Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T. RAJANI, J.
Komara Subrahmanyam and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1221, 1283, 1284 of 2006
Decided On : 28-11-2018
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) - DEMAND OF BRIBE - OFFICIAL FAVOUR - HANDWRITING EXPERT OPINION - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 293 CR.P.C. - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act) for allegedly demanding and accepting bribes from villagers in exchange for preparing estimates for compensation for lands and structures acquired for the Somasila Dam project. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who were public servants, collected huge amounts as illegal gratification from the beneficiaries who were present at Vinayaka Lodge, Nellore and were preparing estimates in favour of beneficiaries by taking assistance of other accused.
Finding of the Court:
1. The prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe made by the accused from the villagers and the prosecution failed to prove any official favour pending with the accused. 2. The opinion of the handwriting expert with regard to the writings of the accused under Ex.P57 is not reliable and the guilt of the accused cannot be gathered from it.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution could prove the demand of bribe allegedly made by the accused and whether any official favour was pending with the accused by the date of the said demand. 2. Whether the opinion of the handwriting expert conclusively proves that Ex.P57 was written by the accused and whether the guilt of the accused can be gathered from Ex.P57 independently. 3. Whether the judgment of the court below is sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe made by the accused from the villagers and the prosecution failed to prove any official favour pending with the accused. 2. The opinion of the handwriting expert with regard to the writings of the accused under Ex.P57 is not reliable and the guilt of the accused cannot be gathered from it.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants in judgment, dated 13.09.2006, passed in C.C. No. 10 of 2001, by the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
JUDGMENT :
T. RAJANI, J.
1. These appeals are preferred, by the appellants, who are A3 to A6; A1 and A2 before the lower court respectively, aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 13.09.2006, passed in C.C. No. 10 of 2001, by the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore, by virtue of which the trial court convicted, A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) and sentenced him- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months; A3 to A6 for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of two years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. The facts of the case, as per the complaint, briefly, are as follows:
While the matter stood thus, A1 and A2, who were the Deputy Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer respectively for Somasila Project and who were attached for preparing the valuation of the lands and structures i.e. estimates of Gattupalli and Rekulakunta villages and A3 and A6, who are the employees in the office of the Executive Engineer, Somasila Project and who were attached to assist A1 and A2, along with their staff, visited Gattupalli village and measured the structures available on the lands of the said village for preparing the estimates, for paying compensation to the villagers, entitled for it. A1 and A2, with an intention to get wrongful gain from the villagers, by preparing the estimates with higher rates, intimated the said villagers, to be present from 06.04.1999 onwards at Vinayaka Lodge, Nellore for preparing the estimates. Thereby, A1 to A6 went to Nellore along with their official records on 06.04.1999 by leaving their headquarters and occupied room Nos. 25 to 27 at the said Vinayaka Lodge, Stone Housepet, Nellore, from 06.04.1999 onwards. A1 and A2, being public servants, collected huge amounts as illegal gratification from the beneficiaries who were present at Vinayaka Lodge, Nellore and were preparing estimates in favour of beneficiaries by taking assistance of A3 to A6. The villagers of Gattupalli village, who are the beneficiaries, came to Nellore and approached A1 and A2 at Vinayaka Lodge, Nellore and paid bribe to A1 and A2, to get the estimates at higher rates. A2 also maintained a list, containing the details of collection of bribe from the Ryots and details of distribution of amounts among all ranks of Engineers and subordinates of Somasila Project Division.
On receiving information about the collection of illegal gratification by A1 to A6, the Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore, organised check at Vinayaka Lodge, with the assistance of other Inspectors, staff and the mediators. During the course of said check, he searched room No. 27 and found A1 and A2 and Gattupalli Singal Reddy Sambasiva Reddy, along with office records and they stated that they were preparing estimates in the said room; they also confessed that they received bribe from the villagers of the said village and they produced amounts of Rs. 3585/
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
