Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
The State Of A.P. –Appellant
Versus
Sri P.Ch.Ranga Reddy & Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 270 Of 2008
Decided on : 13-12-2023
PC Act - Acquittal - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment highlighted the evidence presented by the prosecution, the defense's arguments, and the court's reasoning for acquitting the accused officers.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a charge sheet against two accused officers under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging demands for bribes. The trial court acquitted the accused officers, leading to the State filing an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused officers beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted the lack of corroboration for the testimony of the key witness and the absence of a clear nexus between the accused officers.
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the prosecution's evidence, the credibility of the witness testimony, and the establishment of a connection between the accused officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused officers beyond reasonable doubt, the absence of corroboration for the key witness's testimony, and the failure to prove a clear nexus between the accused officers.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused officers by the trial court.
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, dated 04.08.2007, in Calendar Case No.34 of 2002, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short, “the learned Special Judge”), whereunder the learned Special Judge acquitted the Accused Officer No.1 for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and acquitted the Accused Officer No.2 for the charges under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
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, Prakasam District, Ongole filed charge sheet in Crime No.11/ACB-NPK/2000 of ACB, Nellore Range alleging the offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the PC Act”) against the Accused Officers. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows:
(i) Potireddy China Ranga Reddy, Accused Officer-1 (AO-1), worked as Sub-Inspector of Police in Komarole Police Station, Prakasam District from 10.07.1999 to 18.10.2000 and Konda Narsireddy, Accused Officer-2 (AO-2), worked as Constable in the same Station from 12.06.2000 to 18.10.2000 and they are “public servants” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
(ii) Sallagolusula Nageswara Rao (LW.1) is a worker in the wine shop named M/s. Venkata Raghavendra Company, Komarole, Prakasam District belongs to one Sare Sesha Narasimhanaidu (LW.2). Prior to 15.10.2000, AO-1 visited the wine shop of LW.2 and demanded LW.1 to pay monthly mamools so as to run their business without any obstruction. On 15.10.2000, he again visited the shop and demanded the de-facto complainant (LW.1) to pay Rs.3,300/- towards monthly mamools for running liquor business for which LW.1 questioned him as to why he has to pay the demanded amount. AO-1 threatened him that he will be in trouble. Complainant intimated the incident to LW.2, owner of the shop, who instructed him to report the matter to the ACB officials. Basing on the report of the complainant, LW.11 - the DSP, ACB registered the same as a case in Crime No.11/ACB-NPK/2000 of ACB, Nellore Range. The DSP, ACB conducted pre-trap proceedings. During the post-trap proceedings on 18.10.2000, when the complainant went to Komarole Police Station and approached AO-1, he asked the complainant whether he brought the demanded bribe amount and when the complainant replied in positive, he instructed him to handover the amount to AO-2 – Police Constable. Then, complainant approached AO-2 and AO-2 received Rs.3,300/- from LW.1, counted the same with his both hands and kept in his pant right side pocket. LW.1 intimated to AO-1 that he paid the demanded amount to AO-2. Then, complainant came out from the Police Station and relayed pre-arranged signal. Immediately, the DSP, ACB along with other raid party members rushed into Komarole Police Station. LW.1 informed the DSP, ACB as to what happened. The tainted amount of Rs.3,300/- was recovered from the ground under the Writer’s table as AO-2 has thrown out the same on seeing the ACB raid party. The particulars of the currency notes were tallied with the currency notes mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings and chemical test was conducted to both hand fingers of AO-2, which gave positive result. Further, the inner linings of right side pant pocket of AO-2 also yielded positive result. AO-1 was present in his office room adjacent to the room of AO-2 and the test conducted to both hand fingers of AO-1 yielded negative result.
(iii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded sanction to prosecute the AO-1 and A-2 in a competent Court of law vide G.O.Ms.No.236-Home (SC.A Dept.) dated 08.08.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.348-Home (SC.A Dept.) dated 11.11.2002. Hence the charge sheet.
4. The learned Special Judge
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the need for corroborative evidence for witness test....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the need for consistent and reliable evidence in corruption cases.
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....
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 the official favor pending with the accused and the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
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
