IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Petitioner
Versus
Meegada Gangadhar Tilak S/o Veera Raghavulu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2007
Decided On : 11-12-2023
P.C. Act - Acquittal of Accused Officer - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act - The court found the Accused Officer not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The court also ordered the prosecution of P.W.1 for perjury.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a charge sheet against the Accused Officer alleging that he demanded and accepted a bribe for issuing a title deed. The prosecution failed to prove the demands and acceptance of the bribe, and the court found the Accused Officer not guilty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Accused Officer not guilty of the charges and ordered the prosecution of P.W.1 for perjury.
Issues: 1. Whether the Accused Officer demanded and accepted a bribe. 2. Whether the judgment of acquittal is sustainable under law. 3. Whether there are grounds to interfere with the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution failed to prove the demands and acceptance of the bribe, and the court found the Accused Officer not guilty. The court also found the judgment of acquittal to be reasonable and ordered the prosecution of P.W.1 for perjury.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, and the record is directed to be forwarded to the trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 30.06.2006 in C.C.No. 4 of 2001, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (“Special Judge” for short). The State, represented by Range Inspector-III, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” for short), filed the present appeal questioning the order of acquittal recorded against the Accused Officers/respondent.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience.
3. The State, represented by Range Inspector-III, A.C.B., Vijayawada, filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 3/ACB-RCT-VJA/2000 of A.C.B., Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, Krishna District, alleging in substance as follows:
(b) P.W.1, resident of Lingareddypalem of Koduru Mandal is an agriculturist and his father purchased an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in the year 1975 and got it registered in the name of his wife. His father died three years after the marriage of his daughter, Narsamma and in the year 1996 the brother-in-law of P.W.1 Saibabu created a document stating that the land of the mother of P.W.1 was given to his wife during her marriage under that document and with the help of V.A.O., the brother-in-law of P.W.1 obtained a passbook from M.R.O. and tried to occupy the said land.
(c) On that the mother of P.W.1 filed an Appeal in Revenue Divisional Officer’s Court and basing on her report, the R.D.O. enquired and issued orders to M.R.O., Koduru to give passbook and title deed to the mother of P.W.1 and as per the said orders, the M.R.O. issued passbook in the month of January, 2000 through the Accused Officer and immediately P.W.1 asked Accused Officer to give the title deed also. On this, the Accused Officer informed that it was sent to R.D.O. for signature.
(d) Again on 10.02.2000 P.W.1 met Accused Officer and requested for issue of title deed of his mother and on that for doing his favour, Accused Officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- and asked him to bring his mother for taking delivery of the title deed. Again on 15.02.2000 when P.W.1 met Accused Officer for the same purpose, the Accused Officer reiterated his earlier demand of bribe and asked P.W.1 to bring an authorization letter from his mother and accordingly P.W.1 met the Accused Officer along with others on 17.02.2000 and when requested for delivery of the titled deed of his mother and when expressed about his inability to pay the demanded bribe, the Accused Officer reduced the same to Rs.2,400/- and further informed P.W.1 to bring the same to his office on 18.02.2000 and to meet him either in the morning or in the evening and to pay the same, failing which the title deed will not be given. Then P.W.1 reluctantly agreed to pay the same.
(e) On 17.02.2000 P.W.1 gave a report to the D.S.P., who after observing necessary formalities, registered a case and on 18.02.2000 Accused Officer was successfully trapped at about 3-40 p.m., in the office when he further demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2,400/- and when the hand fingers of Accused Officer were subjected to chemical tests, they proved positive. The D.S.P. seized the tainted amount.
(f) The Government of Andhra Pradesh being the competent authority to remove the Accused Officer issued prosecution sanction orders as per G.O.Ms.No. 773, dated 02.11.2000 of Revenue (SER.III) Department. Hence, this case.
4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. On appearance of the Accused Officer and on compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), the learne
The prosecution must prove the demands and acceptance of a bribe to establish guilt under the P.C. Act.
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.
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.
The prosecution must establish foundational facts to benefit from the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Insufficient evidence and hostile witnesses can weaken the case against the accused....
The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
The judgment emphasized the need to establish the demand for bribe or pecuniary advantage as essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It highlighted the foundational facts req....
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 judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
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 emphasizes the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the need for consistent and reliable evidence in corruption cases.
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.