IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
R. Kesavalu (A1) - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1318 Of 2007
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Conviction of accused officer for demanding and accepting bribe - The Special Judge convicted the accused officer for demanding a bribe of Rs.6,000/- to pass bills for contract work, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- - The prosecution's case hinged on the testimony of the complainant, who alleged that the accused demanded bribes for official favors - The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and insufficient evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe - The court emphasized that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient without proof of demand. (Paras 1, 9, 34, 41)
Facts of the case:
The accused officer, a Divisional Engineer, was alleged to have demanded a bribe from the complainant, who was authorized to execute contract works for the APSPDCL. The complainant reported the demand to the ACB, leading to a trap where the accused was caught accepting the bribe. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the accused officer was not guilty of the charges. (Paras 41)
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused officer. (Para 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere possession of tainted money is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 34, 41)
Result: The Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the accused officer is acquitted of the charges. (Para 42)
JUDGMENT :
(K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.)
Accused Officer No.1 (hereinafter referred to, as 'AO.1'), in Calendar Case No.16 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore (for short 'the Special Judge'), filed this appeal challenging the Judgment dated 29.09.2007, whereunder and whereby he was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the PC Act, 1988') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. It is further directed that MO3 i.e. cash of Rs.6,000/-, be returned to P.W1-Yerramreddy Penchal Reddy, and MOs.1, 2 and 4 to 8 be destroyed. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused No.2 (hereinafter referred to, as 'A2') of the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 read with 109 IPC in terms of Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'CrPC').
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the AO.1 is working as Divisional Engineer, Operations in Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL), Rajampet Division, Kadapa District; that the A2 is the Contract Labour in the office of the Divisional Engineer Operations, APSPDCL.
(b) D.W1 is the uncle of P.W1. D.W1 got contract works of erection of additional transformers in Kalasapadu Section and erection of 11 KV Line from Varikunta village to Jyothi and entered into an agreement with APSPDCL vide L.S. AGT 84/01-02 and L.S. AGT No.40/02-03; that due to preoccupation with other contract works, D.W1 entrusted the above contract works to P.W1 and appointed him as his authorized agent and executed a Notary in respect of the above contract works to P.W1 in the presence of L.W5-Pradeep Kumar Pawar. Ex.P1 is the Notarized letter of authorization issued by D.W1 in favour of P.W1.
(c) That P.W1 completed the works in the month of July, 2002 and had to receive two bills of Rs.1,97,027/- of net amount and Rs.48,705/- of gross amount for the above two works.
(d) That ten days prior to 02.09.2002, P.W1 approached AO.1 and requested him to check measure the works executed by him and to pass the above bills; that the AO.1 demanded P.W1 to pay illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- to do the official favour; that P.W1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe and went away; that on 27.08.2002, P.W1 again approached AO.1 and enquired him about the two bills, but AO.1 reiterated his earlier demand for payment of bribe. P.W1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe that he has no money.
(e) That AO.1 informed P.W1 that he would pass the bill of Rs.1,97,027/- and issue cheque, and after encashment of the cheque, the bribe amount be paid to him; that accordingly, AO.1 passed the bill and issued cheque to P.W1 on the same day; that on 02.09.2002 P.W1 approached AO.1 in his office and enquired about the remaining bill; that AO.1 reiterated his earlier demand for payment of Rs.10,000/- as bribe, and when P.W1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, AO.1 reduced the bribe amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.6,000/- and asked P.W1 to pay the same in the evening of 03.09.2002 at his residence at Rajampet to pass the bill and issue cheque; that P.W1, having no other go, accepted to pay the bribe to AO.1.
(f) P.W1, who was not willing to pay the bribe to AO.1, approached P.W6-Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati and g
The prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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 ....
The demand for illegal gratification is essential to prove charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Mere recovery of the tainted amount without proof of demand would no....
The requirement for proof of demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was satisfied, confirming the conviction of the public servant involved.
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.