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
| 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
CBI, SPE, Hyderabad v. P. Muthuraman
K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana
N.A. Suryanarayana @ Suri v. State by Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/Bangalore
Demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant is a criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
The demand and acceptance of a bribe by a public servant constitutes the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the official favor pending with the accused and the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution can prove a valid sanction either by producing the original sanction, which contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence alinude....
The court established that the accused, a public servant, demanded and accepted bribes, violating provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus overturning the trial court's acquittal based on....
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.