Dismissed

Kota Sampoorna Pawani [Died] v. The State

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2021CRLA/660/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for bribery in issuing a property valuation certificate. The court evaluated prosecution evidence from a trap versus defence witnesses claiming the accused was on medical leave, determining the latter unreliable and dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence for offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were affirmed.

Kota Sampoorna Pawani [Died] Vs The State — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The sole accused in C.C. No. 7 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, is the Appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [‘ P.C. Act ’] and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months each under each count. The sentence of imprisonment imposed under each count was directed to run concurrently. M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.Os. 4 to 9 were directed to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

¶5

The substance of the Charge against Accused Officer is that, on 13.09.1998, the Accused Officer accepted a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe, from one Nerrukonda Venkateswara Rao at his Office at Thotlavalluru, as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing a favour of issuing a Property Valuation Certificate.

¶6

The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under:

¶7

¶8

i. The Accused Officer herein was working as Mandal Revenue Officer in Thotlavallur Mandal, Krishna District. On 07.08.1998, PW1 - an agriculturist approached the Accused Officer for a Property Valuation Certificate, so as to obtain loan from the bank. He is said to have submitted an application, dated 05.08.1998, vide Ex.P1 along with a copy of a Will, under which he got some property. The Accused Officer is said to have demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- for issuing Property Valuation Certificate. The Accused Officer asked PW1 to come along with demanded bribe amount on 09.08.1998. It is said that PW1 met the Accused Office on 09.08.1998, at which point of time, the Accused Officer asked him whether he brought the demanded amount of Rs.1,000/-. PW1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, but, the Accused Officer informed him that he will not issue the Property Valuation Certificate unless the demanded bribe amount is paid. Two days later, i.e., on 12.08.1998, PW1 went to the Office of A.C.B. at Vijayawada, and presented a report [Ex.P2] before PW5 – the Inspector of Police.

¶9

ii. PW5 - the Inspector of Police, caused enquiries about the antecedents of Accused Officer and PW1. He then submitted a report with his endorsement to Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., on 13.08.1998.

¶10

iii. PW8 – Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Vijayawada, obtained oral permission from D.G., A.C.B., Hyderabad, to register a case and lay trap. On 13.08.1998 at

¶11

¶12

about 8.30 a.m., after receipt of report from PW5, he registered a case in Crime No. 23/ACB/VJA/1998 under Section 7 of P.C. Act and issued First Information Report to all concerned. Ex.P16 is the original First Information Report. On instructions of C.T.O., PW4 and one Subba Rayudu attended before PW8 to act as mediators in this case. PW8 introduced them to the Inspectors and staff and vice versa. Thereafter, he called PW1 and introduced him to the mediators and staff and gave a copy of Ex.P7 [copy of Ex.P2 - report] to the mediators, requesting them to ascertain its genuineness from PW1. After ascertaining the genuineness of the report, the mediators put their initials in lieu of their verification.

¶13

On his instructions, PW1 produced 10 x 100/- currency notes [proposed bribe amount]. The mediators noted down the serial numbers in a Mahazar and then the Constable prepared sodium carbonate solution in a glass of water. On instructions of PW8, PW1 handed over the above currency notes and rinsed his fingers in the solution. There was no change in colour. The Constable applied phenolphthalein powder to the bribe amount, made them into a wad and kept the same in the empty left side shirt pocket of PW1. The Constable rinsed his fingers in sodium carbonate solution prepared separately, which turned pink in colour. The significance of sodium carbonate solution and the phenolphthalein test was explained to PW1 and mediators. He was asked not to touch the notes till it was paid to Accused Officer in his Office on further demand. PW1 was also asked to

¶14

¶15

come out and give a signal by wiping his face with handkerchief if the money is accepted by the Accused Officer. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are the sodium carbonate powder and, phenolphthalein powder. The Constable who conducted the test stayed in the Office. The pre-trap proceedings were reduced into writing and the same is placed on record as Ex.P8. Thereafter, the trap party along with PW1 and mediators left the A.C.B. Office in a car and jeep and reached Sivalayam Temple situated near the Office of the Accused Officer by 12.15 noon. All of them got down from the vehicle and PW1 was instructed to pay the bribe amount only on demand and if accepted, relay the same by way of a signal.

