APHC010518202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10143/2025 Between:

1. PATHAPATI YOUGENDAR NAGA VARMA, S/O SARRAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O ADARSHA NAGAR, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF A.P.,AT AMARAVATHI.

2. K SRINIVASA KUMAR, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BHIMAVARAM II TOVM P.S.,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.’) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.558 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru for the alleged offence punishable under Section 171(E) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitionerand the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2014, Respondent No.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, seized cash of Rs.2,89,80,000/- from the possession of Accused No.2, alleging that the said amount was intended for bribing voters in the thenensuing elections. A mediation report was drafted, and a case was registered in Cr.No.82 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 171-E, 188, 489(B)(C) read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 123 read with 131 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951(for brevity, ‘the R.P Act’) by the Respondent No.2. After completing the Investigation, the Respondent No.2 filed a charge sheet against the Petitioner and six other accused by adding Section 3 Read with Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity ‘the P.M.L Act’).

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. State of Telangana, 1MANU/TL/0002/2023wherein at paragraph 8, it isheld that:

“8. To attract an offence punishable under Section 171-E of IPC, the ingredients of Section 171-B of IPC have to be fulfilled. If a person gives any gratification to any person for exercising any electoral right or for having exercised such right or accepts such amount from any person as a reward for exercising any right or inducing or attempts to induce any person in exercise of such rights amounts to bribery. In the present case, the amounts were allegedly found in the possession of the petitioners. The police assume that the said amounts are meant for political leaders to bribe the voters in the ensuing elections of December, 2013. Admittedly, no person was bribed or any money was accepted by those people for such purpose of exercising electoral franchise. For the said reasons, the offence under Section 171-B of IPC is not made out and consequently the question of prosecuting these petitioners for the offence of bribery punishable under Section

171-E of IPC does not arise.”

5. Ergo, the High Court of Telangana in Sunil Kumar Ahuja supra held thatmere possession of cash does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 171 B and 171 E of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as bribery requires proof of giving or accepting grat‑ification for‑ exercising electoral rights. It was observed that the police only presumed the money was meant for voter bribery without evidence of any inducement or acceptance. Since no voter was bribed and no gratification was established, the offence under Section 171 B of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was not made out. Consequently, prosecu