In corruption cases, a prior demand or acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved through inferential deduction from circumstantial evidence if foundational facts are present; it is not strictly limited to direct primary evidence from the complainant.

Submitted for approval.

Gist:

HEAD NOTE:

Cases referred

1. Crl.A.No.1669 of 2009 dated 15.12.2022

2. (2009) 6 SCC 587

3. (2015) 10 SCC 152

4. (2014) 13 SCC 55

5. (2001) 1 SCC 691

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-AO2 against the order dated 29.10.2018 passed in Crl.M.P. No.151 of 2014 in CC No.48 of 2013 by the I-Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-AO2 and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner-AO2, P&E Inspector, worked as Excise SHO, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District from 12.07.2008 to 25.08.2011. That he acted in connivance with accused No.1 and others, did not verify various documents furnished by informal liquor association leaders in the names of benamies during the process of issuing licences for wine shops, to get the licences in the benami names and further allowed the accused No.1 to run the benami liquor shops during his tenure as SHO, Serilingampally, R.R. District and thereby facilitated wrongful gain to the accused No.1 through the said shops. Thus, AO2 has abused his official position by omission of his lawful duties, accepted illegal gratification towards monthly mamools from accused No.1 and allowed accused No.1 to get and run 10 benami wine shops. Further, AO2 did not properly inspect the shops as mandated under Excise Act/Rules during his tenure of the lease period and did not make any efforts to initiate action for cancellation of licence of the shops which were in the names of benamis of accused No.1. Further, AO2 by corrupt and illegal means allowed the licences to run 83 belt shops within his station limits in contravention of Excise Rules and allowed the licensees to sell the liquor over and above the MRP rates in contravention to Rule 42 of the A.P. Excise Rules and also allowed to run the business beyond the prescribed business hours in contravention of Rule 31 of the Rules and also allowed sale of loose liquor for consumption at the above wine shops without licence /permission in contravention to Rule 26-B of the Rules and thereby caused pecuniary advantage to himself and to the owners of the wine shops of the “informal liquor association” of accused No.1 located in his station limits. Therefore, AO2 committed the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a)(d) read with 123(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short ‘PC Act) and 120-B and 34 IPC. After investigation, the ACB police filed charge sheet, which was numbered as CC No.48 of 2014.

4. The petitioner-AO2 filed petition under Sections 239 and 245 Cr.P.C., to discharge and acquit him of the said offences, vide Crl.M.P. No.151 of 2014 before the trial court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2017. Against the said dismissal order, a revision was preferred before the high Court and the high court has passed the following order:

“the criminal revision case is allowed while setting aside the impugned dismissal order on the discharge application of petitioner/A2, remanded the same to the lower Court with a direction to hear afresh and if at all even any charge framed, for same is not barred to alter or