¶16

iv. Accordingly, PW1 proceeded to the Office room of Accused Officer and found him discussing with V.A.O. P. Satyanarayana. He waited for five minutes and then entered the room of Accused Officer. He requested the Accused Officer for issuance of Property Valuation Certificate. Then the Accused Officer asked PW1 as to whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-. The Accused Officer asked him to keep the tainted amount under a writing pad, which was in front of the table. Accordingly, PW1 kept the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- underneath a writing pad. Thereafter, Accused Officer picked up the money with his left hand, counted the same with both his hands and kept the same in his left side pant pocket. The Accused Officer called the Superintendent and instructed him to deliver the Property Valuation Certificate. At

¶17

¶18

that point of time, PW1 came out and gave the signal to the trap party. On receiving the signal, the trap party rushed into the Office of the Accused Officer. PW1 was asked to wait outside the Office. The trap members along with mediators entered the Office, which is situated in the first floor of the building. On entering the Office room, the trap party found the Accused Officer sitting on his seat. After disclosing the identity, the D.S.P., ascertained the identity of the Accused Officer and introduced him to the other trap party members. The sodium carbonate solution test conducted on both the hands of Accused Officer proved positive. When the D.S.P., enquired about the tainted amount, the Accused Officer produced the same by picking it out from his left side pant pocket. The inner lining of the pant pocket was subjected to sodium carbonate test, which proved positive.

¶19

The Dy.S.P. enquired the Accused Officer as to what happened between himself and PW1 prior to their arrival. The said version of Accused Officer was reduced into writing. Thereafter, PW1 was called and enquired as to what happened and his version was also recorded. The serial numbers on the currency notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pretrap proceedings. After collecting all the material, namely, M.O.4 to M.O.7, Ex.P1 [application addressed to Mandal Revenue Office], Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P9 [application register of Mandal Revenue Office] and Ex.P10 [tour diary of Accused Officer], the second mediator report was prepared, which is

¶20

¶21

placed on record as Ex.P12. A rough sketch of the scene was also prepared, which is marked as Ex.P11. The D.S.P., arrested the accused and released him on bail. Thereafter, the house of the Accused Officer was searched, but nothing incriminating was found in his house. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are the search lists prepared at the time of search of the house of the Accused Officer. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 7 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and A.C.B. Cases, Vijayawada.

¶22

On appearance of the Accused Officer, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and later on Charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused Officer, to which he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

¶23

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16, apart from marking M.O.1 to M.O.9. After completing the prosecution evidence, the Accused Officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. He examined DW1 and DW2 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 in support of his plea.

¶24

¶25

Relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW8 coupled with Ex.P12, the trial Court convicted the Accused Officer. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

¶26

Sri. V.R. Avula, learned counsel for the Appellant mainly submits that, there is no legal admissible evidence connecting the Accused Officer with the crime. According to him, there is enough material on record to show that the Accused Officer was not there in the Office on 09.08.1998. He further submits that the Accused Officer took permission to go to Hyderabad as his wife was not well on 08.08.1998 itself. That being the position, it is difficult to believe that the Accused Officer would have demanded bribe on 09.08.1998. He further submits that, there is no material to show that Ex.P1 application was given to the Accused Officer. According to him, if really Ex.P1 was given to PW1, definitely the same would have reflected in the Inward Register, maintained at the Office. Referring to the admissions in the evidence of PW1, he would contend that there is any amount of doubt as to whether Ex.P1 was given to Accused Officer or in the Office of the Accused Officer. The learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that, when PW4 - the mediator was instructed on 12.08.1998 by the C.T.O., to attend before D.S.P., A.C.B., on 13.08.1998 at 8.00 a.m., it is difficult to believe as to how PW8 could have asked C.T.O., on 12.08.1998 itself to instruct PW4 to appear before him and act as mediator.

¶27

¶28

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the A.C.B., opposed the same, contending that the evidence on record amply establish handing over Ex.P1 to Accused Officer for issuance of Property Valuation Certificate. She further submits that, the suggestions given to witnesses in the crossexamination amply establish the said fact. In other words, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel appears to be that, there is official favour pending before Accused Officer and the amount was demanded and accepted for doing a favour. In view of the above, it is pleaded that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of conviction.

