Billa Nagul Sharief vs State Of A.P

appellant made it clear that the licence shall be given to the de

facto-complainant only when he pays the bribe of Rs.3,000/-.

On de facto-complainant's repeated request the appellant

agreed to deliver the composite licence on payment of reduced

amount of bribe of Rs.2,500/- with further stipulation that the

said amount be paid within two days. De facto-complainant

pretended to pay the said amount to the appellant but in fact

he was not willing to pay the bribe. Hence, de facto-

complainant met PW.4, J.B. Haskarna Rao, on 6.1.1997 at 7

p.m., who was working as Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption

Bureau, Guntur and lodged a report. De facto-complainant

was asked to come on 8.1.1997 along with the bribe amount.

As instructed, on 8.1.1997 de facto-complainant went to his

office where PW.3, M.V. Mallikarjuna Lingam and other

members of the trap party were present. De facto-complainant 5

produced 25 currency notes of 100 rupees each. The serial

numbers of the currency notes were noted and

phenolphthalein powder was applied over the currency notes.

De facto-complainant was instructed not to touch the

currency notes and to hand over the same to the appellant,

only when he makes such a demand.

6. Prosecution case further is that thereafter, the trap party

consisting of the de facto-complainant, PW.3 and PW.5,

D.V.S.S. Murthy went to the office of District Supply Officer

where de facto-complainant met the appellant at 12.20 p.m.

and enquired about his licence. The appellant asked as to

whether he had brought the bribe amount demanded by him

and when told that he had come with the amount, appellant

took him outside the room, stopped at the curve of the

staircase and demanded the amount. At this de facto-

complainant took out the currency notes from his shirt pocket

and gave it to the appellant who counted the same with both

hands and kept it in the left side of his trouser pocket.

Thereafter both of them went inside the office, appellant took

out the file from almirah, removed the licence granted in the 6

name of Ramakrishna Traders and gave it to the de facto-

complainant after obtaining the acknowledgment. As

instructed, de facto-complainant came out and gave the

signal. Immediately the trap party entered into the office,

apprehended the appellant and conducted phenolphthalein

test on his both hands which turned pink. According to the

prosecution the appellant removed the money from his pant

pocket and gave it to PW.5, D.V.S.S. Murthy, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police.

7. After usual investigation chargesheet was submitted and

the appellant was put on trial and charged for commission of

the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with

13(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant denied to have committed

any offence and claimed to be tried. From the trend of the

cross-examination and the witnesses examined on his behalf

his defence is of false implication and alibi.

8. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution

altogether examined five witnesses out of whom PW.1 happens

to be the de facto-complainant himself. PW.2, P. Sivarama

Krishna was working as the Superintendent in the office of the 7

District Supply Officer and had proved the application (Ex.P-5)

given by de facto-complainant for grant of composite licence.

He had also detailed various steps taken for grant of licence

and also proved the composite licence dated 6.1.1997, which

was delivered to the de facto-complainant. PW.3, M.V.

Mallikarjuna Lingam, is a member of the trap party and

witness to the recovery of the money from the appellant and

the colour of the solution getting pink when his fingers were

rinsed with it. PW.4, J.B. Haskarna Rao, at the relevant time

posted as Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau and to whom the

de facto-complainant met for the first time and narrated his

grievance. He conducted discreet enquiries and made

recommendation. He was also a member of the trap party.

PW.5, D.V.S.S. Murthy, was posted as Deputy Suprintendent

of Police in Anti Corruption Bureau and in his evidence, gave

details of pre-trap proceedings. He is also witness to the

recovery of the bribe money from the appellant. He has

deposed in detail the steps which he had taken leading to the

trap and also recorded the statement of the appellant. 8

9. Appellant in order to prove his innocence has examined

five witnesses. DW.1, K. Amma Mohana Rao, is a clerk

working with the Rice Millers Association and has stated that

at the request of the de facto-complainant he had filed his

application for doing pulses business in the office of the

District Supply Officer. He has also stated that the appellant

on perusal of the application informed him that the de facto-

complainant is required to deposit National Savings Bond and

he accordingly informed the de facto-complainant. DW.2,

Uppu Nagaratana Raju, at the relevant time was working as

Deputy Tahsildar in the office of District Supply Officer and

has stated about the altercation said to have taken place

between the appellant and de facto-complainant on

30.12.1996 in the office. Besides DW.2, DW.3, P. Mohana

Krishna and DW.4, Devarakanda Nagar Raju Rao who were at

the relevant time working as Junior Assistants in the office of

the District Supply Officer have also stated about the

altercation which had taken place between the appellant and

the de facto-complainant on 30.12.1996 between 3.15-3.30

p.m. DW.5, D.V. Ranga Rao, a Deputy Tahsildar working in 9

the office of the District Supply Officer had brought the

Treasury Book maintained by the District Supply Officer for

the financial year 1996-97. According to him the appellant

was authorized to present five bills on 30.12.1996 and the

appellant was further authorized to present two bills on

6.1.1997. According to him the appellant must have spent

three and a half hours in treasury on both the dates.

10. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court came to the

conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and

sentenced the appellant as above. The appeal preferred by the

appellant has been dismissed by the High Court.

11. Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel,

appears on behalf of the appellant and submits that according

to DW.1, K. Amma Mohana Rao, the application for grant of

composite licence was filed by him and, therefore, the story

put forth by the prosecution that it was filed by the de facto-

complainant is false. According to the learned counsel once

this story is disbelieved the entire prosecution case fails and

the appellant deserves to be acquitted. We do not find any 10

substance in the submission of Mr. Ranga Ramanujam.

De facto-complainant in his evidence has clearly stated that it

was he who had filed the application for grant of composite

licence. In his cross-examination he had denied the suggestion

that any body else presented the application in the office of the

District Supply Officer. In any view of the matter, we are of

the opinion that the gravamen of the charge against the

appellant being of taking bribe for giving the composite

licence, who presented the application for grant of composite

licence is not of much consequence. It is to be borne in mind

that discrepancy in regard to the part of the story itself does

not go to the root of the case but discrepancy in regard to the

material facts only has bearing to test the veracity of the

prosecution case. Here in the present case, there is ample

evidence on record that for the purpose of grant of composite

licence the appellant demanded bribe, which was paid to him

and recovered from his possession.

12. Mr. Ranga Ramanujam, then submits that according to

the prosecution the composite licence was ready on 6.1.1997

and had the appellant demanded bribe for giving the same to 11

the de facto-complainant, he ought to have made a complaint

to the District Supply Officer. His failure to do the same and

approaching the Anti Corruption Bureau, in his submission, is

absolutely unnatural. This submission has only been noted to

be rejected. The contention that grievance can remedied by the

superior officer in the hierarchy of the system of the

department concerned, if accepted, perhaps there shall be no

case in which the demand for bribe can be made. The feeling

of a common man that when the work is enshrined to different

persons bribe is demanded by one of them, when all are

invariably in collusion, cannot be lost sight of. If Senior

Officers ensure that the works of the citizens are done without

payment of bribe, Junior Officers and employee may abandon

the demand and this country would not have prominently

figured as one of the most corrupt nations of the World, as it is

widely accepted that the corruption flows from the top. Here

de facto-complainant, was entitled to have the composite

licence but he was not willing to pay the bribe demanded,

accordingly he had approached the Anti Corruption Bureau

and we do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of the 12

de facto-complainant.

13. Mr. Ranga Ramanujam has referred to the evidence of

the defence witnesses and contended that from their evidence

it is evident that the appellant was falsely implicated as the de

facto complainant had quarrelled with the appellant a few

days earlier to the date of occurrence. He also points out that

the defence witnesses have also deposed that on 6th of

January, 1997 when the appellant demanded the bribe money

and on 8th of January, 1997 when the trap was laid and the

bribe paid, the appellant was assigned the duty of presenting

bills in the treasury and, therefore, his presence on both the

dates is doubtful. He also refers to the evidence of the defence

witnesses wherein it has been stated that the money was

thrust in the pocket of the appellant. All these facts,

according to Mr. Ranga Ramanujam lead to the conclusion

that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case

beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. We have considered all these submissions and they do

not commend us. Defence witnesses have clearly stated that

the time which one may spend for presenting the bills could be 13

maximum three and a half hours. They have not stated in

their deposition that the appellant or for that matter anybody

presenting the bills have to remain in the treasury

continuously for three and a half hours. In the face of the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant

demanded bribe on 6.1.1997 and received the same on

8.1.1997 cannot be doubted on the ground that for few hours

the appellant was assigned the duty of presenting the bills in

the treasury. The alleged quarrel between the appellant and

the de facto-complainant on 30.12.1996 is also of no

consequence in view of the specific and consistent evidence

about the demand and payment of bribe unfolded by the

prosecution witnesses. The plea put forth by the appellant that

the money was thrust on his pocket is not fit to be believed in

the face of the categorical and consistent evidence of the

prosecution witnesses.

14

16. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and

it is dismissed accordingly.

........................................J. ( G.S. SINGHVI )

........................................J. ( C.K. PRASAD )

New Delhi, July 6, 2010.