* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
+ Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2006
%02.06.2014
Between:
B. Vidyasagar. Appellant AND The State of A.P Rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyd …. Respondent ! Counsel for Appellant : Sri K. Suresh Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 1980 (2) ALT Vol. XLII
2) AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1489 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.261 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/Accused Officer (A.O) against the judgment dated 31.01.2006 in C.C.No.23 of 1995 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad convicting him for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’) and sentencing him to suffer R.I for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo S.I for three months on two counts.
2) The factual matrix of the case, which led to file the instant appeal, can be stated thus:
a) The A.O—B.Vidya Sagar worked as Office Superintendent in the office of Superintending Engineer, Nettampadu and Kalwakurthy Lift Irrigation Scheme (NKLIS) Circle, Mahabubnagar.
K. Jangaiah (PW1) is a resident of Cheepununthala village of Mahabubnagar District. He attended the interview on 30.07.1993 at the office of the Superintending Engineer, NKLIS Circle, Mahabubnagar for the post of attender. On 28.01.1994, PW.1 received postcard asking him to meet the A.O at his residence in New Town, Mahabubnagar. Accordingly, PW.1 met the A.O at his residence in the month of January, 1994. Then the A.O demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for giving appointment order to PW.1 and obtained his original certificates. On 05.02.1994, PW.1 gave an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the A.O at his residence and requested to give appointment order and return his original certificates. The A.O insisted for payment of the balance amount in order to return his original certificates and gave the irrelevant appointment order to PW.1. On 09.02.1994, PW.1 again met the A.O and obtained his original appointment order. At that time also, A.O demanded the balance illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- to return the original certificates to PW.1.
b) Unwilling to pay the demanded bribe amount, PW1 approached DSP, ACB, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad on 17.02.1994 and lodged Ex.P.1—complaint, on whose strength a case in Cr.No.2/ACB-HR/94 was registered under Sections 7, 11 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d)(i) and (ii) of PC Act against the A.O and trap was organised on 18.02.1994.
c) On 18.02.1994, the DSP having followed pre-trap proceedings in the presence of two mediators PW.2 and Varadarajulu laid a trap on A.O at his residence. PW.1 on the instructions of the DSP(TLO) approached the house of A.O and on his further demand paid bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-. On receiving the amount, A.O handed over the amount to his wife (DW4) and she kept the amount in their bed room underneath the bed. A.O returned the original certificates (Ex.P.2) of PW.1. PW.1 came out and gave prearranged signal and the Trap party who were waiting outside, rushed inside and caught hold the A.O and conducted chemical test on his hands and on the hands of his wife and seized the tainted bribe amount. Post-trap proceedings were conducted and recorded under Section Ex.P.4. A.O was arrested and released on bail. On completion of investigation, PW8 laid charge-sheet. On appearance of AO, the trial court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) (i) and (ii) of PC Act and trial was conducted.
d) During trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 and MOs.1 to 9 were exhibited on behalf of prosecution. DWs.1 to 5 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of defence.
e) The defence plea is one of total denial of prosecution case. The A.O took the plea that he never demanded and accepted any bribe from A.O and on the date of trap also he did not demand and receive the bribe amount. His contention was that he was falsely implicated in this case by PW.1 at the instance of ACB Inspector and one Bazari.
f) On hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court believing the prosecution version came to conclusion that the A.O demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- for issuance of appointment order to PW.1, at the first instance he received Rs.6,000/- and later on the date of trap Rs.4,000/- as bribe from PW.1 to do an official favour and thus committed offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d)(i) and (ii) of PC Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.
Hence, the appeal by AO.
3) Heard arguments of Sri Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/AO and Sri M.B.Thimma Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Spl.P.P.) for ACB cases.
