SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Endluri Veera Raghavulu, S/o Venkata Subbaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Standing Counsel for Anti-Corruption Bureau, High Court of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2006
Decided On : 06-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. P. Veera Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri. S.M. Subhani, Standing Counsel and Special P.P.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Criminal conduct of public servant - The accused officer was found guilty of corruption for demanding and accepting bribes for processing salary arrears. On trial, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines stipulated. (Paras 2-4, 8-9, 52)

(B) Valid sanction to prosecute - The court confirmed that prosecution provided a valid sanction for the accused’s prosecution, necessary for proceeding against public servants. (Paras 10-14)

(C) Demand and acceptance of bribe - The prosecution successfully demonstrated the accused’s demand for Rs.650 as a bribe, linked to ongoing official favors, establishing the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 36-52)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted in a case of corruption for demanding a bribe to pass an arrears salary bill while possessing the authority to do so. The complainant reported the demand, leading to a trap operation where the bribe was accepted.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved the accused’s demands and the legal sanction to prosecute was duly considered valid. The court ruled that the evidence of the complainant was credible, and the accused’s defense lacked substantiation.

Issues: The key issues were whether the prosecution provided a valid sanction and whether the demand and acceptance of the bribe were adequately established.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of tangible evidence for establishing public servant misconduct and the validity of sanction procedures. The evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the charges against the accused.

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed; the conviction and sentence of the accused were upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Challenging the judgment, dated 09.10.2006 in C.C.No.18 of 2001, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore (“Special Judge” for short), the unsuccessful Accused Officer (“A.O” for short) filed the present appeal.

2. The appellant (A.O.) faced trial in the above said Calendar Case for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short). The learned Special Judge after conclusion of trial, found the appellant guilty of the charges and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Court below for the sake of convenience.

4. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“ACB” for short), Prakasam District, Ongole, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.8/ACB-NPK/2000 of ACB, Nellore Range, alleging as follows:

    (i) The Accused Officer (A.O.) Endluri Veera Raghavulu, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, worked as Senior Assistant in the office of Zilla Parishad, Prakasam District, Ongole during the period from August, 1995 to 14.08.2000, as such, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act.

    (ii) One Thanneeru Srinivasa Rao, S/o Laxmaiah, is the Junior Assistant in Z.P. High School, Maddulur, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. He is the defacto-complainant (L.W.1). The Headmistress, Z.P. High School, Maddulur, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District i.e., L.W.5-Parankusam Ranganayakamma prepared arrears bill for Rs.6,365/-, as arrears of salary of L.W.1-Thanneeru Srinivasa Rao, Junior Assistant, as per Pay Revision Commission, 1999 in view of his revised fixation for the period from 01.07.1999 to 30.06.2000. It was sent to Z.P. office, Ongole in the first week of July, 2000. Subsequently, regular salary bill of July month of the staff of Z.P. High School, Maddulur was also sent to Z.P. Office by Headmistress.

    (iii) On 28.07.2000 L.W.1 met A.O. at Z.P. Office, Ongole and enquired about his arrears salary bill. A.O. stated to him that things should not be settled at free of cost and he should be paid 10% of the bill amount i.e., Rs.650/- as illegal gratification and asked him to pay the amount and to get the work done. When L.W.1 expressed his inability for paying bribe, A.O. informed him that it was not possible for him to pass the bill.

    (iv) On 01.08.2000 L.W.1 and L.W.5 went to State Bank of India, Ongole for encashment of salary and on that day L.W.1 came to know that his arrears salary bill is not included in the cheque of salaries. Then, he approached A.O. on 01.08.2000, who was available at State Bank of India, Ongole and asked him about his arrears bill. Then A.O. informed him that since he (L.W.1) failed to pay the bribe amount to him, his (L.W.1) arrears bill was kept pending. He further demanded L.W.1 to pay Rs.650/- after encashing the salaries and in such a case, he would pass the bill immediately and to arrange payment. Then, L.W.1 promised A.O. to pay the bribe amount on the next day. As he was not willing to pay the bribe to A.O., he approached the Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole (L.W.12) on the same day i.e., on 01.08.2000 and presented a report against A.O. The DSP, ACB, Nellore (L.W.11) registered the report of L.W.1 as a case in Crime No.8/ACB-NPK/20000 on 02.08.2000.

    (v) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nellore, conducted pre-trap proceedings in the office of Inspector, ACB, Ongole on 02.08.2000 between 9-30 a.m. an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top