THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr. No.10/RCT-ACB-MDK of 2025 the file of ACB Medak Range at Sangareddy, registered for the offences under Sections 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’).

2. Heard Sri M.V. Rajkumar Gabreil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-ACB.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is accused No.2 and that he along with Accused Officer No.1 (AO1) have demanded and accepted bribe from the de facto complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is A2 and there is no reference as to the name of the petitioner in the entire complaint and that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner herein has demanded Rs.40,000/- as alleged in the complaint and that there are no allegations to attract the offence under Section 7(a) of the PC Act against the petitioner and that in the absence of demand, the said offence cannot be proved against the petitioner. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for ACB has submitted that the petitioner is a close inmate of AO1 and on the instructions of AO1, the petitioner has taken the de facto complainant’s phone and initiated PhonePe transaction for an amount of Rs.9,000/- to the phone number of one N.Balaraju. After that, the AO1 instructed the de facto complainant to pay the remaining bribe amount as early as possible. He further stated that the petitioner usually transfers the amount through different persons and on the next day he would collect the transferred amount by way of cash and that about this particular transaction, it is alleged that on 23.10.2025, he received an amount of Rs.9,000/- from one Bhaskar, who is unknown to him, then after sometime, he received the phone call from Santosh, petitioner herein, stating that he has sent an amount of Rs.9,000/- and requested to pay him on the next day by way of cash. On his request, Sri Balaraju utilized the said amount for paying his credit card bill of an amount of Rs.8,719/- and on the next day he swiped his credit card and has withdrawn an amount of Rs.8,704/- from Sharada filing Station and added the remaining amount of Rs.300/-

and paid Rs.9,000/- to the petitioner on the next day. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that said facts were made out during the course of investigation and that the involvement of the petitioner herein is revealed during the investigation. He further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The allegations point out prima facie case against the petitioner herein under Section 7(a) of the PC Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence to prove the demand made by the petitioner herein and that in the absence of demand, the offence alleged against him cannot be proved. But, this Court cannot evaluate the material or the evidence on record at this stage. The allegations prima facie point out that the petitioner herein, who is accused No.2 aided AO1 in arranging for the transactions of bribe by diverting the amounts to the accounts of third persons and receiving the same from them by way of cash.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for ACB has relied upon the decision in Devader Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291, wherein

the petitioner therein – an Audit Inspector, was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification for conducting audit. The co-accused was apprehended red handed while accepting the bribe and there was an audio recording, corroborating the demand. The High Court has denied the anticipatory bail. When the matter reached the Apex Court it has held that:

“24. I