4) Impugning the judgment, learned counsel for appellant firstly argued that in a case of this nature, the prosecution must by cogent evidence establish all the vital ingredients such as the initial demand, acceptance of part payment of bribe and later, acceptance of the balance amount at the time of trap and the trap incidents, because all of them would constitute into one integrated story and one ingredient depends upon the other. Therefore, in such a case, sans the other vital ingredients, there will no be use in prosecution establishing only bare ingredients relating to trap and acceptance of the amount and chemical test etc. Mere proving of trap incident dehors the other vital ingredients will not lead success to the prosecution. On this aspect, he relied upon—
1) Kursheed Khan vs. State of A.P[1], wherein it was held thus:
“All the facts which are connected with the trap incident are vital parts of the prosecution story. The vital parts which consist of demand, part-payment and the trap incident are dependent upon each other. Hence the prosecution is bound to prove all these vital parts. If the demand and the part-payment said to have been made from out of the total amount demanded by the accused and agreed to be paid by the complainant have been disbelieved, then the trap incident, though proved, does not stand by itself. It cannot, therefore, form the basis of conviction, as it is not the case of the prosecution that the amount which was recovered from the accused was the amount that the accused had asked for from the complainant. There may be some suspicious circumstances against the accused. But they are of no consequence, if once the Court comes to the conclusion that the essential part of the prosecution case which provides the genesis of the case which the trap incident rests cannot be accepted.”
[2]
2) Hari Dev Sharma vs. State (Delhi Administration) , wherein it was held thus:
“But the main difficulty we feel in accepting the prosecution case arises out of the fact that the High Court disbelieved the part of it which, according to the prosecution, was the genesis of the case. Having disbelieved the story that the appellant had asked for a bribe of Rs.100/- of which Rs.20/- was paid in advance, we do not think the High Court could reasonably proceed on what was left of the prosecution case to affirm the order of the conviction passed by the trial court. The prosecution case was one integrated story which the trial court had accepted, If the High Court did not find it possible to accept a vital part of the story, it is difficult to see how the other part, which did not stand by itself, could be accepted. It was not the prosecution case that Rs.70/- which was recovered from the appellant was the amount that the appellant had asked for from the complainant. This was a new case made by the High Court.”
Commenting on the present case with reference to the above decisions, learned counsel would argue that in this case, the prosecution miserably failed to establish by cogent evidence the primary vital ingredients of demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- and acceptance of part payment of Rs.6,000/- by AO. He submitted that except the self-serving testimony of PW.1—the complainant, there is no corroboration for the alleged demand and part payment of the bribe amount. No other independent witness was present witnessing the demand or acceptance of the part bribe amount. PW.1’s testimony being highly inconsistent, it is not safe to rely upon the aforesaid vital ingredients. A.O was not the appointing authority to issue any appointment order and as alleged, he never invited PW.1 to his house for making initial demand of bribe and similarly he never received part payment of bribe. As such, the very genesis of the prosecution case is highly unrealistic and unbelievable. Such is the case, prosecution’s efforts to somehow prove the bare incident of trap with the help of PWs.2 and 7 and chemical tests cannot be accepted to convict the AO. The prosecution failed to prove even the trap incident also because at that juncture also except the highly interested testimony of PW.1, there is no other independent witness who accompanied and saw PW.1 paying the balance amount of bribe to AO. The A.O gave cogent explanation for his hands and his wife’s hands yielding positive result to the chemical tests and therefore, the chemical result is not a consequence at all. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to prove any of the vital ingredients.
b) Secondly, learned counsel argued that there is a severe lapse in the charges framed against the A.O as the two charges do not reveal that the bribe demanded was Rs.10,000/- but give an impression, what was demanded was only Rs.4,000/-. In view of this defect in the charges also, the A.O deserves acquittal.
He thus prayed to allow the appeal.
5 a) Per contra, supporting the judgment, learned Spl.P.P firstly argued that the prosecution amply proved all the vital ingredients consisting of initial demand, part-payment and final payment of the bribe amount through the evidence of main witness—PW1 and other corroborative witnesses—PWs.2 and 7 coupled with chemical tests and other documents. The evidence of PW.1 is very intrinsic and except few minor omissions and inconsistencies which do not cut across the prosecution case, there are no major deficiencies.
