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) 731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Talluri Gilbert Subhashan Kumar @ Kumar, S/o. George & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 474 & 497 of 2015
Decided On : 13-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P. Narasimha Rao, Learned Counsel, Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, Learned Counsel.
For the Respondent: Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

The prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servants are sine-qua-non to constitute the offenses. In the absence of evidence to establish the voluntary acceptance of gratification by the accused, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would not arise.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, AO-1 and AO-2, were convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The prosecution alleged that AO-1 demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant to issue pattedar passbooks for his land. AO-1 reduced the bribe to Rs. 600/- and informed the complainant to pay the amount to AO-2. AO-2 then asked the complainant to pay the bribe to AO-3, who was later found to have accepted the bribe amount. The appellants denied the allegations and claimed they were falsely implicated.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellants and set aside the judgment of the trial court. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellants. The complainant turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution's case. The court also found that the appellants did not deal with the tainted amount and there was no evidence to suggest that AO-2 directed AO-3 to take the bribe amount from the complainant. The court further held that the trial court erred in relying on assumptions and presumptions to convict the appellants.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved that AO-1 and AO-2 were "public servants" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute them under Section 19 of the PC Act for the charges framed against them? 2. Whether the prosecution proved pendency of official favor in respect of the work of PW1 and his mother with Accused Officers No.1 and 2 prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap? 3. Whether the prosecution proved that AO-1 and AO-2 demanded PW1 to pay a bribe of Rs.600/- and accepted the said bribe amount in consequence of demand within the meaning of Section 7 of the PC Act and if so whether such act on the part of AO-1 and AO-2 would amount to criminal misconduct in terms of Section 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act? 4. Whether the impugned judgment, dated 15.05.2015, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Judge?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servants are sine-qua-non to constitute the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. * In the absence of evidence to establish the voluntary acceptance of gratification by the accused, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would not arise. * The prosecution must prove the foundational facts for the purpose of Section 20 of the PC Act.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellants and set aside the judgment of the trial court. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellants. The complainant turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution's case. The court also found that the appellants did not deal with the tainted amount and there was no evidence to suggest that AO-2 directed AO-3 to take the bribe amount from the complainant. The court further held that the trial court erred in relying on assumptions and presumptions to convict the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

The judgment, dated 15.05.2015, in Calendar Case No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short, "the learned Special Judge"), is under challenge in these two Appeals. Criminal Appeal No.474 of 2015 is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused Officer No.1 (AO-1) and Criminal Appeal No.497 of 2015 is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused Officer No.2 (AO-2), in the aforesaid Calendar Case respectively.

2. Both the Appellants, as above, as Accused Officers No.1 and 2, faced joint charges before the learned Special Judge for the offences 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"). The learned Special Judge found both the appellants herein guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced them.

3. The parties to these Criminal Appeals will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

4. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.5/ACB-RCT-EWG/2003 of ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the Accused Officers No.1 to 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows :

    (i) AO-1 - Talluri Gilbert Subashan Kumar @ Kumar worked as Revenue Inspector-1 (RI) from 22.11.2002 to 22.07.2003; AO-2 – Chevala Satyanarayana worked as Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) from 15.11.2002 to 22.07.2003 and AO-3 – Jukunta Narasimhulu worked as Mandal Deputy Surveyor from 04.10.1997 to 22.07.2003 in the Mandal Revenue Office, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. By virtue of the positions held by them, all the Accused Officers come under the category of "Public Servants" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.

(ii) LW.1 – Chinta Srikrishna Chaitanya is a resident of Nallajerla Village and Mandal. He purchased an extent of Ac.2.43 cents from his villager – Rayudu Dharma Rao in his name and also an extent of Ac.2.21 cents of agricultural land from one Chundru Gandhi of his village in the name of his mother – Chinta Satyavathi in the year 2001. He got the lands registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Ananthapalli. He intended to dig a bore well in the lands of his mother by obtaining a bank loan. Therefore, he applied for Pattedar Passbooks for the aforesaid two bits of lands to MRO, Nallajerla along with the required documents. MRO, Nallajerla signed the applications and sent to the Revenue Inspector on the same day. LW.1 requested the Revenue Inspector (AO-1) to issue pattedar passbooks. Then AO-1 demanded him Rs.1,000/- as bribe. He approached AO-1 frequently and requested him for issuance of the pattedar passbooks but he demanded bribe of Rs.500/- for each pattadar passbook.

(iii) On 18.07.2003, LW.1 approached the MRO (AO-2) and requested him for issuance of pattedar passbooks. On that AO-2 replied that after receiving the report from the AO-1, he would issue the same. On 19.07.2003, LW.1 met AO-1 at his office and asked about the pattedar passbooks and then AO-1 demanded the bribe amount. LW.1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded bribe to AO-1. AO-1 reduced the bribe to Rs.600/- and informed LW.1 that if the said amount is not paid, he will not process for issuance of pattader pass books. LW.1 was not willing to pay the demanded bribe amount, as such he approached the DSP, ACB, Eluru (LW.11) and submitted his report on 21.07.2003 at 12:00 noon and requested DSP, ACB, Eluru to take action against AO-1.

(iv) LW.11 registered the report of LW.1 as a case in Crime No.5/ACB-RCT-EWG/2003 for the aforesaid offences, after due verification and investigated into. He secured the services of LW.1 as decoy and LW.8 – Rongala Venkateswara Rao and LW.9 – Tang

      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