IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Khaja Syed Rafiuddin - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of A.P., Rpe. By Spl. PP. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 851 Of 2007
Decided On : 01-12-2023
Corruption - Public Servant - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) - The judgment discusses the validity of the sanction obtained by the prosecution, the official favor pending with the accused, and the demand and acceptance of bribe. The court found that a valid sanction was obtained, official favor was pending, and the accused demanded and accepted the bribe, leading to his conviction under the mentioned sections of the PC Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Divisional Engineer, demanded a bribe from a shop owner for excessive power consumption, leading to a trap by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The accused was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a valid sanction was obtained, official favor was pending, and the accused demanded and accepted the bribe, leading to his conviction under the mentioned sections of the PC Act.
Issues: 1) Validity of the sanction obtained by the prosecution. 2) Official favor pending with the accused. 3) Demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid sanction was obtained, official favor was pending, and the accused demanded and accepted the bribe, leading to his conviction under the mentioned sections of the PC Act.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore stands confirmed. As the Accused Officer died during the pendency of the Appeal, no further steps are required to carry out the sentence.
JUDGMENT :
The judgment in Calendar Case No.23 of 2003, dated 20.06.2007, 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/unsuccessful Accused Officer.
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, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.1/RCT-TCD/2003 of ACB, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’), alleging, in substance, that the Accused Officer by name Khaji Syed Rafiuddin worked as Divisional Engineer, DPE, APSPDCL, Kadapa District as such he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
LW.1 – P. Chinna Bali Reddy, S/o. Obul Reddy, R/o.D.No.6/489, Sankarapuram, Kadapa Town is running R.R. Iron Work Shop at D.No.7/154-4 G, N.G.O. Colony, Kadapa Town since 1990. The shop is having electrical Service Connection No.32390 with 3 phases 5 K.V. deposit and using about 400 units per month and paying electricity charges regularly. 10 days prior to 01.01.2003, AO visited the shop of LW.1 and inspected the machinery in the shop and found 3 welding machines, 2 grinders, 1 drilling machine, 1 tube light, 2 bulbs and 5 plugs and informed to LW.1 that more capacity machines are there as against the existing deposit capacity and LW.1 has to pay the amount towards deposit for 20 K.V. LW.1 asked the AO to issue a notice for which he replied that he has to pay Rs.20,000/- if he issues a notice. He demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.3,000/- and also to pay Rs.500/- as monthly mamool. LW.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe. On 26.12.2002 and 31.12.2002 also AO visited the shop of LW.1 and reiterated his earlier demand and threatened that, if he fail to pay bribe amount, he would foist a case and cancel his Service Connection. LW.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount. AO reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,500/- and asked him to be ready with the bribe amount and that he would come to his shop and collect the bribe amount on 02.01.2003. Hence, LW.1 decided to give a report to ACB and accordingly presented the report with DSP, ACB, Tirupati Range, Kadapa. The pre-trap proceedings took place in the office of Inspector of Police, ACB, Kadapa on 02.01.2003 from 05:00 to 06:15 p.m. in the presence of S.N. Chakravarthi - Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Kadapa and LW.2 - Y.V.V. Sreedhar, Senior Auditor, State Audit, Kadapa. On 02.01.2003 at 06:20 p.m., the DSP, ACB, Tirupati Range along with LW.1, LW.2 and LW.3 - mediators, reached the shop of LW.1. At about 06:40 p.m. AO came to the shop of LW.1 and demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1,500/- from LW.1. LW.3, the accompanying witness, heard the conversation that took place between LW.1 and AO. LW.1 asked the AO to sit a while to take a cup of coffee. LW.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. Trap party members received the signal and rushed into the shop of LW.1. The DSP, ACB, Tirupati subjected both hand fingers of AO to the chemical test and the test yielded positive result. On the request of DSP, ACB AO produced a wad of currency notes from his right side trouser pocket. Their particulars were tallied with pre trap proceedings. The DSP, ACB seized the above currency notes.
The Chairman and Managing Director, AP Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Tirupati accorded sanction to prosecute the AO in a competent Court of law vide his proceedings dated 26.07.2003. Hence, the charge sheet.
4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and, after appearance of the AO, by complying the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, framed charges under Sections 7 and 1
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 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 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 prosecution can prove a valid sanction either by producing the original sanction, which contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence alinude....
The court established that the accused, a public servant, demanded and accepted bribes, violating provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus overturning the trial court's acquittal based on....
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....
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.