There is no enmity for PW.1 to implicate A.O in a false case and though PW1 was extensively cross-examined no single suggestion was put to him showing the reason for PW.1 to nurture grouse against A.O to implicate him in this case. Hence, the trial Court rightly believed his evidence on all the vital ingredients such as demand, part payment and trap etc., His evidence was staunchly corroborated by PW.2— the independent mediator and also by PW.7—Inspector who participated in the trap. Since all the vital ingredients were believed by the trial Court as having been established, the decisions relied upon by the appellant have no relevancy.
b) Secondly, learned Spl.P.P argued that there is no defect in the charges framed by the trial Court. The charges project not only the acceptance of final amount of Rs.4,000/- but also reveal that the said amount was in pursuance of the earlier demands of AO. The earlier demand being for Rs.10,000/-, the A.O could as well understood the substance of the charges. He never complained of any ambiguity or defect in the charges before the trial Court.
He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6) In the light of above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are:
1) “Whether the prosecution could able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts?”
2) “Whether the judgment of the trial Court is factually and legally sustainable?”
7) POINT No.1: The undisputed facts in this case are that A.O was working as Superintendent in the office of S.E, NKLIS Circle, Mahabubnagar by the date of trap i.e., 18.02.1994 and he was a public servant. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.3—G. Narayana Reddy, the-then Superintendent, the S.E’s office following G.O.Ms.No.234 dated 27.03.1991 proposed to select candidates for the posts of attenders, record assistants, blue print operators, tracers and draftsmen. Though initially they proposed to fill up five posts in the category of Scheduled Castes; two in Scheduled Tribes; one in Physically Handicapped and one in Ex-servicemen, since the District Collector filled up one post in the physically handicapped category and three posts on compassionate appointments, selection was taken up by the S.E’s office for the remaining posts only. After calling candidates through employment exchange, interviews were conducted at Gadwal on 29.07.1993 and at Mahabubnagar on 30.07.1993 and 31.07.1993. A Selection list was prepared and preserved in a Sealed Cover and kept with PW.4—Mohd. Nisar Ahmed, the-then Superintendent Engineer. At Gadwal, the selection committee selected V. Bazari (DW.3), A. Sreenu and at Mahabubnagar the committed selected Venkata Swamy (DW.2), Jangaiah (PW.1) and M. Anjaneyulu (DW.1). While so, due to orders from Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation to cancel all interviews until further orders, no appointment orders were issued in the names of above selected candidates. Subsequently, after receiving Ex.P.10
(b) instructions from Government of A.P, Irrigation CAD department dated 04.12.1993, the appointments were taken up and appointment orders were issued to the candidates who were selected earlier. To this extent, there is no dispute.
8 ) Then the prosecution case is that A.O being the Office Superintendent addressed letter to PW.1 and when PW1 approached him in the month of January, 1994 demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- for issuing appointment order and took away his original certificates and subsequently on 05.02.1994, PW.1 could garner Rs.6,000/- and paid to him and sought for the appointment order and his certificates. A.O issued a duplicate order and retained the documents on the further demand of balance amount. On 14.02.1994, when PW1 met A.O and asked for original appointment order and his certificates, A.O again reiterated his demand for balance amount of Rs.4,000/- and asked him to meet after two days. Thereafter, PW.1 gave Ex.P.1—complaint on 17.02.1994 to DSP, ACB who laid trap against A.O at his residence on 18.02.1994. As already stated supra, the A.O staunchly denied the demand, acceptance of part payment of bribe and his retaining the certificates of PW1 and his further demand and acceptance of balance amount of Rs.4,000/-. His contention is that he was implicated in a false case at the instance of ACB officer and one Bazari.
9) To prove the offence under Section 7 the prosecution shall establish the following ingredients:
i) That the accused was a public servant at the relevant time of the offence.
ii) That the accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or agreed to obtain illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour.
Whereas to sustain a charge under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution shall establish that a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
It has now to be seen whether the prosecution established the above ingredients with cogent evidence.
