IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Doddi Narasimha Rao - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 2007
Decided On : 21-11-2023
P.C. Act - Corruption - Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, highlighting the need for foundational facts to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, and the benefit of presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C. Act.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the Accused Officer demanded and accepted a bribe for sanctioning a drinking water tap connection. The Special Judge acquitted the Accused Officer but directed prosecution of the complainant for perjury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the Accused Officer. The complainant's evidence was unreliable, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.
Issues: The issues revolved around proving the demand and acceptance of bribe by the Accused Officer, the reliability of the complainant's evidence, and the validity of the judgment of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for foundational facts to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, and the benefit of presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C. Act. It also highlighted the unreliability of the complainant's evidence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.10 of 2004. The court directed the copy of the judgment to be marked to the trial Court and the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2004, dtd. 19/2/2007, on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada ("Special Judge" for short), by the unsuccessful State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau ("A.C.B." in short), Vijayawada Range, Guntur.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience.
3. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Vijayawada Range, Guntur, filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.9/ACB-VJA/2002 of ACB, Vijayawada Range, Guntur, alleging the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act" for short) against Accused Officer ("A.O." for short).
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet as above, is as follows:
(i) The A.O. was working as Tap Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District from 19/2/1998 to 29/4/2002. He is a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the P.C. Act.
(ii) One Chakka Janardhana Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu (P.W.1) is having a house in Srinivasarapet in the name of his wife. He paid Rs.4, 500.00 on 15/12/2001 for sanction of drinking water tap. It was sanctioned on 7/3/2002. Thereupon he met the A.O. several times for installation of tap. Then the A.O. demanded Rs.2, 000.00 as bribe to do the said work and as P.W.1 was not willing to pay the same, he kept quite. Ultimately, on 27/4/2002 P.W.1 met the A.O. and when he requested him to install the tap connection, the A.O. reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.2, 000.00 and as there was no other go, he reluctantly agreed to pay the same. However, as he was not willing to pay it, he approached the Inspector, ACB (P.W.9) and presented Ex.P.1 report. P.W.9 after observing necessary formalities, got registered the case and investigated into.
(iii) On 29/4/2002 at about 6-00 a.m., the A.O. was successfully trapped by P.W.9 when he further demanded and accepted Rs.2, 000.00 from P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. When the hands of the A.O. were subjected to chemical test, the right hand fingers proved positive and on enquiry the tainted amount was voluntarily produced by him from his right side pant pocket. When the right side pant pocket was subjected to test, it proved positive. Then P.W.9 seized the relevant records and investigated into.
(iv) P.W.8-The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur, being the competent authority to remove the A.O. from service, accorded sanction to prosecute the A.O. vide proceedings, dtd. 3/3/2004. Hence, the charge sheet.
5. On perusal of the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance under Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act against the A.O. On appearance of the A.O. before the learned Special Judge and after complying the formalities under Sec. 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), charges under Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act against the A.O. were framed and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to bring home the guilt against the A.O., the prosecution before the learned Special Judge examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The defence got marked Ex.D.1. Further the prosecution got marked M.O.1 to M.O.7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the A.O. was examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the incriminating circumstances.
7. The A.O. got filed his written statement contending in substance that he did not demand and he did not accept any illegal gratification from P.W.1. He is falsely implicated. After receipt of Ex.P.7-work order from P.W.6 on 9/4/2002, he inspected the house of P.W.1 which is situated 60 feet away from the main Municipal pipeline and when P.W.1 approached him, he
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 judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
The prosecution must prove the demands and acceptance of a bribe to establish guilt under the P.C. Act.
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 prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) can only be drawn if the prosecution proves the foundational facts, such as demand and acceptance of bribe. In the abse....
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.