SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
The State of A.P., Rep. By Inspector of Police, - Appelant
Vs.
Sri E.Venkateswara Rao Formerly Sr. Asst. O/o The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jarugumalli – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 622 of 2007
Decided on : 14-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appelant : S.M. Subhani
For the Respondents: A. Hariprasad Reddy

The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.

Headnote:

Corruption - Criminal Appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - [P.C. Act] - [7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)] - The court found that the prosecution proved that the accused officer was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and a valid sanction to prosecute the accused officer for the charges leveled against him. The evidence on record proved the pendency of the official favor. The judgment of acquittal was sustained under law and facts, and there were no grounds to interfere with the same.

Fact of the Case:

The accused officer was charged under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act for demanding a bribe of Rs.1,200/- for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The prosecution alleged that the accused officer demanded the bribe and accepted it, but the defense claimed that the accused officer was physically handicapped and the prosecution failed to prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution proved that the accused officer was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and a valid sanction to prosecute the accused officer for the charges leveled against him. The evidence on record proved the pendency of the official favor. The judgment of acquittal was sustained under law and facts, and there were no grounds to interfere with the same.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused officer was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him. 2. Whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the judgment of acquittal was sustainable under law and facts and whether there were any grounds to interfere with the same.

Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution successfully proved the accused officer's status as a public servant and obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him. However, the evidence failed to prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged, leading to the sustained judgment of acquittal.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was sustained. The court found no tenable reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is made by the State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” for short), Prakasam District, Ongole, to the judgment, dated 25.01.2007 in C.C.No.19 of 2001, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore (“Special Judge” for short) whereunder the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer (“A.O.” for short) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (“P.C. Act” for short) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).

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 the Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Prakasam District, Ongole, laid a charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.9/ACB-NPK/2000 of A.C.B., Nellore Range, alleging in substance as follows:

(a) Edara Venakteswara Rao (A.O.) worked as Senior Assistant in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Jarugumalli from 18.02.1999 to 01.09.2000 and he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C. Act. L.W.1-Mallavarapu Brahma Reddy is resident of Jayavaram Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, who presented a report against A.O. One Mallavarapu Venakta Subba Reddy (L.W.6), father of Mallavarapu Brahma Reddy (L.W.1) owns an extent of Ac.5-75 cents of dry land in Paletipadu Village, Jarugumalli Mandal. In the month of December, 1999, their family members partitioned the land under registered deeds and they got their respective extents. Accordingly, on 04.02.2000 L.W.1 and L.W.6-Mallavarapu Venakta Subba Reddy, L.W.7-Mallavarapu Ramana Reddy and L.W.8-Mallavarapu Jayarami Reddy submitted a joint representation to M.R.O., Jarugumalli for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the lands. The M.R.O., Jarugumalli after giving notice to them conducted necessary enquiry with the help of V.A.O. Ultimately, recommendations were made in issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds on 31.05.2000. L.W.1 approached A.O. several times and requested him for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. He used to postpone the same on some pretext or the other. On 11.08.2000 at about 11-00 am., when he approached A.O. at his office, A.O. demanded Rs.1,200/- as illegal gratification to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds. He asked him to pay the amount within two or three days and unless that amount was paid, their request cannot be considered. Therefore, L.W.1 who had no intention to pay the bribe, approached L.W.13-Inspector of Police, ACB on 11.08.2000 evening and presented a report. L.W.13 caused preliminary enquiries into the report and accordingly DSP, ACB, Nellore, registered the report as a case in Crime No.9/ACB-NPK/2000. The D.S.P. conducted pre-trap proceedings on 14.08.2000 in the office of Inspector of ACB, Ongole between 9-00 a.m. and 10-00 a.m., in the presence of mediators. Later, all of them proceeded to M.R.O. office, Jarugumalli at about 11-00 a.m. on 14.08.2000. L.W.1 approached the A.O. and enquired about their work. A.O. told him that passbooks and title deed books are ready for signatures of M.R.O. and asked him as to whether he brought the demanded bribe. L.W.1 replied in positive. On further demand, L.W.1 paid the tainted amount to A.O. A.O. received the same with his left hand and kept it in the left pocket of shirt. Then A.O. took out patadar passbooks and title deed books belong to them from Almarah and signed on the books and took them to MRO and obtained his signatures. Then L.W.1 came out from the office and relayed a pre-arranged signal. The D.S.P. and other trap party rushed to the MRO office and conducted post-trap proceedings. The chemical test that was conducted to the left hand fingers of A.O. yielded positive result and the tainted currency notes of Rs.1,200/- was recovered from his possession. T

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top