10) The first ingredient is concerned, as already stated, admittedly A.O was the Superintendent in the office of S.E, NKLIS, Mahabubnagar during the relevant period and thus he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C Act.
a) Then demand of bribe is concerned, the prosecution mainly relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1. The evidence of PW.1 is that he attended the interview in the office of SE, Mahabubnagar on 30.07.1993; that on 28.01.1994 he received a letter that he was appointed as attender and on the same day he went to the office of SE and met accused and he demanded Rs.10,000/- for giving appointment order and also took his original certificates and on 05.02.1994 he went to the house of A.O and paid Rs.6,000/- and asked to give appointment order and certificates and then A.O gave him a duplicate order and retained his certificates and asked him to join at Gadwal. However the Gadwal office did not admit him as they have not received the original appointment letter and original certificates. So on 14.02.1994 again PW.1 went to A.O and enquired him and the A.O reiterated his demand for the balance amount of Rs.4,000/- to give original appointment order and certificates and asked him to meet after two days. Unwilling to pay bribe, PW1 went to ACB office, Mahabubnagar and gave Ex.P1— complaint on 17.02.1994 and the DSP arranged trap on A.O on 18.02.1994 at his residence. The above is the evidence of PW.1 sofaras the initial demand and acceptance of part bribe by AO. Admittedly none were present and witnessed the alleged demand and part payment of bribe. Hence the point is how far the sole testimony of PW1 is reliable on the two vital ingredients of demand and part payment of bribe.
b) A careful analysis of the facts and evidence would reveal that there was no prior acquaintance between A.O and PW.1 and they were strangers. In the cross-examination no animosity or ill-will is suggested and established between PW1 and A.O for implicating him in a false case. The suggestions given to PW1 were in the lines of denying the prosecution case on one hand and implicating him in a false case at the behest of ACB Inspector and Bazari on the other. These suggestions were staunchly denied by PW.1. So there is no established motive for PW1 to implicate A.O in a false case. In this back drop, when the evidence of PW1 is churned, it appears, his evidence is trustworthy on the aspect of demand and acceptance of part payment of bribe of Rs.6,000/- by A.O. It is true that there are some minor discrepancies between Ex.P.1 and the evidence of PW.1. In Ex.P.1 he mentioned as if he met the A.O at his house on 28.01.1994 where A.O demanded him bribe of Rs.10,000/- for issuing appointment order copy. Whereas in the evidence he stated as if he met the A.O at his office on 28.01.1994. This reiteration of demand for balance amount of Rs.4,000/- is concerned, as per Ex.P.1, PW.1 when met A.O on 09.02.1994 seeking for original appointment order and his certificates, A.O gave appointment order copy but refused to return the certificates till Rs.4,000/- is paid. Whereas in the evidence we would not find PW.1 stating his meeting A.O on 09.02.1994. Nextly, as per Ex.P.1, PW.1 did not meet the A.O on 14.02.1994 but met him on 16.02.1994, whereas in the evidence he stated as if he met the A.O on 14.02.1994 when A.O reiterated his demand for balance amount. So when the Ex.P.1 and the evidence are thoroughly compared, the initial demand of Rs.10,000/- and PW.1 paying part payment of Rs.6,000/- would almost tally but the dates of demand of the balance amount and retaining the certificates will vary. In my considered view, these discrepancies will not belittle the veracity of the evidence of PW.1. It must not be forgotten that he gave evidence about 8 years after the trap incident. So the minor discrepancies are bound to occur. When his evidence in its entirety coupled with other circumstances are taken into consideration, they will project the prosecution case as genuine.
