Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J.
A. Ashok Vardhan Reddy & Others
Versus
Smt. P. Savitha & Others
Criminal Petition Nos.7063 of 2008 and 2539 of 2009
Decided on : 29-02-2012
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13 - Allegations of bribery and trap - Appeal against conviction - Appellant/accused-officer, a Public Servant, both based on the allegations of bribery and trap. trial Court, after considering the matter, by its judgment convicted the appellant of both the charges and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act; and further sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine and, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable - Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently - Questioning the said judgment, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is hereinafter referred to as “the Accused Officer”. relevant point of time, the Accused Officer was working as Telephone Mechanic Telephone Exchange, and as such, he was a Public Servant. He was prosecuted by duly obtaining Ex.P-9 sanction order –Held settled proposition that there cannot be any presumption merely because the amount was recovered from an accused-officer. plea of accused that the amount was paid to him towards the cost of the telephone instrument is admitted by P.W.1 himself - Thus presumption against the accused-officer should be rebutted - Evidence as above, having regard to the probabilities of the case, I am of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the trial Court and the conclusions drawn by it in convicting the accused-officer are not tenable - Court view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Judgment of conviction and sentence in C.C. passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases against appellant-Accused Officer for charges and he is accordingly acquitted of the said charges – Criminal Appeal is allowed
The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.7063 of 2008 are accused 1 to 3 in C.C. No.48 of 2008 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar women police station filed the charge-sheet in the said case alleging that P. Krishna Reddy and P. Kalavathi are the parents of Saritha, the 1st respondent in Criminal Petition No.7063 of 2008. Saritha was married to the 1st accused on 27-08-2005 and on the same day the 1st accused and Saritha left for the United States of America, as Saritha had to report at West Virginia University on 29-08-2005. Soon after arriving at the United States of America, the 1st accused demanded Saritha for money and took away 35 tulas of gold from her. The parents of Saritha visited the United States of America from 12-10-2005 to 07-11-2005 and still the 1st accused harassed Saritha physically and mentally and threatened her and her parents. Saritha gave a complaint to West Virginia University police and requested her father to give a complaint to the police in India. Accordingly, P. Krishna Reddy gave a complaint on 30-10-2006 stating the above facts and further stating that he met all the expenses demanded by accused 1 to 3 at the time of the marriage and the demand of the 1st accused to Saritha was to give Rs.4,00,000/-. Her gold was sold away by the 1st accused and the sale proceeds were appropriated by him. The 1st accused was using the credit cards of Saritha being unemployed. The complaint was registered as Crime No.1098 of 2006 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and was investigated into. The 2nd and 3rd accused surrendered before the Court on 20-12-2007 and were released on bail, while the 1st accused was absconding. Hence, the charge.
3. Accused 1 to 3 claimed in the criminal petition that when the couple left for the United States of America on the date of marriage itself, it was impossible to presume any demand for money and though the 1st accused returned to India on 09-03-2006, Saritha/1st respondent stayed back in the United States of America, filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, United States of America and was granted a decree of divorce by an order, dated 12-03-2007, which had become final. The 1st respondent is working in the United States of America after obtaining divorce. The police initially submitted a final report on the complaint of Krishna Reddy, referring the case as lacking in jurisdiction on 18-09-2007 and again at the request of the 1st respondent on 22-10-2007, the case was reopened and further investigated. The petitioners contended that the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent never led their marital life in India and they are no longer wife and husband having lived together in the United States of America only for 5 months and 10 days. Hence, they desired quashing of further proceedings in C.C. No.48 of 2008.
4. The 1st respondent in her affidavit in Criminal M.P. No.28 of 2009 claimed that the petition should have been filed against P. Krishna Reddy, her father, who gave the complaint to the police. She was misdescribed as Savitha, while she is Saritha. The criminal proceedings are independent of the civil proceedings and even the air ticket for the 1st accused for the travel on 27-08-2005 was purchased by Krishna Reddy. The 1st accused was demanding an additional dowry of Rs.30,00,000/-to repay the loans he incurred at Singapore and India. His parents also followed up the demand through telephone calls to her and her father. The 1st accused severely beat her in the presence of her parents in the United States of America. The 1st accused was spending money for alcoholic drinks while residing with her in her hostel room. The 2nd accused met Krishna Reddy at Hyderabad on 30-03-2006 and 8-10-2006 and the 1st accused met him on 27-08-2006 when the demand for Rs.30,0
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
