Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(AP) 1111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
Sri A. Obulapathi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep By Spl Pp – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 52 Of 2007
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A Hariprasad Reddy
For the Respondent: S. Syam Sunder Rao Sc Cum Spl P.P. For Acb

In corruption cases, the prosecution must strictly prove the ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe. Failure to examine independent witnesses present at the scene and suppressing their presence renders the prosecution's case doubtful, especially when the defence provides a probable alternative version of events.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Offences of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification - Prosecution must prove the ingredients of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt - Failure of prosecution to examine independent witnesses present at the scene and mechanical investigation creates a serious doubt on the veracity of the trap proceedings - Conviction set aside. (Paras 3, 11, 31, 34, 35)

(B) Evidence Act - Defence evidence - Credibility of defence witnesses - Evidence of defence witnesses must be considered on par with prosecution witnesses; if the defence plea is probable, it is sufficient to create reasonable doubt. (Paras 13, 30, 32)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Village Administrative Officer, was charged with demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.4,500/- to distribute crop damage compensation cheques. The complainant alleged that the bribe was demanded on 10.06.2000 and the trap was laid on 22.06.2000. The trial court convicted the appellant. The appellant contended that the cheques in the complainant's name were cancelled due to outstanding loans, leading the complainant to plant money on the accused out of frustration.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the appellant only received the cheques for distribution the day before the trap, making the alleged prior demand on 10.06.2000 improbable. The failure to examine independent persons present at the scene and the suppression of their presence by the investigating agency created reasonable doubt.

Issues: Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and whether the conviction rested on a robust appreciation of evidence or was perverse.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution fails to examine independent witnesses present at the crime scene and suppresses their involvement, and where the evidence suggests an alternative probable explanation (the accused being framed due to official frustration over cancelled cheques), the conviction cannot be sustained due to the necessity of proving the ingredients of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges and prosecution case against the appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. rival contentions regarding the standard of proof for demand and receipt of bribe. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. critical evaluation of evidence and finding that the prosecution's case is doubtful. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. final outcome resulting in acquittal due to failure to prove guilt. (Para 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

Heard Sri A.Hariprasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.

2. The appeal is preferred challenging the Judgment dated 18.12.2006 delivered in C.C.No.04 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

3. The appellant was found guilty of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the P.C. Act’). He was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. He was also convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the learned Special Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

5. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused was working as Village Administrate Officer, Chagaleru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District, at the relevant point in time. The Government announced compensation for crop damage. The appellant visited the lands of PW-1, noticed the crop damage. The appellant has to hand-over the cheques to the landowners, whose crops damaged. PW-1 went to Bangalore, stayed at Bangalore for a week. Later, returned to the village. He went to the appellant with a request to give the cheques. The appellant postponed it on one pretext or the other. Finally, on 10.06.2000 PW-1 visited the house of the appellant in Kodikonta Village, requested the appellant to give the cheques. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as gratification other than legal remuneration to give the cheques. PW-1 made bargain with the appellant. Amount was reduced to Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Only). PW-1 requested the appellant to give one cheque at least, he will encash and pay the amount to the appellant. The appellant handed over one cheque standing in the name of Smt.Varalakshmi, daughter of PW-1. The appellant instructed PW-1 to withdraw the amount and meet him on 22.06.2000 to receive the other cheques. PW-1 is not willing to pay the amount as demanded by the appellant. Therefore, he approached PW-8, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ananthapur, on 21.06.2000 PW-1 presented Ex.P1 complaint to PW-8. It was registered as Ex.P12-FIR.

6. PW-8 took up investigation, conducted pre-trap proceedings in the presence of mediators under the cover of Ex.P5, pre-trap proceedings. PW-8 instructed PW-1 to go to the house of the appellant/convict and to pay the amount, if the appellant makes demand to issue the cheques. Accordingly, on 22.06.2000 at about 10:00 AM, PW-1 visited the house of the appellant/convict, found the appellant in the first room of the house. He requested the appellant to give the cheques. The appellant made demand for the gratification amount, other than legal remuneration to deliver the cheques. Therefore, PW-1 gave the tainted currency to the appellant. He received it, c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(AP) 1111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIB.V.L.N CHAKRAVARTHI, J.Sri A. Obulapathi – Appellant Versus State Rep By Spl Pp – Respondent Criminal Appeal No: 52 Of 2007Decided On : 31-03-2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
Sri A. Obulapathi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep By Spl Pp – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 52 Of 2007
Decided On : 31-03-2026