SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(AP) 730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T. RAJANI, J.
Shaik Abdul Basheer & Another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4 & 70 of 2007
Decided On : 31-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:O. Kailasnath Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor for ACB

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d),12,20 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 338 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164,313 – Appeal against conviction and sentence, imposed against appellants, by Judgment passed by Special Judge is sustainable or not – Whether prosecution could prove demand made by accused and not, or proof of acceptance would suffice to render a verdict of guilt to accused and proof of acceptance is there or not – Held, Complainant himself had disowned his complaint and turned hostile – No other evidence to prove accused had made any demand and without proof of demand, not constitute offence under Section 7. unless proof of demand of illegal gratification, proof of acceptance will not follow, legal presumption under Section 20 not drawn – Therefore failure of prosecution to prove demand and also acceptance by accused and pendency of any official favour from accused, merely by invoking presumption under Section 20 of Act, guilt of accused not concluded – Criminal Appeals allowed – [Para 23,32 & 33]

Facts of the case:

Appeal against conviction and sentence, imposed against appellants, by Judgment passed by Special Judge is sustainable or not – Whether prosecution could prove demand made by accused and not, or proof of acceptance would suffice to render a verdict of guilt to accused and proof of acceptance is there or not –

Findings of the court:

Complainant himself had disowned his complaint and turned hostile – No other evidence to prove accused had made any demand and without proof of demand, not constitute offence under Section 7. unless proof of demand of illegal gratification, proof of acceptance will not follow, legal presumption under Section 20 not drawn – Therefore failure of prosecution to prove demand and also acceptance by accused and pendency of any official favour from accused, merely by invoking presumption under Section 20 of Act, guilt of accused not concluded

Result: Criminal Appeals allowed

JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals are preferred, by the appellants, who are A1 and A2 before the lower court, aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 27.12.2006, passed in C.C.No.2 of 2001, by the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, by virtue of which the trial court convicted A1 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act in default to suffer SI for one month and he was also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act, in default, to suffer SI for one month; and A2 was convicted for the offences under Section 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 12 of the Act, in default, to suffer SI for one month. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act, in default, to suffer SI for one month.

2. The facts of the case, as per the complaint, briefly, are as follows:

On 20.04.2000, while PW1 was driving his auto trolley bearing No.AP 26 U 1240, it fell down accidentally on the GNT Road at Fathekhanpet, Nellore and the passenger therein received injuries and thereafter, the said passenger went away on his own accord. PW1 also went away without reporting the matter at the police station. The passenger, who received injury, gave a report and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.48 of 2000 for the offence under Section 338 IPC at South Traffic Police Station, Nellore. On 25.04.2000 at 04:00 PM, when PW1 was keeping his auto at AC Center, Nellore, PW6 the Head cosntable No.793 of Traffic Police Station came there and took away the documents of the vehicle, driving license of PW1 and told PW1 that he was called by A1. Thereafter PW1 informed the same to his father PW2. On the same night at 09:00 PM, PW2 met A1. Then A1 told PW2 that a case was registered against PW1 with regard to the accident of the auto and told PW2 to produce PW1. Thereby, on 27.04.2000 at 10:00 AM PWs.1 and 2 went to Traffic Polcie Sation and met A1 and requested A1 to grant station bail. Then A1 demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for granting bail. At the request of PW2, A1 told them to provide their auto rickshaw to take his people free of cost to Kappaladoruvu, to bring the accused in a case in Crime No.45 of 2000 and pay Rs.1,000/- as bribe, within two days. Thereafter, A1 gave station bail to PW1 by obtaining the signatures of PWs.1 and 2 on Ex.P1 bail bond. He obtained the Xerox copies of the RC Book, driving license and returned the originals to PW1. He also threatened PWs.1 and 2 that if the amount of Rs.1,000/- is not paid, he will not allow the autos of PWs.1 and 2 to move on the road and they will be in trouble. As there was no other go, they sent their auto bearing NO.AP 26T 8771 by filling the auto with petrol worth RS.100/- with their driver LW13 to Kappaladoruvu. In that auto, PW6 and another constable went to Kappaladoruvu. As PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe, he gave a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nellore at 03:00 PM on 27.04.2000. PW7 conducted confidential enquiries and came to know that A1 is ill reputed as corrupt and that PW1 is not badly motivated and then on 29.04.2000 at 05:00 AM he registered a case in Crime No.4/ACB-0NLR/2000 under Sections 7 and 11 of the Act and submitted original FIR to the court and conducted pre-trap proceedings in the presence of mediators. During the course of pre trap proceedings, the proposed bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- was tainted with phenolphthalein powder. PW7 got demonstrated the chemical reaction between Sodium Carbonate powder and Phenolphthalein powder. He secur






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top