THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.09/ACB-KNR/2025 on the file of ACB Police Station, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’).

2. Heard Sri Bathula Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-

cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB-respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Senior Assistant in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sulthanabad, and is not entrusted with the duty of preparing the Bills and hence, demanding the amount for preparation of pending HPL bill of the respondent No.2-complainant is utterly false. He further submitted that the police have falsely initiated the case against the petitioner without there being any evidence as to the demand by the petitioner and further they have not obtained any sanction order before laying the trap. He further submitted that even as per the conversation recorded by the prosecution, no demand made by the petitioner is disclosed and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for ACB has submitted that it is a trap case and that ample evidence is collected by the prosecution to prove the offence alleged against the petitioner and that the prosecution could catch hold of the petitioner-AO2 red handed, and the conversation between the de facto complainant and the petitioner is recorded, which reveals the demand also. He further submitted that the prosecution could also collect the video clippings with regard to the offence and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out prima facie allegations against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section

7A of PC Act. Section 7A of the PC Act reads as follows:

“7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence:-

Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

7. In the present case, the allegations prima facie point out the above said offence. The recitals of Remand Case Diary show seizure of the tainted bribe amount and the denominations therein. It is further pointed out in the Remand Case Diary that the petitioner along with AO1 has demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the de facto complainant. The prosecution has recorded the audio - video clippings of the conversation and the act of acceptance. The strength of the electronic evidence and the truth in the allegations shall fall for consideration before the trial court. The investigation is still in progress. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage, and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 03, 2025 KTL