Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
P. Subbarayudu S/o Subbanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2006
Decided On : 17-07-2023
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - [SECTION 7 AND 13(1)(D) R/W. SECTION 13(2)] - SANCTION - [SECTION 19] - PENDENCY OF OFFICIAL FAVOUR - [SECTION 20] - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - [SECTION 7 AND 13(1)(D) R/W. SECTION 13(2)] - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS - [FACT OF THE CASE AND FINDING OF THE COURT] - ISSUES - [ISSUES] - RATIO DECIDENDI - [RATIO DECIDENDI] - FINAL DECISION - [FINAL DECISION]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Junior Assistant in the office of MRO, Chapadu Mandal, Cuddapah District, was charged with demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.500/- from the complainant to process his application for a pattadar passbook and title deed. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including the complainant, two mediators, and the DSP, ACB, who conducted the trap. The appellant examined two witnesses, including himself, to support his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of both charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- for the charge under Section 7 and one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/- for the charge under Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The learned Special Judge also directed the prosecution of the complainant for the offence of perjury.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the PC Act for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act? 2. Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved that the appellant demanded PW.1 to pay bribe prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap and accepted the bribe amount from PW.1 and if so whether such act on the part of the appellant would amount to criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act? 3. Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved charges, as above, against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Court below?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellant was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act as he was drawing salary from the account of the Government. The prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the appellant under Section 19 of the PC Act for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act as the sanctioning authority had gone through the allegations with reference to the report of PW.1 and post trap proceedings and applied mind. 2. The prosecution proved that the appellant demanded PW.1 to pay bribe prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap and accepted the bribe amount from PW.1. The appellant's demand for bribe was towards bribe for doing official favor and not towards repayment of loan as claimed by the appellant. The appellant's act of demanding and accepting bribe amounted to criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 3. The prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. There were no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Court below.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in all respects.
JUDGMENT :
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
1. The judgment, dated 31.08.2006, in Calendar Case No. 22 of 2001, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short “the learned Special Judge”) is under challenge in the present Appeal filed by the Appellant-Accused Officer (AO).
2. The AO faced 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”) before the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge, on conclusion of trial, found the AO guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. After questioning him about the quantum of sentence, the learned Special Judge sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the charge under Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Both the above substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The learned Special Judge by virtue of the judgment also made an order to prosecute PW.1 for the offence of perjury as he turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
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 Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Cuddapah District, Tirupathi Range, filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No. 3/RCT-TCD/2000 of ACB, Tirupati Range for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act alleging, in substance, that the AO by name Pitta Subbarayudu, S/o. Subbanna, worked as Junior Assistant in the Office of MRO, Chapadu Mandal, Cuddapah District from 01.11.1999 to 19.05.2000, as such he is a “Public Servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act:
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the official favor pending with the accused and the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
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 ....
The court affirmed that valid sanction and evidence of demand for bribe are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with a presumption of guilt established when evidence supp....
The judgment established the importance of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. It also....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
