Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere possession of cash does not suffice for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J.

Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 18.03.2008, in Calender Case No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’) where under the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer (AO) guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) and convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. The learned Special Judge acquitted the AO under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 13(1)(c) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

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 case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet filed by the State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District in Crime No.22/ACB-RCO-EWG/2002, under Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) and (e) of the PC Act is that the AO by name Telidevara Vasudeva Rao worked as Junior Assistant in the Office of the District Collector and Magistrate, West Godavari District from 1994 to 27.09.2002 as such he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.

(i) The AO indulged during his period of working in corrupt practices by abusing his official position. He used to demand and accept bribe amounts from the Small Savings Agents working under the Palacole Head Post Office jurisdiction. Therefore, a surprise check was conducted on 27.09.2002 from 04: 00 to 06.15 p.m. at Small Savings Agents Association Room. LW.18 – M. Hanumantha Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB obtained permission vide Memo No.68/DE-EWG/2002, dated 22.10.2002, and registered a case in Crime No.22/ACB-RCO-EWG/2002 under Section 13(1)(d) and (e) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. LW.18 conducted surprise check with the assistance of LW.19 – Inspector, ACB and his staff in the presence of mediators and found an amount of Rs.20,490/- in the possession of AO. On examination of LWs.1 to LW.11 namely Renduchintala Sesha Mallikarjuna Sharma, Vanemsetti Lakshmi Narasimham, Bondada Venkateswara Rao, Bondada Venkata Satya Nagendra Ajay Kumar, Tadi Satyanarayana, Madani Surya Chandra Rao, Null Srinivas, Emani Venkata Satyanarayana Kumar, Thota Mohan Satya Sai Dattatreya Sri Rama Murthy, K. Raja Reddy and Devata Naga Satya Venkata Sri Rama Rao, they admitted that they have paid the bribe amounts at the rate of 2% on the incentives they received, as per the demands made by AO, after taking their incentives demand drafts for the business done by them for the financial year 2001-2002. AO could not account for properly the amount of Rs.20,490/-, as such it was seized from his possession. The act of the AO constitutes an offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and further under Section 13(1)(e) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

(ii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the competent authority to take action against AO, accorded sanction to prosecute the AO vide G.O.Rt.No.1881, dated 29.09.2023 of Revenue (VIG-IV) Department. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge, took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and, after appearance of the AO, by complying the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, framed charges under Section 13(1)(c) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the AO, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To bring home the guilt of the AO, the prosecution before the trial Court, examined PWs.1 to PW.18 and