IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J.
Md. Gayasuddin – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1746 of 2006
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 452, 323 and 506 read with 34 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector - Demanded and accepted bribe - Appeal against conviction - Appellant-Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.O.’) while working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, District demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 2,500/- from complainant at about 6.00 P.M. as reward for doing official favour in not harassing him, his brother, mother and sister in connection with a case registered in Julapally Police Station, which was the subject matter in Crime No. 55 of 2000 of said Police Station registered for offences under Sections 452, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC and for releasing his brother, who was detained in Julapally Police Station from morning - Whether prosecution proved its case against appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act beyond reasonable doubt and whether judgment of the trial Court is correct and sustainable?– Held, trial Court had not believed the loan theory taken by A.O - Even if same was not believed as Prosecution must establish foundational facts of demand and acceptance before calling for the explanation of accused as to how the amount was found in his possession and as it failed to establish the fact of demand itself due to complainant turning hostile and could not examine the accompanying witness due to his death and not able to prove its case, the conviction of the accused for offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of Act is considered as not proper and hence liable to be set aside - Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
G. RADHA RANI, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed in C.C. No. 10 of 2002 by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to pay fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to pay fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his wife was brought on record as his legal representative to continue the appeal.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant-Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.O.’) while working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Julapally Police Station, Karimnagar District demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 2,500/- from the complainant on 16.09.2000 at about 6.00 P.M. as reward for doing official favour in not harassing him, his brother, mother and sister in connection with a case registered in Julapally Police Station, which was the subject matter in Crime No. 55 of 2000 of the said Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 452, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC and for releasing his brother T. Rajaiah, who was detained in Julapally Police Station from the morning of 15.09.2000.
The complainant T. Komaraiah was a native of Telukunta Village, Julapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District and he was an agriculturist. One Smt. V. Komaramma of the same Village lodged a report on 18.08.2000 in Julapally Police Station against Komaraiah and three others alleging she was assaulted and as such, a case was registered in Crime No. 55 of 2000 under Sections 452, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC by the A.O. On 19.08.2000, the A.O. summoned said T. Komariah to the police station and demanded Rs. 5,000/- as bribe by threatening him that he would send all his family members to jail if he did not pay the amount. Since then A.O. insisted for payment of the bribe amount. On 15.09.2000 at about 8.00 AM, the brother of the complainant by name T. Rajaiah was taken to the Julapally police station, on which Komaraiah along with his village elder by name Gaddam Shankaraiah went to the police station and requested the A.O. to release his brother Rajaiah but, the A.O. did not agree and insisted for the amount which he demanded earlier. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, the A.O. reduced it to Rs. 2,500/- and insisted to pay money on 16.09.2000. The complainant, who was not willing to pay any bribe amount, lodged a complaint to the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar Range on 15.09.2000 at 1.00 P.M. and the DSP registered a case in Crime No. 5/ACB-KNR/2000 under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 on 16.09.2000 at 9.30 A.M. During the course of investigation, the DSP secured the services of the complainant Komaraiah as a decoy, Gaddam Shankaraiah as accompanying witness, D.M. Koteswara Rao and S. Shankaraiah as mediators and laid trap against the A.O. The A.O. was caught red handed on 16.09.2000 at about 6.00 P.M. at Julapally police station.
The phenolphthalein test conducted on the right hand fingers of the A.O. gave positive result, the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of the A.O. who produced the same from the pocket of his wearing shirt. The A.O. was arrested and released on bail. The relevant documents were seized and witnesses were examined duri
B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala
Hazarilal vs. State (Delhi Administration)
M.W. Mohiuddin vs. State of Maharastra
M. Narsing Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra
N. Sunkanna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
N. Vijay Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu
P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police
Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana
Rama Krishna and Another vs. State of Delhi
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
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.
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond reasonable d....
The court established that proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, reaffirming the need for credible evidence from witnesses. The ....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; mere receipt of bribe without evidence of demand is insuffic....
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.