2023 Supreme(AP) 454

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
State, Rep. By Inspector of Police – Appellant
Versus
Sri Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2007
Decided On : 09-02-2023

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 to show that the facts were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.

Headnote:

The Court allowed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused public servant (AO) under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The Court held that the prosecution had proved the foundational facts under the circumstances, and hence, a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would arise in favor of the prosecution. The Court further held that the prosecution had categorically established the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act and proved the charges against AO beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and convicted the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act, with both sentences to run concurrently.

Fact of the Case:

The accused public servant (AO), a Deputy Surveyor in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.8,000/- from PW.1 to do official favor i.e., to complete the survey report. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and further got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 and MOs.1 to 7. The trial court acquitted the AO, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges framed against him beyond reasonable doubt.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the prosecution had proved the foundational facts under the circumstances, and hence, a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would arise in favor of the prosecution. The Court further held that the prosecution had categorically established the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act and proved the charges against AO beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: 1) Whether the prosecution has proved before the Court below that the AO was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act? 2) Whether the prosecution has proved before the Court below that ACB obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the AO for the charges framed against him? 3) Whether the prosecution before the Court below has proved that AO demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.15,000/- to do official favour i.e., to complete the survey report, and later reduced it to Rs.8,000/- prior to the date of trap and further AO demanded and accepted the same? 4) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the AO beyond reasonable doubt?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles to arrive at its decision: * 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 to show that the facts were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. * A presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would arise in favor of the prosecution if it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person. * The presumption of fact with regard to demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a Court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused public servant (AO) under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The Court held that the prosecution had proved the foundational facts under the circumstances, and hence, a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would arise in favor of the prosecution. The Court further held that the prosecution had categorically established the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act and proved the charges against AO beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and convicted the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act, with both sentences to run concurrently.