IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
The State Of A.P. – Appellant
Versus
Sri Doddi Nagaraju – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1184 of 2007
Decided on : 14-07-2023.
Prevention of Corruption Act - Charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the meaning of a public servant under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and the validity of the sanction to prosecute under Section 19. The court also examined the allegations of demand of bribe and the recovery of tainted amount, considering the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The judgment upheld the acquittal of the accused and ordered prosecution of P.W.1 for perjury.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a public servant, faced charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe. The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs.700 from P.W.1 for official favor, which was recovered from the respondent's possession during a trap.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of demand and acceptance of the bribe against the respondent. The court upheld the acquittal of the respondent and ordered prosecution of P.W.1 for perjury.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the sanction to prosecute, the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts and did not provide substantial evidence to support the allegations of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court also found that the respondent's defense probabalized his version and disbelieved the case of the prosecution.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the respondent and ordering prosecution of P.W.1 for perjury.
JUDGMENT :
The judgment, dated 14.03.2006 in C.C.No.9 of 1999, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Special Judge” for short) is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal filed by the State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” in short), Visakhapatnam.
2. The respondent herein faced charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and the learned Special Judge on conclusion of trial, found the respondent not guilty of the charges and accordingly, acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), but ordered prosecution of P.W.1 for perjury.
3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam, filed a charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.7/RC-WLR/98 of A.C.B., Visakhapatnam Range, alleging in substance as follows:
(i) Sri Doddi Nagaraju, the Accused Officer (“A.O.” for short), worked as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and he was working as such as on 06.03.1998 and he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act.
(ii) The work of formation of road from Gompavanipalem Village to its hamlet Village Antlampalem at a value of Rs.1,00,000/- and another work of construction of Community Hall at Gompavanipalem at a value of Rs.1,20,000/- in Ravikamatham Mandal were sanctioned under “Prajala Vaddaku Palana” Scheme. 50% of the value of the work will be in the form of grant and the remaining 50% shall be borne by “Shramadanam” of the Villagers.
(iii) Sri Mithana Eswara Rao (P.W.1) was the President of the Habitation Committee. The Accused Officer, being Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ravikamatham, deposited Rs.50,000/- for road work and Rs.60,000/- for construction of Community Hall in the joint account opened in the names of P.W.1 and Sri K. Tatabbai, Mandal Engineering Officer (P.W.7) in Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, Ravikamatham.
(iv) The work of formation of road was taken up by Sri Yeka Ramana (P.W.2) and the work of Community Hall was taken up by Sri Ventakula Arjuna (P.W.3). Before the retirement of P.W.7, on 30.11.1997 he recorded the measurements of the completed works in M-Books, prepared bills and submitted them to the A.O. for issuing cheques. For the road work, an amount of Rs.7,325/- is to be paid to P.W.2 and for Community Hall work, a sum of Rs.6,868/- is to be paid to P.W.3. On retirement of P.W.7, the A.O. got transferred the amount in the joint account of P.W.1 and P.W.7 into his name by obtaining the signatures of P.W.1 and P.W.7. But, the A.O. did not issue cheques for both the works and kept them pending with him.
(v) On 04.03.1998 at 1-30 p.m., P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 met the A.O. and requested him to make payment. The A.O. demanded Rs.700/-, 5% of the bill amount of Rs.14,193/- as bribe and he claimed that cheques will not be issued unless the demanded bribe amount is paid. In spite of requests of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the A.O. did not agree and therefore P.W.1, in consultation with P.W.2 and P.W.3, reluctantly agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.700/- to the A.O. and approached Sri N. Saibaba, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam (P.W.10) on 05.03.1998 at 3-00 p.m. and submitted Ex.P.1 report. P.W.10 registered Ex.P.1 as a case in the above crime number under the above Sections of law on 06.03.1998 at 7-00 a.m. and arranged for trap.
(vi) The A.O. was successfully trapped on 06.03.1998 at 1-35 p.m., in his office and the tainted amount of Rs.700/- (M.O.5) which was lying on a memo, dated 12.02.1998 (Ex.P.15), was picked up by the A.O. from his right side table drawer. The test of both hand fingers of the A.O. and Ex.P.15
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for foundational facts to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, and the benefit of presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C. Act.
The prosecution must establish foundational facts to benefit from the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Insufficient evidence and hostile witnesses can weaken the case against the accused....
The judgment emphasized the need to establish the demand for bribe or pecuniary advantage as essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It highlighted the foundational facts req....
The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
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.