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) 1079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A V Ravindra Babu, J.
Nandipati Lakshman Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep by PP. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1654 of 2006
Decided On : 12-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P V Krishnaiah, Learned Counsel.
For the Respondent: A Gayathri Reddy, Standing Counsel

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) - Accused convicted for demanding and accepting bribe while acting as public servant - Validity of prosecution sanction confirmed - Evidence established that accused took bribe of Rs.500/- from complainant and was trapped by ACB officials - Court concluded that accuser’s claims were credible and prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the charges against the accused. (Paras 1, 51 - 54)

(B) Public Servants - Definition under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Status as prima facie established through role held by accused during the alleged misconduct. (Paras 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
The accused, a senior accountant, demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- from the complainant to expedite a pension application filed by the complainant's mother after the death of his father, a retired government employee. The complainant reported the matter to ACB, leading to a successful trap.

Findings of Court:
The findings confirmed that the demand and acceptance of a bribe were proven, allowing the inference of corruption.

Issues: Whether accused was a public servant within the act, whether bribe was demanded, and whether necessary sanctions for prosecution were obtained.

Ratio Decidendi: The core finding upheld the principles that demand for bribe is essential to prove corruption charges, and the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the PC Act applied appropriately due to the evidence presented.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Table of Content
1. nature of criminal appeal and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural background of the case (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. decision timeline and appeals (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. validating public servant status and sanction (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. evidence of pendency of official favour (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. testimonies of key witnesses and their credibility (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. examination of demand and acceptance of bribe (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
8. establishing charge and legal presumptions (Para 51 , 52 , 53)
9. outcome and final directives (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused Officer (AO) in Calendar Case No.7 of 2001, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’) challenging the judgment therein, dated 17.11.2006, whereunder the learned Special Judge found the AO guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’), accordingly convicted him under Section 2 48(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 13 (2) R/w. Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act. Both the above substantive sentences 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, Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB), Vijayawada Range, Guntur District filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.10/ACB-VJA/2000 of ACB, Vijayawada Range for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act alleging, in substance, that the AO by name Nandipati Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, worked as Senior Accountant in the District Treasury Office (DTO), Guntur from 30.01.1997 to 24.07.2000, as such he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act.

LW.1 - Nemalikanti Balaiah, S/o. Venkateswara Rao is a native of Penumaka Village, Tadepalli Mandal and Guntur District. His father was a retired worker in PWD Department, who died while drawing service pension. Balaiah’s mother Smt. Anna Mary, applied for family pension in the last week of May, 2000. LW.1 visited the Sub-Treasury Office (STO), Mangalagiri on 04.07.2000 and ascertained that the concerned pension papers were forwarded to DTO, Guntur. LW.1 visited DTO Office, Guntur on 04.07.2000 at 02:00 p.m. and met the AO, who demanded Rs.500/- as bribe to process the said application. LW.1 was unwilling to pay the bribe as such he approached LW.10 – Sri B.R. Dumas, DSP, ACB with a written report. LW.10 - DSP, ACB registered the same as the aforesaid case, after due verification on 07.07.2000. On 07.07.2000 at about 11:45 a.m. AO was trapped by LW.10 in the premises of DTO, Guntur when he was demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.500/- from LW.1. He was subjected to chemical test which yielded positive result. He produced the wad of currency notes from his trouser pocket. The serial numbers of the tainted amount were found tallied with the notes mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings. He was arrested and released on self bail. Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.11, Finance and Planning (FIN.WINGADMN. III) Department, dated 29.01.2001, issued necessary sanction to prosecute the AO. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under the above p

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