c) The facts would show that after receiving instructions from Government under Ex.P.10 (b), the process of appointments started in the office of S.E, Mahabubnagar in the month of January, 1994. PW.3 in his evidence stated that he prepared the file relating to the selection of attenders on 19.01.1994 and sent the same to Superintendent i.e., A.O and the A.O in turn sent the note to Venkata Ratnam, the Deputy Executive Engineer on 20.01.1994. At this juncture, the contention of A.O is that he never sent any letter to PW.1 asking him to appear before him with original certificates. However, PW3 deposed that Ex.P.7 is the fair copy proceedings along with the post card addressed to PW1 with the address particulars of A.O. A perusal of Ex.P.7 would show that it contains the fair coy of appointment order of the PW.1. It also contains a post card addressed to PW.1 posted in the month of January, 1994 and date is not clear and it was mentioned in Telugu to the effect that the addressee shall immediately meet the address mentioned person (A.O) along with his original certificates. Thus the postcard in Ex.P.7 would clearly show that the AO addressed letter to PW1asking him to meet with original certificates. Needless to say that any unemployee in the place of PW1 would readily meet AO in his anxiety to complete the formalities and get the appointment order. So basing on Ex.P7, the evidence of PW1 that he met AO on 28.01.1994 can be believed. Similarly, the further evidence of PW.1 that AO demanded him Rs.10,000/- as bribe for issuing appointment order and retained his original certificates can also be believed. Had the AO had not withheld his original certificates, PW.1 would have joined duty and would not have made rounds before AO. Consequently, the evidence of PW.1 about his paying initial bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- also can be believed. The trial Court rightly believed the initial demand of Rs.10,000/- and part payment of Rs.6,000/- and AO’s retaining the original certificates of PW.1.
1 1 ) Then coming to the trap incident, according to PW.1, on 18.02.1994 he went to the residence of AO as per the instructions of TLO and on the further demand of AO he paid the tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- which he received with his right hand and called his wife and tendered the amount and she took the same and thereafter AO gave his certificates and also addressed a letter to Sujatha Reddy, who was working in Gadwal Office and asked PW1 to give the same to her and thereafter, PW.1 came out and gave signal to trap party, who rushed and caught AO red-handed. This is the evidence of PW.1 touching the trap incident. The prosecution relies upon the oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 7 coupled with chemical test of AO and his wife and also on the seizure of Ex.P.2—file and M.O.9— tainted cash.
a) PW.2 in corroboration to PW.1 deposed that at about 10:15 am on receiving signal from PW.1, they rushed to the house of the AO and found him sitting in his house and when enquired by the DSP(TLO), AO denied receiving any bribe but the DSP conducted chemical test to the both hands of AO to which his right hand yielded positive result and left hand did not yield any result and thereafter, seeing that A.O’s wife (DW.4) who was present there rubbing her hands to saree, the TLO conducted chemical test to her both hands which yielded positive result (vide M.Os 5 and 6). The further version of PW.2 is that then A.O’s wife told that the amount was there in the bed room underneath the bed on the cot and she led them to the bed room and picked up the currency notes from underneath the bed and then himself (PW.2) and ACB Inspector compared the numbers with the numbers mentioned in Ex.P.3 and they were found tallied. Further the TLO conducted the chemical test on that portion of the bed which came into contact with the currency notes and the test yielded positive result (vide M.O.7). Thereafter PW.1 was called and enquired and his narration was incorporated in Ex.P.4—post trap proceedings. The DSP seized the certificates and the letter written by AO to Sujatha Reddy under Ex.P.2—made up file. This is the version of PW.2. Then PW.7 also deposed in similar manner. Thus, needless to say that the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 corroborates PW.1 on material particulars. When the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 7 is cumulatively analysed, the important points that emerge from their evidence are that: i) AO on further demand received Rs.4,000/- from PW.1 and handed over to his wife (DW4) ii) DW4 kept the amount underneath the bed in their bed room iii) on receiving the balance amount, AO returned the certificates along with letter addressed to Sujatha Reddy (Ex.P.2), iv) chemical test on the hands of AO and his wife yielded positive result. It may be noted that like PW.1, PW.2 is also an independent witness and a stranger to AO and nothing is extracted in his cross- examination to establish any motive for him to speak against AO. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 7 clearly established the factum of AO accepting the balance bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-.
