V. VENKATA SUBBARAO versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 12-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
V.VENKATASUBBARAO 
A 
v. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P. 
DECEMBER 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
s.20-Demand of illegal gratification made by a Manda/ Revenue Officer c 
(MRO) for allowing PW-3 to cut and remove casurina trees-Intervention by 
appellant resulting in reduction of amount to Rs.2000-Trap laid-Offer 
alleged to have been made to appellant which he accepted and caught red 
handed-Acquittal by trial court-Conviction by High Court-On appeal, 
held, an innocent officer falsely implicated on account of animosity-
Illegalities committed in the trap proceedings are galore-Trap proceeding D 
envisages secrecy and not a wide publicity-Trap party consisting of 8 
persons-No explanation as to why services of an unknown person, were 
taken-In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the 
presumption under s.20 would not arise-Conviction set aside. 
Prosecution case was that a demand of Rs. 5000 was made by a Manda! E 
Revenue Officer (MRO) for allowing PW-3 to cut and remove casurina trees. 
The land on which these trees were standing was purchased by PW-3 from 
PW-2. The MRO restrained PW-3 from cutting the trees on the premise 
that_ the part of said land belonged to the Government :While the talks were 
going on, the appellant who was working as a Surveyor in the Mandal Revenue F 
Office, allegedly, intervened and asked him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-. On 
the basis of the complaint, a purported pre-trap proceedings started. The trap 
party consisting of 8 persons, allegedly started for the village of which 
Appellant was a resident. They reached the village in the evening. The 
informant did not know the location of the residential house of the appellant. 
According to P.W.2, an unknown person examined as DW-1 had led them G 
thereto. Offer of the said sum of Rs.2000/- was, allegedly, made to the 
~ 
appellant by way of gratification, which he allegedly accepted. He is said to 
have been caught red handed. 
The appellant categorically took the plea of false implication stating that 
729 
H 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A he had animosity with the local M.L.A 'Y' and the Sarpanch 'R' who nurtured 
grudge against him for not granting pattas to him. The raid was conducted 
at the instance of 'R'. The Special Judge acquitted the appellant On appeal, 
High Court held that the tainted money had been recovered from the possession 
of the appellant and that he had abetted the offence which is also punishable 
B with equal rigour. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Apparently an innocent officer appears to have been 
prosecuted for no fault on his part. PW.2 had sold away his land to P.W.3. 
The casurina growth was being cut by its owner, namely, P.W.3. The 
C purported obstruction in his activity came from the MRO and not from the 
appellant. A complaint was made against four persons, the MRO being one 
of them. Indisputably, it was the MRO who had asked for the said sum. PW.2, 
although, went to the said MRO continuously for a few days, no attempt was 
made by him to offer the sum to the said officer himself. The complaint was 
D made 15 days after the alleged demand. Jn the meanwhile, the casurina growth 
was cut and removed by PW.3 without any further hindrance purported to be 
relying on or on the basis of the assurances made by P.W.2 that the dispute 
had been settled. (735-B-D] 
1.2. The purported role played by the appellant, when the demand was 
E made by the MRO, was said to be a mere intervention resulting in reduction 
of the amount of demand from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/- which could not be 
substantiated. It is not the case of the prosecution that he demanded any sum 
for himself. If the casurina growth had already been cut and lifted by P. W.2, 
question of any demand being persisted would not arise. The deliberate and 
F planned manner in which the trap is said to have been made; the purported 
demand mad~ by the MRO and the role played by the appellant, betrays all 
comprehensions. The prosecution did not explain as to why the complaint 
had been made after 15 days. No evidence has been led as to on what basis 
P.W.2 could assure P.W.3 that he had already talked to the MRO, and thus 
the latter could remove the casurina growth, which he did. The Special Judge 
G found the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 wholly unreHable, inter alia, on the 
ground that they had

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.