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
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
| 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:
(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
Akuathi Yellamanda vs. State ACB
B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55
M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P.
N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu
The judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
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....
Illegal gratification – Mere recovery of tainted amount in absence of any proof of demand and acceptance cannot be taken as sufficient to convict accused.
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 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.
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.