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) 1497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.
Arishapogu Nagarathnam @ Nagaraju, S/o.Papanna – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.131 OF 2011
Decided On : 26-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Sriman, Rep. Sri K. Ravindra Babu.
For the Respondent: Sri S.M.Subhani, Learned Standing Counsel- Special Public Prosecutor.

The court affirmed that valid sanction and evidence of demand for bribe are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with a presumption of guilt established when evidence supports the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) - Criminal Appeal against conviction for demanding and accepting bribe - Accused Officer found guilty of corrupt practices, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment - Valid sanction for prosecution established - Evidence confirmed that official favor was pending - Appeal partially allowed, sentence modified to two years imprisonment for each charge. (Paras 1, 2, 56)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 248(2) - Trial court's conviction upheld with modification of sentence - Court emphasizes the importance of valid sanction and thorough investigation in corruption cases. (Paras 1, 56)

Facts of the case:
The Accused Officer was convicted for demanding a bribe of Rs.500/- from a complainant in connection with processing a maturity bond. The trap laid by ACB led to the recovery of the tainted money, confirming the charges against him. (Paras 1, 2, 40)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved the pendency of official favor and the demands for bribe made by the Accused Officer. The trial court's judgment was sustained with a reduction in the sentence. (Paras 1, 56)

Issues: The main issues included whether the Accused Officer was a public servant and if the prosecution proved the demand for bribe and the validity of the sanction for prosecution. (Paras 10, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the prosecution met the burden of proof and the presumption of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act applies, emphasizing the need for valid sanction and thorough investigation in corruption cases. (Paras 20, 52)

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed in part, modifying sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment for each charge. (Paras 56)

JUDGMENT :

A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.

Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 31.01.2011, in Calender Case No.28 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), where under the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer (AO) guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) and convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. After questioning him about the quantum of sentence, the learned Special Judge sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Both the 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, AntiCorruption Bureau (ACB), Ongole, Nellore Range, filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.10/RCT-NPK/2005 of Ongole, Nellore 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 Arishapogu Nagarathnam @ Nagaraju worked as Office Superintendent (FAC) in the Office of Assistant Director, District Insurance Office/APGLI Office at Ongole, Prakasam District from 31.05.2005 to 19.07.2005 as such he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.

    (i) LW.1 – Gonugunta Anjaiah was working as Multi Purpose Health Supervisor (MPHS) in Addanki Mandal of Prakasam District. His APGLI bond bearing No.422046-A was due to be surrendered on maturity i.e., on 30.06.2005. Therefore, he approached the Office of Assistant Director, APGLI, Ongole on 30.06.2005 at about 11: 00 a.m., where he was asked to meet the AO, who was in-charge as Senior Assistant in that office in respect of these matters. Then, the AO suggested that LW.1 must submit the bond along with a closure form. Therefore, on 02.07.2005 at about 03: 00 p.m., he after making ready his application after getting the same attested by the Medical Officer, who is his superior authority in office, along with a closure form, met the AO, who, then demanded for the first time a gratification of Rs.500/- other than legal remuneration to facilitate processing of the same. When LW.1 expressed his inability to meet such demand, AO made very clear to him that his work would not be attended to, unless the said bribe was paid. Again on 15.07.2005, when LW.1 met the AO for the very same purpose, again similar demand was made for bribe and the AO had also informed him that he had been made Office Superintendent (FAC) and he is also in-charge of his earlier position as Senior Assistant in that office. Not inclined to meet the demand of AO, LW.1 met the Inspector of Police, ACB, Ongole (LW.9) and presented a complaint on 15.07.2005 at about 04: 10 p.m., and after due preliminary inquiry, the then DSP, ACB, Nellore (LW.8) registered the FIR against the AO, as above, and investigated into.

    (ii) On 16.07.2005, trap was planned to be laid against the AO, by the DSP, ACB, Nellore. In between 10: 15 a.m. to 11: 15 a.m. on 16.07.2005, he conducted pre-trap proceedings making ready Rs.500/- in cash produced by LW.1 by applying phenolphthalein powder and instructed him while approaching the AO not to meddle with the cash and not to deliver till there was further demand from him. KNS Ram Babu (LW.3), Senior Assistant in the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Sub-DivisionI, Ongole and Ahamad Pasha Khan (LW.2), Sub-Treasury Officer in District Treasury Office at Ongole were th

      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