In corruption cases, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential ingredients to constitute an offence. Absent these elements or evidence of criminal conspiracy, prosecution proceedings cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed under the court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.05/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020/ACB, Nizamabad, registered for the offences under Sections 7(a)(c) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri Ch. Vidya Sagar Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri N. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Rajashekar, learned counsel, representing Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for the Anti-Corruption Bureau for the respondents. Perused the record.

03(a). The brief facts of the case are as follows: One Gaddam Satish Goud, shown as the respondent No.2, became acquainted with Bathula Sudhakar, shown as the respondent No.3. One Sujay was habitually engaged in betting on IPL cricket matches, and the respondent No.3 used to act as a mediator in such betting activities. Sujay used to pay money through the respondent No.3 in connection with the said betting transactions. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 decided to discontinue his involvement in cricket betting and ceased to act as a mediator. However, Sujay allegedly began coercing the respondent No.3 to continue acting as a mediator. He is stated to have threatened the respondent No.3 that, in the event of non-compliance, he would lodge a complaint against him and ensure that a betting case was registered, asserting that he had influence over the officials of Kamareddy Police Station, including the Inspector.

03(b). It is further averred that the respondent No.3 informed the respondent No.2 about the said threats, who in turn apprised their common friend by name Ande Ramesh. On 05.11.2020, the respondent No.3, accompanied by a Police Constable by name Ravi, went to the residence of the respondent No.2 and informed him that the said constable was taking him to Kamareddy Police Station. The respondent No.3 requested the respondent No.2 to accompany him, and accordingly, he did so. However, the respondent No.2 was not permitted to enter the Police Station and waited outside. After some time, he was called inside and met the respondent No.3. He advised the respondent No.3 to disclose the truth as to whether he had participated in betting activities. Shortly thereafter, the respondent No.2 was directed to leave the premises by the police officials. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 approached the accused No.1 and requested permission to speak with him briefly. The accused No.1 declined and directed him to speak with the accused No.2 instead. Upon speaking with the accused No.2, the respondent No.2 was informed that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was required to secure the release of the respondent No.3 from the proposed betting case. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 came into the verandah and informed the respondent No.3 that accused No.1 was demanding Rs.5,00,000/- for his release, out of which Rs.3,00,000/- was allegedly the share of the accused No.1 and the remaining Rs.2,00,000/- would be shown as the amount seized in the betting case to be registered against him.

03(c). Thereafter, the Police Constable by name Ravi, the accused No.2 and one Ramesh came out along with the respondent No.3. Sujay informed the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.3 was being taken to Banswada. The respondent No.3 was taken in the car of the accused No.2, and the respondent No.2 was unable to follow them. Approximately, half an hour later, the respondent No.3 telephonically informed the respondent No.2 that they had returned to the Police Station and requested him to come there. The respondent No.2 accordingly went to the Police Station but was not permitted to meet the respondent No.3 and therefore returned. On 06.11.2020, the respondent No.2 informed his friend Ramesh abo