Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T. RAJANI, J.
K. Ramakrishna - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 919 of 2006
Decided On : 31-12-2018
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 & 313 – Criminal appeal against the judgment passed by Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, by virtue of which Special Judge convicted appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section 7 of Act, 1988 also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Act – Whether any official favour was pending with accused as on date of alleged demand and trap – Whether prosecution could prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offences with which he is charged – Held, As responsible citizen, PW 1 himself expected to inform to his department about fact of his being in lock-up for 48 hours – He need not be threatened by someone that information would passed on to department If he had felt threat – Only because of his own intention to screen said fact from reaching department, which is not legal – Information that accused wanted to pass on to department of PW 1 on his failure to pay bribe amount is certainly not an official favour and there is absolutely no reason for PW 1 to succumb to said demand – PW 1 who has to inform department about said fact and he ought to have expressed same to accused when he made demand of bribe, instead of approaching ACB officials – It might be true that accused had demanded said amount, but such demand cannot be brought within purview of Act, as it is not demand made for fulfilling any official favour – Evidence of defence witnesses not taken up for consideration – Prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused for offences with which he is charged – Criminal appeal allowed. (Paras: 16,18& 19)
Facts of the case:
Criminal appeal against the judgment passed by Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, by virtue of which Special Judge convicted appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section 7 of Act, 1988 also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Act – Whether any official favour was pending with accused as on date of alleged demand and trap – Whether prosecution could prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offences with which he is charged
Findings of the court:
As responsible citizen, PW 1 himself expected to inform to his department about fact of his being in lock-up for 48 hours – He need not be threatened by someone that information would passed on to department If he had felt threat – Only because of his own intention to screen said fact from reaching department, which is not legal – Information that accused wanted to pass on to department of PW 1 on his failure to pay bribe amount is certainly not an official favour and there is absolutely no reason for PW 1 to succumb to said demand – PW 1 who has to inform department about said fact and he ought to have expressed same to accused when he made demand of bribe, instead of approaching ACB officials – It might be true that accused had demanded said amount, but such demand cannot be brought within purview of Act, as it is not demand made for fulfilling any official favour – Evidence of defence witnesses not taken up for consideration – Prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused for offences with which he is charged
Result: Criminal appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
T. Rajani, J.
1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in CC No. 42 of 2002, dated 20.6.2006, by virtue of which the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The learned Judge also convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. The facts of the case briefly as per the charge-sheet are as follows:
During investigation, pre-trap proceedings were prepared and on the date of trap i.e., on 31.3.1999 at about 4.40 p.m., the complainant went to the accused and gave the tainted amount to him and on receiving pre-arrangement signal from the complainant, the trap party trapped the accused and recovered the tainted amount from him and the sodium carbonate test also turned positive on his fingers. After due investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act.
3. The Trial Court, on appearance of the accused before it, complied with all the required legal formalities and framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 3(1)(d) of the Act against the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tired.
4. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. P1 to P10 and MOs. 1 to 8 were marked, besides Ex. X1.
5. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the truth in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, on his behalf, he examined DWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs. D1 to D5.
6. The lower Court, on appreciation of the evidence and the material on record, passed the impugned judgment, against which this appeal is filed on the grounds that the lower Court failed to see that the witnesses to the occurrence were inimically disposed of towards the appellant and that the case rests on circumstantial evidence; the lower Court failed to see that the circumstances
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
