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
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
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and others (2014) 2 SCC 1
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 4 SCC 172
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724
P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras
AI
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 supp....
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....
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 ....
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.