Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Panchakarla Satyanarayana, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah - Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2007
Decided On : 21-03-2023
In a trap case, the prosecution proved that the accused public servant (AO) demanded a bribe from the complainant (PW1) on two occasions, first on 20.10.1999 and then on 02.11.1999, and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- on the latter date. The AO contended that he was falsely implicated by PW1 due to a grudge against him. The Court held that the prosecution had established the foundational facts necessary to raise a presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and that the AO had failed to rebut this presumption. The Court also found that the AO's demand and acceptance of the bribe constituted the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The Court dismissed the AO's appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant (PW1) approached the accused public servant (AO), an Additional Assistant Engineer (Operations), to request an electricity service connection for his son's bore well. The AO initially demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- but later reduced it to Rs.4,000/-. PW1 reported the incident to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap and caught the AO red-handed while accepting the bribe amount from PW1 on 02.11.1999.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the AO had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW1 on two occasions, first on 20.10.1999 and then on 02.11.1999. The Court also found that the AO had failed to rebut the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the PC Act, which arose due to his acceptance of the bribe. The Court held that the AO's demand and acceptance of the bribe constituted the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the AO was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him for the charges framed? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved that the process relating to electrical service connection to the lands of PW2 was pending with the AO on 20.10.1999 i.e., the alleged date of demand of bribe and on 02.11.1999, the date of trap? 3. Whether the prosecution had proved that the AO demanded PW1 for bribe of Rs.5,000/- and later reduced it to Rs.4,000/- and in pursuance of the said demand on 20.10.1999 and 02.11.1999 accepted the bribe amount from PW1 to do official favour? 4. Whether the prosecution has proved before the Court below charges framed against the AO beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Judge?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution had proved that the AO was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and that the prosecution had obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him for the charges framed. 2. The Court held that the prosecution had proved that the process relating to electrical service connection to the lands of PW2 was pending with the AO on 20.10.1999 and on 02.11.1999. 3. The Court held that the prosecution had proved that the AO demanded PW1 for bribe of Rs.5,000/- and later reduced it to Rs.4,000/- and in pursuance of the said demand on 20.10.1999 and 02.11.1999 accepted the bribe amount from PW1 to do official favour. 4. The Court held that the prosecution had proved before the Court below charges framed against the AO beyond reasonable doubt and that there were no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Judge.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the AO's appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C‘), is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused Officer (AO) in Calendar Case No.9 of 2001, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge‘), challenging the judgment, dated 19.12.2006, where under the learned Special Judge found the AO guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act‘), accordingly convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act and that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. MO.3 cash of Rs.4,000/- shall be returned to PW.1 and MOs.1, 2, 4 and 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.16/ACB-RCT-EWG/99 of ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the charge sheet is as follows:
Sri P. Satyanarayana, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah, AO, worked as Additional Assistant Engineer (Operations), A.P. TRANSCO, Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited (APEPDCL), Sub-Station 33/11 KV, T. Narsapuram, West Godavari District. He is a ‘Public Servant‘ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
Sri Thota Peddi Raju (LW.1), S/o. Venkanna, resident of Tedlam Village, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District is working as Head Master in M.P. Elementary School, Kethavaram, West Godavari District. Son of LW.1 is having agricultural lands at Sriramavaram, H/o. Tedlam village and he dug a bore well in the lands and paid Rs.50,620/- during 1996 through Andhra Bank Demand Draft, as per the estimation made by AO for electrical service connection to the bore well dug in the fields of his son. LW.1 roamed around the office of AO for the above electrical service connection. He was informed that it would be given on priority basis. Subsequently, LW.1, on coming to know that agricultural service connection was sanctioned to his son, on priority basis, met the AO at his residence in the morning on 20.10.1999 and asked the AO about the service connection. AO informed him that electrical service connection was sanctioned to his son on priority basis and that the connected material has to be drawn and demanded Rs.5,000/- to give service connection to the bore well of his son. When LW.1 pleaded his inability to pay the demanded bribe amount, the AO reduced it to Rs.4,000/-. When LW.1 intimated to AO that he had no money and informed his financial constraints, AO asked him to pay the same after receiving his (PW.1's) salary. Therefore, LW.1 reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe to AO. He went to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), ACB on 30.10.1999 and presented a report to the DSP with a request to take action. The ACB officials registered his report as a case in the aforesaid Crime and took up investigation.
On 02.11.1999 at 06:15 a.m. AO was trapped by LW.8, DSP, ACB, when he further demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.4,000/- at his residence from LW.1 for doing official favour in giving service connection to the bore well of his son. On seeing the trap party, AO tried to run
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 ....
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.
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
