CASE TITLE:
Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi V. The State Of A.P.
DATE OF ORDER:
10 JULY 2024
BENCH:
J. Br Gavai And J. Sandeep Mehta
PARTIES:
APPELLANT- Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi
RESPONDENTS- The State Of A.P.
SUBJECT
The case involves an appeal by a Forest Section Officer (AO1) against his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. AO1 was accused of extorting bribe money from Mukka Ramesh (PW-1), leading to a trap operation where he was caught accepting a bribe. The trial court convicted AO1 and AO2, but only AO1's conviction was upheld by the High Court. AO1 argued the case was fabricated, citing lack of independent evidence, inconsistencies, and procedural lapses. The High Court's dismissal of AO1's appeal was challenged through a special leave petition. Ultimately, the Court found significant doubts in the prosecution's evidence, leading to AO1's acquittal and the quashing of previous judgments.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
1. Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
2. Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Criminal misconduct by a public servant, which includes obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for any person without any public interest or by corrupt or illegal means.
3. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Punishment for criminal misconduct by a public servant.
4. Section 313: Power to examine the accused.
FACTS
1. The appeal centers on Accused Officer No.1 (AO1) contesting his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. AO1, a Forest Section Officer, allegedly extorted bribe money from Mukka Ramesh (PW-1) in connection with teakwood discovered at PW-1's saw-mill, with demands for ongoing payments prompting PW-1 to file a complaint. AO1 was apprehended accepting a bribe at a hotel during a trap operation, leading to his conviction by the trial court. The High Court upheld AO1's conviction while acquitting AO2. During the trap, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-10) confronted AO1 after receiving a signal from PW-2. AO1's hand, tested with sodium carbonate solution, revealed contact with marked currency. AO1 confessed to accepting Rs. 5,000 as a compounding fee and disclosed the bribe money in a rexine bag, corroborated by witness PW-3's verification of marked currency notes. Seized items, including the rexine bag and related documents, were examined post-trap, documented in memorandum (Exhibit P-11).
2. The case proceeded with prosecution obtaining sanction and filing a charge sheet against Accused Officer No. 1 (AO1) and AO2 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During trial, 11 witnesses and 19 documents were presented along with 8 material objects to substantiate the case. Both accused denied the charges during their statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, with AO1 claiming innocence and alleging that PW-1 planted tainted currency in his bag due to previous grievances. After considering arguments from both sides, the trial court convicted AO1 and AO2 on August 5, 2008, for accepting bribes and other charges as described earlier.
3. In the case, both Accused Officer No. 1 (AO1) and AO2 appealed the trial court's judgment to the High Court of Telangana. AO2's appeal was successful, resulting in his acquittal. However, AO1's appeal was dismissed by the High Court on August 2, 2022. This dismissal of AO1's appeal is now being challenged through a special leave petition in the present proceedings.
ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT
1. In defense of the appellant (AO1), senior counsel Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu argued vigorously that the entire prosecution case was fabricated and lacked convincing evidence. He criticized the Trap Laying Officer, DySP G. Ramachander (PW-10), for failing to substantiate the alleged bribe demand with independent or tangible evidence. Naidu highlighted that no effort was made to record telephonic conversations between AO1 and PW-1, nor was a recording device placed on PW-1 during the trap to verify the bribe demand. Additionally, he pointed out the absence of independent witnesses apart from PW-2 to corroborate events during the trap.
2. Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu, senior counsel for the appellant AO1, presented a robust defense arguing multiple points to undermine the prosecution's case. Firstly, he highlighted admissions from the cross-examination of complainant Mukka Ramesh (PW-1), where PW-1 admitted to handling AO1's rexine bag, suggesting an opportunity for PW-1 to plant tainted currency notes. Naidu emphasized the lack of forensic testing on AO1's hand wash to corroborate the handling of marked currency, criticizing the reliance on testimonies from PW-1 and PW-2, whom he deemed biased and unreliable. He raised concerns about the absence of an independent shadow witness during the trap operation, accusing PW-1 of arranging evidence manipulation with PW-2 and implicating PW-10 in collusion. Naidu asserted that these factors collectively undermined the credibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding the alleged bribe demand and acceptance by AO1.
3. Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu, senior counsel for the appellant AO1, raised compelling arguments during the appeal hearing. Firstly, he highlighted discrepancies in the call detail records (CDR) between AO1 and complainant Mukka Ramesh (PW-1), pointing out that only two calls were exchanged around the time of the alleged bribe demand, contrary to PW-1's claims of multiple calls from AO1. Naidu asserted that this inconsistency seriously undermines the credibility of the prosecution's case. Secondly, he emphasized a crucial admission from PW-1's testimony where PW-1 acknowledged offering a bribe to AO1 at Hotel Quality-Inn, which AO1 refused. Naidu argued that this admission directly contradicts the prosecution's narrative that AO1 demanded or accepted a bribe, further weakening their case. He urged the Court to consider these factors and overturn the lower court judgments, advocating for AO1's acquittal on all charges.
RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS
1. The standing counsel for the State presented a robust rebuttal to the defense arguments in the appeal filed by AO1, the Forest Section Officer. It was argued that AO1 had initially imposed a hefty fine of Rs. 50,000 on the complainant's saw-mill and subsequently threatened further punitive actions that could adversely affect PW-1's business unless a monthly bribe of Rs. 5,000 was paid. These allegations were substantiated by the consistent testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. The counsel emphasized that during the post-trap proceedings, AO1 confessed to receiving money from PW-1, claiming it was a compounding fee for a fabricated case. This admission, according to the State's counsel, directly contradicts AO1's defense that PW-1 planted tainted currency notes in his rexine bag. Both the trial court and the High Court, the counsel argued, rightfully dismissed AO1's defense as implausible and upheld his conviction based on incriminating evidence presented during the proceedings.
2. The State's counsel contended that AO1 failed to provide a credible explanation for the tainted currency notes found in his rexine bag and the presence of phenolphthalein on his fingers. Consequently, the trial court rightly convicted AO1, and the High Court justifiably affirmed this conviction. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the impugned judgments.
COURTS ANALYSIS
1. The Court thoroughly reviewed the submissions and judgments in the appeal, focusing on the legal principles surrounding the use of circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for illegal gratification. Referring to the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724], the Court emphasized the necessity of proving demand and acceptance under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It noted that while the complainant alleged a demand for a bribe by AO1 and AO2 based on a fine imposed on his sawmill, the pre-trap proceedings conducted by DySP (PW-10) lacked independent verification of this demand. This oversight, coupled with the involvement of a close friend of the complainant as a shadow witness, raised concerns about the fairness and reliability of the trap operation organized against AO1.
2. In the ongoing case, significant doubts have been raised regarding the actions of DySP (PW-10) and the credibility of key witnesses in implicating the appellant (AO1) in bribery charges. Testimonies from witnesses, including N. Chandrasekhar (PW-11), and evidence surrounding M. Ashok's involvement suggest inconsistencies and potential manipulations in the trap proceedings. The complainant (PW-1) alleged events that were not fully corroborated, such as conflicting accounts of bribe demands and discrepancies in call records. Moreover, crucial evidence, like the lack of forensic testing on AO1's hands and belongings, raises doubts about the prosecution's case. Overall, these factors cast doubt on the integrity of the allegations against AO1, highlighting deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence and the need for a more thorough investigation into the background of the accusations.
JUDGEMENT
After a thorough analysis, the court found that the prosecution's case against the appellant (AO1) for demanding and accepting a bribe lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence. The involvement of M. Ashok as a panch witness raised doubts about the integrity and motive behind the case, suggesting it may have been deliberated against AO1. As a result, the court concluded that it was unsafe to convict AO1 based on the unreliable evidence presented. Consequently, the appellant (AO1) has been acquitted of all charges, the previous judgments have been quashed, and AO1, currently on bail, is not required to surrender. The appeal has been allowed, and any pending applications have been disposed of.
CONCLUSION
The Court's meticulous examination of the case against Accused Officer No. 1 (AO1) led to the conclusion that the prosecution's evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions, casting significant doubt on its reliability. Key concerns included the involvement of M. Ashok as a panch witness and the lack of independent verification of the bribe demand by DySP (PW-10). These factors suggested the possibility of planning against AO1, particularly given the complainant's personal grievances and the questionable integrity of the trap proceedings. Consequently, the Court found it unsafe to convict AO1 based on such unreliable evidence, leading to his acquittal and the quashing of previous judgments. The decision underscores the necessity of credible, unbiased evidence in corruption cases and highlights procedural shortcomings in the investigation, reinforcing the importance of thorough and impartial legal processes in upholding justice.
