IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
The State Of A.P., Thru Inspector Of Police, ACB - Petitioner
Versus
Sri. Chinthalapati Papaiah and Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.786 Of 2007
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 248(1) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 12 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Municipality - Tenders - Municipality called for tenders for CC road work under Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns Scheme from Sitarama Swamy Temple junction to main road, Ongole Town (L.W.1) being President of Schedule Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Gaddalaguntapalem, Ongole, filed his tender along with others - Municipality accepted said tender, which is lowest price - Accordingly, work order was given to him - He started work of CC road and completed it - Municipality paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- during to him as part payment - Municipal Engineering staff, Ongole, prepared bill for Rs.2,50,000/- as part of bill and sent records of work along with the bill to Accounts Section of Municipality - Whether prosecution before trial Court proved the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.O.1 and further charges under Section 12 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.O.2 and there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court? - Held, It is to be noticed that to succeed in proving charges against A.O.2, the prosecution has to establish that A.O.2 abetted commission by A.O.1 - In absence of official favour pending with A.O.1, there is no question of AO.2 abetting the AO.1 to commit offence i.e., demand and acceptance of bribe - Evidence on record would not prove charges against A.O.2 - Though there is no dispute that A.Os.1 and 2 are public servants and prosecution got sanctioned order under Exs.P.15 and P.16, but, in a prosecution under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A.O.1 and A.O.2, as case may be, prosecution is supposed to adduce cogent evidence to prove pendency of official favour and the demand made by A.O.1 for bribe.- Court is of considered view that learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, rightly looked into evidence on record and rightly looked into case of prosecution and defence - Learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, recorded sound reasons in deciding charges from against A.Os.1 and 2 - Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, being represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Ongole, Prakasam District, against the judgment in C.C.No.8 of 2001, dated 22.01.2007, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer No.1 (“A.O.1” for short) therein not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and found the Accused Officer No.2 (“A.O.2” for short) therein not guilty of the charges under Sections 12 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The State i.e., Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Prakasam District, Ongole, filed a charge sheet against the A.Os.1 and 2 in Crime No.1/ACB-NPK/2000 of A.C.B., Nellore Range, alleging in substance is as follows:
(ii) Sri Kollabathina Prabhakar Rao is President of Schedule Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Gaddalaguntapalem, Ongole and he is the complainant (L.W.1).
(iii) The Ongole Municipality called for tenders for CC road work under Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns Scheme from Sitarama Swamy Temple junction to Gaddalaguntapalem main road, Ongole Town. Sri K. Prabhakara Rao (L.W.1) being the President of Schedule Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Gaddalaguntapalem, Ongole, filed his tender along with others. Ongole Municipality accepted the said tender, which is lowest price for Rs.5,74,445/- Accordingly, work order was given to him on 20.07.1999. He started the work of CC road and completed it by January, 2000. Ongole Municipality paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- during December, 1999 to him as part payment. The Municipal Engineering staff, Ongole, prepared bill for Rs.2,50,000/- as part of bill and sent the records of work along with the bill to the Accounts Section of Ongole Municipality on 21.03.2000. L.W.1 met Sri Ch. Papaiah, Municipal Commissioner (A.O.1) on 21.03.2000 at about 2-00 P.M. at his office and requested him to issue cheque for the due amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of work executed by him. Then A.O.1 demanded to pay Rs.5,000/- as an illegal gratification to issue the cheque. When L.W.1 pleaded his inability A.O.1 informed that he would get the cheque prepared and issued as and when he pays the demanded bribe amount. L.W.1 was un-willingly accepted to pay Rs.5,000/- as bribe amount to A.O.1 and went away.
(iv) As he was not willing to pay the demanded bribe, he approached the Inspector of Police, ACB (L.W.14) on 21.03.2000 at 4-30 P.M. and prepared a written report against A.O.1. The Inspector of Police made confidential enquiries on the report given by L.W.1 and endorsed to DSP, ACB, Nellore (L.W.13) on 22.03.2000. L.W.13 registered it as a case in Crime No.1/ACBNPK/ 2000 of Nellore Range on 22.03.2000 and further enquired. He conducted pre-trap proceedings at the office of Inspector, ACB, Ongole on 22.03.2000. On 22.03.2000 at 12-00 noon, L.W.1 met A.O.1 at Municipal Office, Ongole and enquired him about his payment. Then, A.O.1 asked him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-. When L.W.1 replied that he brought the same, A.O.1 directed him to pay the amount to Sri D. Venkata Ramana Reddy, Gardener-cum-Attender (A.O.2). He also directed A.O.2
The absence of foundational evidence regarding demand and acceptance of a bribe justifies the acquittal of the accused.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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.