IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
S. Vijaya Bharath - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Spl.PP for ACB – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1821 of 2007
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Criminal Appeal against conviction for bribery - Accused officer found guilty of demanding and accepting bribe for official favor - Conviction based on testimony of sole witness, which was later discredited - Court emphasized that prosecution must prove demand beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 10, 21)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish the demand for bribe and its acceptance, which was not satisfactorily demonstrated in this case. (Paras 11, 20)
(C) Acquittal - The accused officer was acquitted due to lack of credible evidence supporting the charges. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The accused officer, a public servant, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.30,000/- for check measuring work, later reduced to Rs.25,000/-, which he accepted. The complainant later denied the demand and was treated as hostile.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused officer.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused officer demanded a bribe and whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to support the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's case relied solely on the testimony of a witness who did not support the allegations, thus failing to meet the burden of proof required for conviction.
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.)
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 20.12.2007, passed in CC No.20 of 2003 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The sole accused officer is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short „the Act‟). By his Judgment, dated 20.12.2007, the learned Additional Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted him of the said offences, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. The accused officer was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The tainted amount of Rs.25,000/- i.e. MO.3, was ordered to be confiscated to the State and MOs.1, 2 and 4 to 8 were ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. The office was directed to initiate separate proceedings for the offence of perjury against PW.1.
3. The sum and substance of the charges against the accused officer is that he, being a public servant, employed as Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Tadipatri from 01.07.2002 to 25.09.2002, demanded Rs.30,000/- on 18.09.2002 as bribe for check measuring the work of one Devana Ramanjula Reddy (PW.1) and when the said Devana Ramanjula Reddy (PW.1) pleaded his inability to pay the bribe, the accused reduced the amount to Rs.25,000/- and accepted illegal gratification on 20.09.2002 for doing official favour, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. In the course of same transaction, on 20.09.2002, by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as public servant obtained for his pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.25,000/- from Devana Ramanjula Reddy (PW.1) as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing official favour i.e., for check measuring the work, thereby the accused officer committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused officer worked as Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Tadipatri from 01.07.2002 to 25.09.2002, as such he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The de facto complainant namely D. Ramanjula Reddy is a native of Boppepally village of Yellanur mandal of Ananthapur district. He is a Registered Class-II Contractor. About seven (7) months prior to 19.09.2002, he participated in the tenders and got the contract work of repairing 4 KMs of Tadipatri-Bukkapuram road with an estimate of Rs.7.00 Lakhs. He completed the said work two months prior to 19.09.2002. After completion of work, Junior Engineer recorded the measurements in the M. Book and the Divisional Engineer had to check measure the work. It is alleged that the de facto complainant met the accused officer several times and requested him to undertake the check measurements. The accused officer made the de facto complainant to move around him for one month prior to 19.09.2002. On 18.09.2002, the de facto complainant met the accused officer at his residence and requested him to check measure the work. On that, the accused officer is alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.30,000/- for check measuring the work. When the de facto complainant expressed his inability to pay the said bribe amount, the accused officer is alleged to have reduced the
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Point of law: Demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a condition precedent for constituting an offence under the Act, it is to be noted that there is a statutory presumption ....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense must substantiate its theory by the standard of preponderance ....
Point of law: The essential ingredients to be established to indict a person of an offence under Section 5(I)(d) of the Act are that he should have been a public servant, that he should have used cor....
Point of Law : When amount was recovered from the table drawer and once demand is not proved, which is sine qua non proof, an offence under Section 7 of the Act is not proved, the prosecution fails.
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....
Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised on....
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborative evidence to prove charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the significance of the accuse....
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.