b) Then the defence pleas are that firstly it was contended that AO in fact did not retain the certificates of PW.1 and in fact PW.1 brought them along with him in the rexine bag and the phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes might have transferred to those certificates and when PW.1 tendered his certificates to AO to verify them, the phenolphthalein particles might have transferred to the AO. That is how the AO tried to explain the reason for his hand yielding positive result to chemical test. This argument cannot be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, PWs.1 and 7 clearly deposed that at the time of pre-trap proceedings while keeping the tainted amount in the rexine bag, the TLO ensured that nothing else was there in the bag. This part of their evidence could not be shattered in the cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that except the M.O.9—bribe amount, nothing else was carried in the rexine bag by PW.1 to the house of AO. So there was no occasion for him to show his certificates to AO as tainted. Secondly, there is no reason for PW.1 to show his certificates to AO as there was no need for AO to scrutinise the certificates. So the defence theory of transferring of phenolphthalein particles to AO through Ex.P.2—file is bereft of logic.
c) The second contention is that as per the evidence of DW.4, PW.1 approached AO on 18.02.1994 and gave some papers to him for perusal and after perusing them, AO returned those papers (Ex.P.2) saying that he was not competent to see those papers and asked PW.1 to go away. At that time, she was at the threshold of the bed room and watching them and then PW.1 came to her and took the amount from the bag and urged her to take the money and she replied that without the instructions of her husband, she would not take the money and scolded him to go away but PW.1 kept the money by force in her hands and when she was about to return the money, the ACB officials came there and challenged him as if he demanded the amount. So the defence tried to explain in the above manner, the reason for chemical test yielding positive result to the hands of DW.4. The above defence theory cannot be countenanced for many reasons. The amount was not found in the hands of DW.4 but underneath the bed and the chemical test conducted to the crucial portion of the bed also yielded positive result. This belies the claim of AO and his wife. DW.4 being the wife of AO, is an interested witness and her evidence cannot be believed. As per her evidence when PW.1 tendered some papers to AO, he angrily returned them saying that he was not competent to see those papers. If that was the scenario, the question of AO writing a letter to Sujatha Reddy requesting her to accept the joining report of PW.1, in that angry mood does not arise. But AO is not denying his writing the letter to Sujatha Reddy. The said letter falsifies the happening of the circumstances as spoken by DW.4 on one hand and confirms the prosecution version on the other.
d) Therefore, the trap incidents are concerned, the evidence of PW.1 gets ample corroboration from PWs.2 and 7 and also the other circumstances. The defence points projected are not able to shatter the prosecution case. Even the case of DWs.1 to 3 and 5 also will not help AO to wriggle out of the case. As rightly observed by the trial Court, they were the subordinates working under the AO and so their evidence cannot be taken to hold otherwise.
12) Hence on a conspectus of facts and evidence, prosecution by cogent evidence could establish all the vital ingredients touching the initial demand of Rs.10,000/- by AO, the part payment of Rs.6,000/- and also the payment of balance amount of Rs.4,000/-. Hence the presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act squarely follows. As already stated, the AO in his defence could not rebut this presumption to prove his innocence. Therefore, he is guilty of the charges levelled against him. In the light of this, the cited decisions will not come to the rescue of AO.
13) Then the contention of appellant about defect in the charges framed by the trial Court is concerned, it must be said that the said argument cannot be countenanced. Though the charges give an apparent impression that the amount demanded was Rs.4,000/- but the charges have reference about earlier demands. When the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the answering in 313 Cr.P.C examination are all perused, it would appear that the AO was never misled in his defence. Neither, he complained before the trial Court that he was misled in defence due to apparent mistake in the charges. It may be noted that as per Section 464 Cr.P.C, no finding or sentence or order of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in a charge unless in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. In the instant case, as already stated supra, throughout the trial nowhere AO was misled in his defence due to the apparent error in the charges. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court no failure of justice has in fact been occasioned in this case. Hence, this argument cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, this point is answered.
14) POINT No.2: In view of the findings in point no.1, it is held that the judgment of the trial court is factually and legally sustainable.
15) In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in its judgment dated 31.01.2006 in C.C.No.23 of 1995.
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 02.06.2014
Note: L.R. copy to be marked Yes/No
scs
[1] 1980 (2) ALT Vol. XLII
[2] AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1489