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) 1076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A V Ravindra Babu, J.
C.N. Seshachalapathi Raju S/o late C.V.Nagaraju – Petitioner
Versus
State of AP., Rep. by Its Special P.P ACB - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No : 883 of 2011
Decided On : 02-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri R. Arun Kumar, representing Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
For the Respondent: S M Subhani

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Conviction of an Accused Officer for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.2,000/- in exchange for certifying salary bills - Prosecution proved the validity of sanction for prosecution and that the accused was a public servant - The evidence established that pending official favor and demand for illegal gratification occurred - Conviction upheld by the appellate court. (Paras 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 39, 48)

(B) Evidence - Standard of proof in corruption cases - Demand is a crucial element to establish culpability under the P.C. Act - Recovery of tainted currency coupled with the evidence of demand confirmed the Accused’s guilt. (Paras 11, 26, 34, 36, 47)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was a Health Supervisor at a hospital, demanded a bribe from members of a welfare society for processing salary bills and was caught in a sting operation. (Paras 1, 3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution established a valid sanction for prosecution, and the appellant was proven to have solicited and accepted the bribe, thus confirming the previous conviction. (Paras 33, 48)

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was a public servant, the demand for bribery, and the validity of the sanction to prosecute the appellant. (Paras 7, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The evidence, including witness testimonies and the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, validated the prosecution's claim of the accused's demand for bribe and acceptance of tainted money, justifying the conviction. (Paras 34, 48)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the status of the sanction to prosecute the A.O. under Section 19 of the PC Act and whether the A.O. was a public servant at the relevant time?

What is the court's finding on whether there was pendency of official favour with the A.O. prior to and on the date of the trap?

What is the court’s determination regarding whether the A.O. demanded and accepted a bribe in violation of Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, and the applicability of Section 20 presumption?


Table of Content
1. basic facts of the case and charges against a.o. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. court's reasoning on validity of evidence and sanction. (Para 6 , 10 , 12)
3. arguments related to doubt about the demand and evidence. (Para 11 , 13 , 36)
4. establishment of presumption of corruption under p.c. act. (Para 44 , 46)
5. final decision and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 48 , 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused Officer (“A.O.” for short) in C.C.No.4 of 2007, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore (“Special Judge” for short), challenging the judgment, dated 21.07.2011, whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the A.O. guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and convicted him under Section 2 48(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short). After questioning the A.O. about the quantum of sentence, the learned Special Judge, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and further directed that both the sentences, as above, shall run concurrently.

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, A.C.B., Tirupati Range, Tirupati, filed a charge sheet under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act pertaining to Crime No.04/RCT-TCT/2006 of Tirupati Range, Tirupati, alleging in substance as follows:

    (i) The Accused Officer, Sri C.N. Sesha Chalapathi Raju, worked as Health Supervisor in SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, Chittoor District from 29.04.2002 to 05.04.2006, as such, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C. Act.

    (ii) L.W.1-Gudisinti Markondaiah, S/o G. Dora Swamy, is resident of Door No.1087/A, NGO’s Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District. He is doing contract Sweeper work at SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati. He along with 52 other workers of the same hospital formed themselves as a Society in the name of “Annamayya Welfare Society” and they are working as Sanitary Workers in the said hospital on contract basis from 01.12.2003. The management of the hospital used to pay monthly bill of Rs.1,09,376/- to them. The monthly bills will have to be certified by Health Supervisor of the hospital i.e., A.O. The contract was expired on 09.02.2006 in the name of Annamayya Welfare Society (09.02.2006 must have been a typographical error because the case of the prosecution is that it was expired on 09.03.2006). Therefore, for a total period of 9 days in March, the bill amount of Rs.31,753-89 ps. has to be paid by the hospital management to them. In order to certify the bills for the period of 9 days in March, 2006, A.O. demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe. On 03.04.2006 L.W.1 met the A.O. and pleaded that all the workers are very poor and it is their heard earned money and expressed their inability to pay such huge amount of Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Then, A.O. finally reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and informed to L.W.1 that he is about to leave the SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, on promotion and that the money has to be brought within two days in order to certify the bills. As there was no other go, L.W.1 agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- as bribe. L.W.1, who was not willing to pay the bribe to the A.O., approached the D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati and gave a report. The D.S.P., A.C.B. (L.W.11) registered the report as a case in Crime No.04/RCT-TCT/2006 after due verification on 05.04.2006 at 2-00 p.m. and investigated into.

    (iii) L.W.11, the D.S.P., A.C.B., conducted pre-tra

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