SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 37

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J.
Dr. M. Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1405 of 2007
Decided on : 11-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.M. RAFEE
For the Respondent: V. RAVI KIRAN RAOSCSPL PP FOR TG ACB

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 of probability.

Headnote:

Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Medical Officer, was convicted for demanding and accepting bribes from a subordinate employee for official favors. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.8,000 for a regular posting and later demanded Rs.5,000 to cancel her voluntary retirement application. The Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted a trap and found the tainted money on the appellant.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence of the complainant and the trap conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The court rejected the appellant's defense that the money was a repayment of a loan and convicted him for the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and trustworthy evidence of the complainant, supported by the trap proceedings and the recovery of tainted money from the appellant. The court found the defense theory of loan repayment unsubstantiated and not genuine.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The appellant's bail was cancelled, and he was ordered to surrender and serve the remaining sentence.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant - sole accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad vide Judgment dated 06.10.2007 in CC No.33 of 2002, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short ‘the Act’) and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant – Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) was working as a Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre (PHC), Nizamsagar, Nizamabad District at the time of registration of the case and the complainant worked on deputation in the same PHC as Multi Purpose Health Assistant (Female). Her original place of posting was Narva Sub-Centre, falling under PHC, Nizamsagar. Since there was vacancy of the said post in PHC, Nizamsagar, she was deputed to work as per the orders of the District Medical and Health Officer, Nizamabad District dated 01.07.2000. While she was thus working on deputation in PHC, Nizamsagar under the control of the AO, it was alleged that the complainant requested the AO for giving regular posting to Nizamsagar and the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.8,000/- as bribe for giving regular posting to Nizamsagar. Accordingly, she paid Rs.8,000/- to the AO, but the AO issued orders of posting to one Kum.Farhana as MPHA (F), Nizamsagar. Then the complainant requested the AO to return the amount of Rs.8,000/-. The AO got angry and directed her to report at Narva or opt for voluntary retirement. At the instance of the AO, she applied for voluntary retirement. Later, she changed her mind and requested the AO not to forward the application to DM & HO, Nizamabad. Then, the AO demanded Rs.5,000/- from her as bribe. Unwilling to pay the demanded bribe amount to the AO, she filed a petition before the DSP, ACB, on 02.07.2001 against the AO. The DSP, ACB, Nizamabad registered a case in Crime No.5/ACB-NZB/2001 under Section 7 of the Act against the AO on 03.07.2001 and during the course of investigation, secured the services of one Sri Ashok Purohit - the Assistant Director, Agriculture, Office of the JDA Nizamabad and Sri Khaleemullah – Sub-Registrar, Nizamabad District, as mediators and after observing necessary formalities laid the trap on 03.07.2001 against the AO. The phenolphthalein test conducted over both the hands of AO yielded positive result and the tainted amount was seized from the possession of the AO, who produced the same by taking out from his left side pant pocket. The portion of the left side pant pocket also got subjected to the chemical test and it also yielded positive result. The Investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of the employees working at PHC, Nizamsagar and got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. After obtaining sanction orders from the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health, Medial and Family Welfare Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh, being competent authority to remove the AO from service, the Investigating Officer i.e. the Inspector of Police of ACB, Nizamabad Range, filed charge sheet against the AO for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had taken cognizance of the above offences and after supp

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top