Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Acquittal Of Two Police Officials Accused Of Corruption, Notes Complainant Deviated From Trap Proceedings

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently upheld the acquittal of two public servants accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act ("PC Act"), observing that the de facto complaint deviated from trap proceedings and the chain of evidence was incomplete.

Justice AV Ravindra Babu passed the judgment in respect of a sub-inspector of police (AO1) and a constable (AO2), accused of offences under Sections 7,12 and 13 of the PC Act for having allegedly demanded bribe from a worker at a wine shop.

It was noted that the de facto complainant's (PW1) hands had been in contact with the powder used to taint the trap money. However, despite strict instructions to not deviate from the trap proceedings, he signed summons served on him by one of the accused, who allegedly accepted the bribe on behalf of the other accused.

"...according to the case of prosecution, strict instructions were given to PW.1 by the trap party to act strictly in accordance with the instructions without any deviations. PW.1 had every knowledge that his hands contacted with phenolphthalein substance prior to the so-called payment of amount to AO-2 or after payment of tainted amount. When that is the situation, he was not supposed to put his signatures on the papers, when requested by AO-2. The theory of signing summons was not introduced during the course of post-trap proceedings. In anticipation of the defence by AO-2 as the amount was not recovered from his physical possession... So the manner in which the amount was recovered from AO-2 is not believable."

The prosecution case was that AO1 had demanded a bribe of Rs.3,300/- from PW1 in the year 2000, in respect of which a complaint was filed before the ACB and trap proceedings planned. When in course of trap proceedings, PW1 proceeded to give the bribe to AO1, he asked PW1 to give the same to AO2. After AO2 accepted the bribe, PW1 signaled the ACB officers, who entered the station and found the tainted amount lying on the floor. The tainted money had prints of AO2 but not AO1. AO2's hands tested positive for phenolphthalein powder.

As the Special Judge acquitted the accused, the State preferred the appeal and urged that PW1 supported the prosecution case. It was added that the chemical tests conducted on AO2's hands and pant pocket yielded positive result.

After hearing rival submissions, the court upheld the acquittal of the accused noting that AO1 had registered various complaints against PW1, PW4 (owner of the wine shop) and their associates. As such, there was a possibility that they bore grudges against the official.

It was observed that the prosecution failed to establish a nexus between AO1 and AO2. Moreover, the panch-witnesses had turned hostile and the tainted amount was statedly recovered from the floor and not from any officer's body.

The court further noted that PW1 did not disclose in the post trap proceedings that on the date of the trap, he endorsed the summons served to him by AO2. The same was only brought up during deposition. As PW1 admitted that after he handed the bribe over to AO2, AO2 served him summons which he signed and handed back to AO2, who put them in his right pant pocket, the court came to the conclusion that the phenolphthalein powder could have transferred from hands of PW1 to the summons, and then to the hands and pocket of AO2.

"So, when AO-2 kept the served summons into the right side trouser pocket, there is every possibility that the inner linings of the pant of AO-2 may yield positive So, virtually as the evidence was lacking that amount was recovered from the physical possession of AO-2, various circumstances referred to above probabilize a theory that AO-2 might have contacted with phenolphthalein powder to his hands and to his right side trouser pocket during the course of service of summons to PW.1."

Accordingly, State's appeal was dismissed.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 2008

Counsel for appellant (State): Advocate SM Subhani

Counsels for respondents (accused police officers): Advocates Sreekanth Reddy Ambati (for respondent No.1) and Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava (for respondent No.2)

Click Here To Read/Download Order