Prosecution Failed To Prove Bribery Demand Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Telangana HC Sets Aside Conviction Of Assistant Engineer In Corruption Case
The Telangana High Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Assistant Engineer questioning his conviction granted by Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts.

The Telangana High Court has acquitted an Assistant Engineer accused in corruption case on the ground that prosecution failed to prove demand of bribery beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Assistant Engineer questioning his conviction granted by Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts.
The single-bench of Justice K. Surender observed, "The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A1 demanded bribe. P.W.1/complainant and P.Ws.3 to 11 beneficiaries have turned hostile. Further, as already discussed, there was no official work pending with A1. The prosecution cannot rely on the recovery of the amount from the appellant as the basis to infer demand."
The Appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Vinod Kumar Deshpande while the Respondent was represented by Special Public Prosecutor.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant was working as an Assistant Engineer and the acquitted Accused No.2 worked as Work Inspector in A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited. According to the defacto complainant/P.W.1, there were 22 persons in their Thanda who were sanctioned houses under Indiramma Adarsha Grama Housing Scheme. They started construction of their houses and three beneficiaries received 15 bags of cement and 7 beneficiaries received 10 bags of cement and the rest of the beneficiaries did not receive either cement, rice or cash components in accordance with the scheme. P.W.1/defacto complainant approached A1 and requested him to release housing scheme benefits that have to be issued to them. A1 demanded Rs.11,000/- to be paid at the rate of Rs.500/- each from each of the 22 beneficiaries. A1 instructed that the amount should be paid to A2 for releasing the cement, rice and cash to be credited into the beneficiaries account. Though P.W.1 and others pleaded to release amount, however, A1 insisted that Rs.7,000/- should be paid initially. The said demand was reiterated on 02.03.2007 by A2.
P.W.1 along with other relatives approached ACB officials and lodged a complaint on the basis of which the DSP conducted trap proceedings leading to investigation and to the eventual conviction of the Appellant. Special Judge having examined the evidence placed on record by the prosecution found that A1 was alone guilty and acquitted A2.
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that P.W.1/complainant and other beneficiaries of the scheme have all turned hostile to the prosecution case. It was further submitted that other than the tainted evidence of the interested witnesses P.W.2 and DSP/P.W.16, nothing was placed on record to suggest that there was any demand or acceptance of bribe by A1 or A2 and in fact, the name of P.W.1’s wife was not mentioned in the booklet as the beneficiary, as such, complaint itself becomes doubtful. It was his contention that the Appellant was falsely implicated in the case.
On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB submitted that though, P.W.1 turned hostile to the prosecution case, the other circumstances including the evidence of the independent witness P.W.2 would go to show that there was demand and acceptance by A1. Reliance was placed on State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha.
Reasoning By Court
The Court after examining the details of the case, referred to Supreme Court's judgement in N.Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu wherein it was held that unless the demand aspect is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the question of relying on recovery of the amount, to prove the case against appellant is unacceptable. It also referred to P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P. wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that mere acceptance of any amount dehors proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home charge under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
The Court concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A1 demanded bribe. It also found facts of the present case to be different from Chandrasha’s case (supra) as cited by the Special Public Prosecutor.
"The facts in the present case differ. The defacto complainant and all other beneficiaries have turned hostile. No instruments were used to record video or audio during trap proceedings. The entry of P.W.2 into the house of A1 on the date of trap is doubtful as already discussed," the Court observed.
The Court accordingly allowed the Appeal of the A1.
Cause Title: B. Balkishan vs. The State ACB
Appearances:
Appellant- Senior Advocate Vinod Kumar Deshpande, Advocate Damodar Mundra
Respondent- Special Public Prosecutor
Click here to read/ download Order