Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
L.V. Gopal Swamy S/o Venkata Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1001 of 2007
Decided On : 11-12-2023
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The accused officer (AO) faced charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the AO demanded Rs.2,000 as a bribe from a school headmaster for sanctioning arrears bills. The AO denied the allegations and claimed that he never received the arrear bills and did not demand any amount from the headmaster. The trial court found the AO not guilty of the charge under Section 7 but guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) and convicted him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for bribe prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap. The court also noted that the prosecution's evidence was not believable and the demand was not established. The court held that the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act was not sustainable.
Issues: 1. Proof of the demand for bribe prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap. 2. Conviction under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the demand for illegal gratification is essential to prove the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Mere recovery of the tainted amount without proof of demand would not establish the offence under these sections. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand, and therefore, the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act was not sustainable.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the AO under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The AO was acquitted of the charge, and the tainted amount was ordered to be confiscated to the State. The legal representative of the AO was entitled to claim a refund of the fine amount, if any paid.
JUDGMENT :
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
1. The judgment in Calendar Case No. 13 of 2001, dated 16.07.2007, on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (for short “the learned Special Judge”), is under challenge in the present Appeal filed by the unsuccessful accused.
2. The Accused Officer (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”). The learned Special Judge on conclusion of trial, found the AO not guilty of the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act but found him guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and, accordingly convicted him under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
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 Range Inspector-I, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer by name L.V. Gopal Swamy, Assistant Audit Officer, worked in Local Fund Office at Kakinada pertaining to Crime No. 4/RC-RJY/2000 of ACB, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry 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, is that AO is a “Public Servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. LW.1 – Voleti Venkata Visveswara Sastry was the Head Master of MP Elementary School, S. Atchutapuram, E.G. District. LW.1 submitted his arrears bills in the Office of the Mandal Educational Officer, Kakinada Rural Mandal on 03.05.2000, which was forwarded to the AO on 26.05.2000. In fact, the arrears bills were handed over by LW.1 in the office of AO after duly verified by the MEO, Kakinada. The arrears bills file was kept on his table by the AO without putting his initial on the file. AO informed to his Junior Audit Officer (LW.5 – E. Ravindra Kumar) that he would see the file in the second week of May, 2000. LW.1 met the AO about his pending bills, but the AO asked him to come after 10 days. LW.1 could not meet the AO in the month of May, 2000 due to pressure of work. On 05.06.2000 at about 10:30 a.m., LW.1 met the AO in the office and enquired about his bills. The AO demanded Rs.2,000/- for processing the arrears bills, but LW.1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded amount. LW.1 reluctantly agreed to pay the demanded amount. As LW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe, he approached LW.11, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Rajahmundry and filed a written complaint dated 05.06.2000. The complaint was registered as Crime on 06.06.2000 after making antecedents enquiry. On 06.06.2000, LW.11, arranged the trap party and went to the Office of AO. LW.1 paid the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to the AO on demand. On receiving the tainted amount, AO kept the amount in his Scooter’s front box. Meanwhile, the ACB people trapped the AO, seized the tainted amount, and conducted chemical examination, which proved positive. On the same day, AO was arrested and released on bail by the DSP. After completing investigation, prosecution obtained permission vide G.O.Ms. No. 189, dated 30.12.2000, from the Finance and Planning Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence the charge sheet.
5. 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 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the AO, read over and explained the sam
The demand for illegal gratification is essential to prove charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Mere recovery of the tainted amount without proof of demand would no....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere possession of cash does not suffice for conviction.
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 demand for illegal gratification to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient.
The accused's act of deducting a sum from a colleague's travel allowance, despite obtaining the colleague's signature for the full amount, constituted an abuse of his position as a public servant, le....
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
