Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
B. Apparao S/o Butchaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 857, 858 of 2007
Decided On : 22-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : A. Hari Prasad Reddy, D. Purnachandra Reddy.
For the Respondent: A. Gayathri Reddy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribes to establish the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the court has the authority to re-appraise the evidence to determine the existence of demand.
Headnote:
Corruption - Criminal Appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 201)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by Accused Officer No. 1 (AO-1) and Accused Officer No. 2 (AO-2) in relation to the assessment order for a bakery and sweets shop. The prosecution alleged that AO-1 demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000 from the complainant, and AO-2 demanded Rs.500 to issue the assessment order. The complainant reported the demands to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and a trap was laid, resulting in the recovery of the tainted amount from both accused officers.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Special Judge acquitted both accused officers of the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but found them guilty of the charges under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and further found AO-2 guilty of the charge under Section 201 IPC. The court sentenced both accused officers to undergo rigorous imprisonment and pay fines.
Issues: The key issues before the court were: (1) Whether the prosecution proved that AO-1 and AO-2 are public servants and obtained valid sanction to prosecute them; (2) Whether the prosecution proved that AO-1 and AO-2 obtained bribes from the complainant; (3) Whether AO-2 caused disappearance of evidence; (4) Whether the judgment is sustainable under law and whether there are grounds to interfere with the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution had established the charges under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 201 IPC based on the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes by the accused officers. The court also held that the prosecution had obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the accused officers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal appeals, upheld the conviction and sentence of AO-1 and AO-2, and directed the certification of the judgment to the trial court for further action. The appeal of AO-1 was not pursued due to his demise.
JUDGMENT :
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
1. Challenge in the Criminal Appeal Nos.857 and 858 of 2007 is to the judgment, dated 21.06.2007, in Calender Case No. 29 of 2001, on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’) by the Accused Officer No. 2 (AO-2) and Accused Officer No. 1 (AO-1) respectively.
2. The parties to these Criminal Appeals will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet filed by the by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Visakhapatnam pertaining to Crime No. 7/RC-WLR/2000 of ACB, Visakhapatnam for the offences 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’) and Sections 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), is that the Accused Officer No. 1 (AO-1) by name M. Appalaraju worked as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO), Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam from 16.07.1998 till he was placed under suspension on 26.07.2000 as such he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Accused Officer No. 2 by name B. Apparao worked as Senior Assistant in the office of Commercial Tax Officer, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam from 14.07.1999 till he was placed under suspension on 26.07.2000 as such he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
(i) LW.1 – Thyaveedu Baburaj is the Manager of Queens Bakery and Sweets Shop situated in Shop No. 21, RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam and he has been doing business on behalf of LW.2 – M. Tarakeswari, who issued authorization, dated 18.09.1996, in his favour appointing him as Manager of the said Shop to look after the business affairs on her behalf as she could not maintain the business personally. Thus, LW.1 has been looking after the business and other matters such as filing of commercial tax returns etc. The stocks in the shop are being purchased from authorized registered dealers on genuine bills and being sold to public and nothing is being manufactured in his shop. There is no need to pay any Sales Tax to the Commercial Tax Department in this regard. On 30.05.2000, he filed returns in respect of his shop for the year 1999-2000 before AO-1, but the assessment order was not given to him. On 09.06.2000, AO-1 demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.2,000/-, when he approached AO-1 in his office to enquire about his assessment. AO-1 instructed him to pay the said bribe amount on 12.06.2000 to make the assessment and return assessment order. When LW.1 expressed his inability to pay that much of amount, since his business is a little one, AO-1 threatened him that unless the demanded bribe amount is paid, he would object the assessment in respect of the shop and cause hindrance to his business. Hence, LW.1 reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe of Rs.2,000/- to AO-1 and subsequently he lodged a report with the ACB officials on 11.06.2000. LW.14 – D.V.S. Bhaskara Raju, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam registered the report of LW.1 as a case in Crime No. 7/RC-WLR/2000, as above, on 12.06.2000 and investigated into.
(ii) On 12.06.2000 at 04:45 p.m. AO-1 was trapped in his office chambers, situated in the office of Commercial Tax Officer when he demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1,500/- from LW.1 from out of the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/-. AO-1 also asked LW.1 to pay the remaining amount of Rs.500/- to AO-2 to receive the assessment order from AO-2. As per the instructions of AO-1, LW.1 approached AO-2 in the main hall of the office of LW.5 – Commercial Tax Officer and enquired about his assessment order. AO-2 demanded him to pay the bribe of Rs.500/-. When the complainant paid the amount of Rs.500/- to AO-2, he received the same, counted with both hands and kept it in a small zip bag and thereafter h
