THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.22112 OF 2017 DATE: 10.02.2026 Between :

S Narsing Rao … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad Telangan and four others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue a writ or order or direction more appropriately a nature of Writ of mandamus in passing the orders and refusing to accord sanction by the respondent no 1 vide G O Rt No.758 dated 05.09.2015 for Prosecution against the 5th Respondent in Crime No/FIR No.27/RCTCR2/2013 for the offence U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 dated 27082013 on the file of Anti Corruption Bureau City Range II Hyderabad which is illegal, arbitrary and against the Section 19 1 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and also violation of under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 vide G O Rt No.758 dated 05.09.2015 todDirect the 1st respondent/sanction authority to reconsider the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.4 in Crime No/FIR No 27/RCTCR2/2013 for the offence U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 dated 27.08.2013 and pass the orders as per the provisions of Sec.19 of the PC Act and pass such other order or orders as this Honble High Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances.…….”

2. I have heard Ms. T. Sireesha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing counsel for ACB appearing for the respondents.

FACTS IN BRIEF

3.1 The wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint against one Mr. Yerneni Sarat Babu. Pursuant thereto, FIR No. 595 of 2013 dated 19.07.2013 was registered at Vanasthalipuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. At the relevant point of time, the fifth respondent, Mr. Y. Venkat Reddy, was functioning as the Station House Officer/Circle Inspector of the said police station.

It is alleged that the fifth respondent demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 30,000/- from the petitioner for arresting the accused named in the FIR and for completing the investigation. Alleging such demand of bribe, the petitioner approached the Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB), pursuant to which Crime No. 27/RCT- CT-2/2013 dated 27.03.2013 was registered against the fifth respondent for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”).

3.2. In furtherance of the said complaint, pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of mediators. During these proceedings, the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and necessary instructions were issued to the petitioner. On 27.03.2013, the petitioner is stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the accused officer at the police station, which amount was allegedly kept in the drawer of the accused officer’s table. During the trap proceedings, the phenolphthalein test conducted on the right hand of the accused officer yielded positive results. The tainted amount of Rs. 25,000/- was thereafter recovered from the table drawer, after forcibly opening the lock, and the serial numbers of the currency notes were found to tally with those recorded in the mediator’s report.

Upon completion of the investigation, the Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted a final report recommending prosecution of the officer for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. However, the competent sanctioning authority/first respondent, vide G.O.Rt. No. 758 dated 05.09.2015, declined to accord sanction for prosecution. Consequent thereto, the Anti-Corruption Bureau filed a closure report, which is stated to be pending consideration.

Aggrieved by the refusal to accord