when the complainant (P.W.1), lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), alleging corrupt practices within the Water Works Department. P.W.1, a contractor within the department, contended that he undertook maintenance tasks, such as leakage maintenance and wall chowkage in the Jeedimetla Section, which fell under the jurisdiction of the appellant. The complainant claimed that upon completing his assignments, he would request the appellant to document them in the M Book for billing purposes. However, on December 26, 2006, the appellant purportedly demanded Rs. 20,000 for preparing estimates and bills, subsequently reducing the amount to Rs. 16,000.

Following the complaint, a trap operation was set in motion upon his filing with the ACB on January 2, 2007. On January 3, 2007, accompanied by the complainant, the trap party convened at the ACB office before proceeding to the appellant's office. Upon meeting the appellant, the complainant spent approximately an hour before signalling to the trap party the alleged acceptance of the bribe. The trap party then entered the room, discovering the appellant with the bribe amount in his left shirt pocket. Documents pertaining to the complainant's works were seized during subsequent post-trap proceedings.

During the trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses and documentary evidence. In defence, an independent individual, testified that the complainant thrust the bribe amount upon the appellant during the trap operation. Furthermore, the appellant submitted an explanation, refuting any involvement in corrupt activities and contending that the bribe was intentionally thrust upon him due to a dispute over illegal tap connections.

The counsel representing the appellant, C.Sharan Reddy, argued that the prosecution failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the complainant had indeed executed the eight works mentioned in the complaint. Referring to the testimony of the General Manager (P.W.6), it was emphasised that works were typically entrusted to individuals only after obtaining permission. However, the complainant did not possess any such permissions. Both the general manager and Investigating Officer (P.W.8) admitted that no permission slips were issued to the complainant.

Furthermore, it was highlighted that the complainant himself acknowledged during cross-examination that there was no evidence to prove his execution of the eight works.

Moreover, the appellant argued that the reason behind this action and the false implication of the appellant stemmed from the confrontation between the appellant and the complainant over alleged illegal tap connections.

Citing precedents set in the cases of Banshi Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar and State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao, the appellant argued that  a bribe being thrust upon the accused doesn't inherently imply guilt. Moreover, corroboration of the complainant's testimony regarding the allegation of demand is vital for the prosecution's case to stand.

In contrast, the Special Public Prosecutor Sridhar Chikyala, representing the ACB argued that when the defence of thrusting is invoked, a presumption arises, and the appellant failed to refute this presumption adequately. It was further contended that “Merely suggesting that amount was thrust is not enough. The circumstances indicate that the amount was seized from the pocket of the appellant. If the amount was seized from the pocket, the question of thrusting would not arise.”

After hearing both parties, the court deliberated on the evidence presented. It was noted that the demand for the bribe stemmed from the alleged execution of eight works by the complainant. However, crucial details regarding these works, such as their nature and execution, were not provided by the complainant or investigated thoroughly by the authorities. Despite assertions by the complainant, no evidence was presented to substantiate the completion of these works or the pending amounts owed for them.

Crucially, witnesses from the appellant's office, including the General Manager, did not corroborate the prosecution's claims regarding the execution of works or pending payments to the complainant. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational element of the alleged demand for bribe. Without proof of the completion of the works and the outstanding payments, the complaint and subsequent recovery of the amount during the trap operation were deemed insufficient to convict the appellant.

The court invoked Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, suggesting that the prosecution's failure to provide evidence or investigate the purported works raises doubts. “Adverse inference has to be drawn against prosecution in the present circumstances regarding demand of bribe,” the court said.

The court observed that the independent witness had testified that on the date of the trap, the alleged bribe amount was thrust into the appellant's shirt pocket. Additionally, the appellant provided an explanation and the General Manager, highlighted differences between the complainant and the appellant, particularly regarding illegal tap connections provided by the complainant. Given the prosecution's failure to establish the demand for the bribe, the court noted that “The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand. In the circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.”

Emphasising that convictions cannot be based on conjecture or insufficient evidence, the judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

 

Cause Title : E. Rama Rao V State of AP [CRLA 442 of 2013]