Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
State, Rep. by Insp. of Police ACB, Trgh. SPL. PP Hyd. - Petitioner
Versus
V. Venkata Somayajulu - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 945 of 2007
Decided On : 21-03-2023
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 7 AND 13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) - RECOVERY OF TAINTED AMOUNT FROM PUBLIC SERVANT - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 - FOUNDATIONAL FACTS - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - DEFACTO COMPLAINANT EXPIRED WITHOUT GIVING EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of bribery against a public servant, referred to as the Accused Officer (A.O.). The prosecution alleged that the A.O. demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from the complainant, L.W.1, in exchange for attending to his official favor. The A.O. was caught red-handed during a trap operation and the tainted amount was recovered from his possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court, after considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, acquitted the A.O. under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the A.O. demanded and accepted the bribe, and that the recovery of the tainted amount from the A.O.'s possession was not sufficient to establish his guilt in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the A.O. demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant? 2. Whether the recovery of the tainted amount from the A.O.'s possession was sufficient to establish his guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act)? 3. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the A.O. in the absence of direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the A.O. demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant. The court noted that the complainant had died prior to his examination as a witness, and there was no direct evidence to support the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe. 2. The court held that the recovery of the tainted amount from the A.O.'s possession was not sufficient to establish his guilt under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The court noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act can only be drawn if the prosecution proves the foundational facts, such as demand and acceptance of bribe. In the absence of such proof, the presumption cannot be drawn. 3. The court held that the trial court did not err in acquitting the A.O. in the absence of direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, and that the recovery of the tainted amount from the A.O.'s possession was not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the State, upholding the acquittal of the A.O. by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, being represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” in short), Visakhapatnam, challenging the judgment, dated 10.03.2006 in C.C.No.19 of 2000, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (“Special Judge” for short), where under the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer (“A.O” for short) therein not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, before the Court below, according to the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam, pertaining to Crime No.12/RC-WLR/98 of A.C.B., Visakhapatnam, is as follows :
(ii) The complainant Sri Penti Atchiraju is working as Messenger in Union Bank of India, Chintapalli. His father Penti Nookaraju has Ac.5-00 cents of land in Antharla Village and executed a Will in his favour for Ac.1-00 cents of land from out of Ac.5-00 cents of land owned by him. In first week of June, 1998, he approached the A.O. and presented original Will, copy of Pattadar passbook of his father and an application signed by his father requesting to register it and to effect necessary entries in the revenue records about parting of Ac.1-00 cents of land to him by his father. The A.O. asked him to bring a challan of Rs.100/- by paying in the Sub-Treasury, Chintapalli. Accordingly, L.W.1 remitted the amount and handed over the challan to the A.O. The A.O. asked him to meet him later. Later, L.W.1 met A.O. twice or thrice, but the A.O. did not complete the work.
(iii) On 20.06.1998 at 11-00 a.m., when the A.O. visited Union Bank of India where L.W.1 is working, he enquired about his work. Then, the A.O. told L.W.1 to come to his office. L.W.1 went to M.R.O. Office and met the A.O. The A.O. demanded him to pay Rs.1,500/- towards bribe to get his work done. When L.W.1 asked the A.O. to reduce the bribe amount, the A.O. reduced it to Rs.1,000/- and instructed him to pay the same within two or three days. L.W.1 reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe. As he was unwilling to pay the bribe amount, he approached D.S.P., ACB on 21.06.1998 at 4-00 p.m., and reported the matter. D.S.P., ACB recorded the statement of L.W.1 and obtained his signature and registered it as a case in Crime No.11/RC-WLR/98 and took up investigation. The A.O. was trapped on 23.06.1998 at 11-30 a.m. in the office of M.R.O., Chintapalli, when he demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1,000/- for attending official favor in favour of L.W.1. The chemical test conducted to both hands of the A.O. yielded positive result. The amount was recovered from the left side shirt pocket of the A.O. The inner linings of the shirt pocket of the A.O. proved positive when they were subjected to chemical test.
(iv) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the competent authority to remove the A.O., accorded sanction order in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 05.01.2000 of Revenue (Services-IV) Department to prosecute the A.O. Hence, the charge sheet.
4. The learned Special Judge, took the case on file under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and after appearance of the A.O and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act against the A.O and explained the same to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course
The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) can only be drawn if the prosecution proves the foundational facts, such as demand and acceptance of bribe. In the abse....
The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
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.
Demand and acceptance of bribe are essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted amount in the abse....
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.
Illegal gratification – Mere recovery of tainted amount in absence of any proof of demand and acceptance cannot be taken as sufficient to convict accused.
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
