APHC010094622007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1490/2007 Between:

1. S MT. B. SUGAMMA (DIED) AS PER LR, SUB REGISTRAR, ORVAKAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

2. B ALIJA CHANDRASEKHARAM, S/O. AMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.87-1403-106A, MARUTHI MEGA CITY, KURNOOL CAMP-B, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. SINCE APPELLANT NO.1IS DIED , APPELLANT NO.2 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF APPELLANT NO.1, AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 02.05.2023 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2023 IN CRL.A.NO.1490 OF 2007.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS SPL PP HYD FOR ACB, rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor, of ACB., High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. VARUN BYREDDY

2. T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1441/2007 Between:

1. T ALAMUDI KURUVA MADDAIAH, S/O CHINNA YELLAIAH, R/O HUSSAINAPURAM VILLAGE, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP REP BY ITSSPL PP HYD FOR ACB, rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor, for ACB., High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, through Inspector of Police, ACB., ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. The appeal vide Crl.A.No.1490/2007 is preferred by A.1. The appeal vide Crl.A.No.1441/2007 is preferred by A.2. Both the appeals arose from the judgment dated 09.10.2007 passed in C.C.No.17/2003 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as „Trial Court‟).

2. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried and convicted by the Trial Court. The Trial Court found accused No.1 guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, the “P.C. Act”). The Trial Court sentenced accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C.Act. Further, accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

3. The Trial Court found accused No.2 guilty of the offence punishable under section 12 of the P.C.Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, accused No.1 died, therefore, his legal representatives were came on record to continue the appeal as per section 394 of Cr.P.C.

5. Both the appeals arise from the same judgment referred to above. In that view of the matter, both the appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by a common judgment. Hence, the common judgment.

6. The appellant/A.1 was charged for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and the appellant/A.2 was charged for the offence under Section 12 of the P.C.Act.

7. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 worked as Sub- Registrar, Orwakal, Kurnool District from 01.02.1998 to 26.06.2002. A.2 worked as unlicenced document writer. On 21.06.2002, PW.1 went to the Sub- Registrar‟s office at Orwakal and approached the accused No.1 to enquire about the registration of the mortgage deed in favour of Rayalaseema Grameena Bank. He was informed that stamps worth of Rs.3000/- have to