IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore - Appellant
Versus
Sri. Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1004 of 2007
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1), (3), 248(1) , 164, 207 and 313 - - Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) 19, and 20 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 145 and 157 - AO demanded - Accused Officer, worked as Deputy Surveyor in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Mandal - Totally an extent of Ac.16-66½ cents and his brother Naidu has also an extent of Ac.16-66½ said survey numbers - They got registered the same in their favour - Held, Learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper prospective and erroneously held that the prosecution failed to prove charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and judgment of trial Court in this regard is nothing but erroneous and it is not sustainable under law and facts - Court's prosecution before the Court categorically established with consistent evidence the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act - Criminal Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the State, being represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nellore Range, Nellore through the Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public prosecutor questioning the judgment in Calendar Case No.7 of 2003, dated 26.02.2007, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short, ‘the Special Judge’), where under the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer (AO) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) and accordingly acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, in C.C. No.7 of 2003 pertaining to Crime No.12/ACB-NLR/2002 of ACB Nellore Range, Nellore on the file of the Court of Special Judge is as follows:
The Accused Officer, Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar, worked as Deputy Surveyor in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District from 15.12.2000 to 16.09.2002 as such he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. LW.1 – Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary is a resident of Bitragunta Village, Bogolu Mandal, Nellore District. The said LW.1 has an extent of Ac.13.0½ cents of dry land in Survey No.1-1, Ac.0.50 cents of dry land in Survey No.1-2 and Ac.3.16 cents of land in Survey No.19-1, totally an extent of Ac.16-66½ cents and his brother G. Butchi Naidu has also an extent of Ac.16-66½ cents in the above said survey numbers. They purchased the same from one Kakuturu Bhakthavatsala Reddy and Pundla Venkata Sivamma of Allur. They got registered the same in their favour. They obtained pattadar pass books from MRO, Dagadarthi. LW.1 – G. Veeraiah Chowdary sold an extent of Ac.5.30 cents of land in Survey No.1/1 to his brother Butchaiah Naidu. So, he, with an intention to get survey his land, submitted a representation to MRO, Dagadarthi (LW.7) on 01.09.2001 with a request to survey the land of him and his brother and to fix the boundaries. LW.7 – MRO, Dagadarthi endorsed the representation of the de-facto complainant to the AO, who is Deputy Surveyor, with instructions to attend the work. LW.4 - Smt. Kamineni Annapurnamma and Nethi Lakshmi have also lands in the above said survey numbers. K. Annapurnamma also approached the then MRO, Dagadarthi and submitted a representation with a request to show the boundaries of her land. MRO instructed the then Surveyor. But, the then Surveyor did not show the boundaries and he was transferred. About 9 months prior to 15.09.2002, the AO visited the land of LW.1 at Kaminenipalem and surveyed the same but failed to give his report. LW.1, de-facto complainant approached the AO several times and asked him about the survey report. But, he did not give his report. About one week prior to 15.09.2002, LW.1 approached the AO and enquired about the survey report. Then the AO, being a public servant, demanded him to pay illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- to do official favour. Again, on 14.09.2002 at 07:00 a.m. LW.1 approached the AO at his residence at Beeramgunta and enquired about the survey report. The AO reiterated his earlier demand. Then, LW.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount. Then, AO reduced the bribe as that of Rs.8,000/- and demanded him to pay the same on 16.09.2002 at 10:00 a.m. As he has no other go, he accepted to pay the same and went away. LW.1, who was not willing to pay the illegal gratification to AO, approached LW.12 – Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore on 15.09.2002 and gave a report. LW.11, the in-charge Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nellore registered it as a case in Crime No.12/ACB-NLR/2002.
4. Pre trap proceedings took place in the office room
The prosecution can prove a valid sanction either by producing the original sanction, which contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence alinude....
The court established that the accused, a public servant, demanded and accepted bribes, violating provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus overturning the trial court's acquittal based on....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the official favor pending with the accused and the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment established the importance of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. It also....
Demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant is a criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
The court affirmed that valid sanction and evidence of demand for bribe are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with a presumption of guilt established when evidence supp....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.