IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J.
B. Nagaraju, S/o.B. Bapanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of AP – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.959 of 2007
Decided on : 14-03-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 248(2) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 2(c) -Demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant - Appeal against conviction - Held, prosecution before Court below categorically proved allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by AO from PW.1 prior to date of trap and on date of trap - Act of AO in demanding PW.1 to pay bribe and consequent acceptance of same is nothing but an offence under Section 7 of PC Act - Further, amount obtained by AO would squarely attract allegation that he obtained pecuniary advantage from PW.1 by demanding bribe as such it would further establish essential ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of PC Act - It is nothing but a criminal misconduct within meaning of Section 13 of PC Act - Prosecution before Court below proved charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of PC Act beyond reasonable doubt - Hence, Hence, Court see no reason to interfere- Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused Officer (AO) in Calendar Case No.24 of 2002, dated 09.07.2007, on the file of the Court of Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), where under the learned Special Judge found the AO guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’), accordingly convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently.
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 State, represented by Inspector of Police, ACB, Kurnool filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.3/ACB-KUR/2001 of ACB, Kurnool Range, Kurnool under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act alleging, in substance, that the AO by name Balapanuri Nagaraju worked as Line Inspector in A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL), O & M Services, Pagidyala Village and Kurnool District from 19.12.1998 to 05.09.2001. He is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
Sri Palamuri Venkataiah, S/o. P. Ramudu, de-facto complainant had been practicing as a Junior Advocate in the office of Sri Ranga Reddy, a Senior Advocate at Nandikotkur. He used to reside along with his elder brother viz., Sri Samantha Raju in Harijanawada bearing Door No.4/100 of Pagidyala village. On 12.08.2001 at 08:00 p.m., the live service wire of electricity belonging to his neighbor Savaraiah fell down from the pole in the house premises of P. Venkataiah. As it was raining, smoke and sparks came out from the wire and his house was engulfed with smoke. The inmates in the house of Sri P. Venkataiah were terrified and became panic. Then, his younger brother Venkateswarlu switched off the main and removed the said service wire. On the next day i.e., on 13.08.2001 Sri P. Venkataiah informed the AO, Line Inspector, about the incident and requested him to shift the live service wire from that pole to another pole. AO intimated him that he would do the same within 4 or 5 days but he did not attend the work. Again on 19.08.2001 and 20.08.2001, Sri P. Venkataiah met AO and requested him for shifting of the service wire. AO promised that he would attend the work within 2 days but did not do so.
On 24.08.2001 at 08:00 p.m. he met the AO and asked him to shift the wire for which AO demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe to shift the live wire from that pole to another pole. Venkataiah pleaded his inability and bargained with AO and AO reduced the bribe amount to Rs.700/-. AO also instructed Venkataiah to submit a petition to Assistant Engineer, Nandikotkur for shifting the service wire, as per his requirement, to another pole. On 25.08.2001, the complainant - Venkataiah gave a written complaint in the office of Assistant Engineer, Nandikotkur for shifting the wire. He also handed over a copy of the complaint in the Electric Sub-Station, Pagidyala pertaining to Line Inspector on 26.08.2001. Again, on the same day at 05:00 p.m., he met the AO and requested him for shifting of the wire. AO reiterated the demand for bribe for which the complainant promised that he would arrange it by next day. AO asked him to pay the bribe amount at the Beedi Bunk of one Chan
The demand and acceptance of a bribe by a public servant constitutes the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ....
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 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....
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.