Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J.
Mandula Prabhu And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P., Rep By Spl. PP. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1139 of 2007
Decided on : 04-03-2022
JUDGEMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two police officers, AO1 and AO2, who were accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.10,000 from a complainant, Khaja Azeemuddin, in exchange for not ill-treating him in lock-up and for doing official favors in a pending case against him. AO1 allegedly received the bribe amount and handed it over to AO2, who was well aware of the illegal nature of the transaction. The tainted currency was recovered from AO2 and a series of events unfolded, including the involvement of mediators and the laying of a trap to catch the accused officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against AO1 and AO2 beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant turned hostile, and the shadow witness was not examined by the prosecution. The recovery of the tainted amount was not made from AO1 or AO2, and the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that AO2 had knowledge of the tainted nature of the amount and that he assisted AO1 in committing the offense.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe by AO1 beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the tainted amount from AO1 or AO2? 3. Whether the prosecution proved that AO2 had knowledge of the tainted nature of the amount and that he assisted AO1 in committing the offense?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against AO1 and AO2 beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the principles that the demand and acceptance of the bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that corroboration is necessary in cases of bribery, and that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against AO1 and AO2, and found them not guilty of the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 201 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the appellants – Accused Officers No.1 and 2 aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad vide Judgment dated 24.08.2007 in CC No.19 of 2002, wherein the appellants – AO1 and AO2 were found guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each separately for both the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the 1st appellant – Accused Officer No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO1’) worked as Sub-Inspector of Police of Banjara Hills Police Station and the 2nd appellant – Accused Officer No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO2’) worked as Police Constable of the same police station. AO1 demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration on 16.05.1999 for not ill-treating and harassing one Khaja Azeemuddin in lock-up and for not taking him to police custody and also for doing official favour in the case pending against him. AO2, who was well aware of the fact that AO1 received bribe amount during the course of trap, collected the tainted currency from Mohd. Abdul Khader, Proprietor of Mountain Bakery at Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and handed over the same to Sri Kaveti Srinivasu @ Srinu, Proprietor of Fair Price Shop, Old Kattal Mandi, Hyderabad as per the instructions of AO1.
3.1. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, ACB, was that one Nagendra Babu lodged a complaint in the Banjara Hills Police Station against Khaja Azeemuddin and 20 others on 01.05.1999 and the same was registered as Crime No.193 of 1999 by the Banjara Hills Police. On the same day, the police arrested A2 to A16 and sent them to judicial custody on 02.05.1999. Thereafter, on 14.05.1999 Sri M. Prabhu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station (AO1) arrested Khaja Azeemuddin (A1 in the said crime) and produced him before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 15.05.1999. He sought police custody of Khaja Azeemuddin for two days and in pursuance of the orders of the said Court, brought him to the police station. On 15.05.1999 at about 7.00 PM, AO1 demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe from Khaja Azeemuddin for not ill-treating and harassing him in the lock-up and for not taking him for further police custody and for doing official favour of closing the case pending against him. When Khaja Azeemuddin expressed his inability to pay such huge amount as bribe, AO1 reduced the amount to Rs.20,000/- and threatened to pay the amount on the next day i.e. on 16.05.1999, otherwise, he would take him into further police custody and the said pending case would be finalized against him. Then, Khaja Azeemuddin called his friend Abdul Haqee Qamar (complainant in the present case) on phone, who came to the Banjara Hills Police Station at 9.00 PM and met Khaja Azeemuddin, who was in lock-up. Khaja Azeemuddin informed him about the demand made by AO1. Since AO1 was not available in the police station at that time, the complainant approached one Mohd. Sharief, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station and it was informed by the ASI that the Sub-Inspector of Police (AO1) instructed him to collect the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- from the person whoever would come for Khaja Azeemuddin in his absence and so saying asked for payment of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant stated that he did not have that much amount with him. Then, the ASI asked the complainant to me
In cases of bribery, the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and corroboration is necessary to support the evidence of the complainant.
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 ....
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