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of Accused Officer beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

¶30

In order to bring home a Charge under Section 7, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused Officer accepted illegal gratification, which was not the remuneration for which he was legally entitled to, and that he has accepted the same as a motive for doing an official act.

¶31

Insofar as offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused Officer by corrupt or illegal means obtained for himself

¶32

¶33

a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and that he has committed criminal misconduct being a public servant.

¶34

The fact that the Accused Officer is the Public Servant falling within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, is not in dispute and, as such, it may not be necessary for me to deal with the said aspect.

¶35

Coming to the issue relating to sanction of prosecution of the Accused Officer, the plea of the Accused Officer appears to be that without application of mind sanction came to be issued under Ex.P15. Since the author of Ex.P15 was not examined, it is urged that entire prosecution basing on Ex.P15 stands vitiated. It is a well settled principle of law that, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been issued by the sanctioning authority. The said sanction order is required to be issued after being satisfied that a case has been made out constituting an offence.

¶36

In the present case, though the sanctioning authority could not be examined, but, PW7, who identifies the signature of the sanctioning authority, has been examined. He was working as Section Officer in Revenue and Vigilance Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. According to him, their office received the draft final report through Vigilance Commissioner from D.G. A.C.B., on 10.06.1999 along with a copy of the First Information Report, gist of statement of witnesses, mediators report etc. The Section Officer put up office note for approval of the file and it

¶37

¶38

was processed from him to the Additional Secretary and Secretary to Law Department for scrutiny. The file was sent back to the Revenue Inspector, who approved the file on considering the material available on record. Thereafter, the file came back to the Secretary, who issued the prosecution sanction order against the Accused Officer. Since, PW7 worked under the then Revenue Secretary, he narrated the events, which took place with regard to issuance of Ex.P15. Though, PW7 was crossexamined, I do not find any incriminating material being elicited to discard issuance of Ex.P15. On the other hand, the suggestion given that PW7 that he was not working under the sanctioning authority was denied by him. Though, answer came to be elicited about non-disclosure of documents along with the FIR and final report, but, the same, in my view, may not go to the root of the matter to discard the validity of Ex.P15. Hence, the argument that there was no valid sanction cannot be accepted.

¶39

The other ground raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is with regard to Ex.P1 alleged to have been given by PW1 to the Accused Officer. According to him, in the absence of any endorsement on Ex.P1, a doubt arises as to whether really PW1 gave Ex.P1 to the Accused Officer and if so on what date. He further submits that, the evidence on record is also inconsistent with regard to demand made by the Accused Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, it is pleaded that the entire case has to be thrown out.

¶40

¶41

In order to appreciate the same, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of some of the witnesses.

¶42

PW1, who is an informant in this case, is an agriculturist, who is said to have submitted Ex.P1 application on 05.08.1998 in the Office of the M.R.O. for issuance of property valuation certificate. According to him, the said certificate is necessary for purpose of providing bank surety in respect of his wet land in his village. It is said that, on 05.08.1998, when he met the Accused Officer, he demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- in order to issue the property valuation certificate. PW1 was asked to come on 09.08.1998 with the demanded bribe amount. Accordingly, he claims to have gone to the Office on 09.08.1998, on which date the Accused Officer enquired whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-. When PW1 expressed his inability to pay the amount, the Accused Officer informed him that unless the bribe amount is paid, his work would not be done.

¶43

On the date of trap at about 11.00 a.m., the entire raid party went to the Office of Accused Officer and took strategic positions. PW1 entered the Office and found the Accused Officer discussing something with V.A.O. He waited for five minutes and thereafter met the Accused Officer and requested him to issue the property valuation certificate. The Accused Officer asked PW1 as to whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-. When affirmed, PW1 was asked to keep the amount

¶44

¶45

under the writing pad in front of the table. Accordingly, he kept the same. Then the Accused Officer took the amount with his left hand, counted the same with both his hands and kept it in his left side pant pocket. Thereafter, PW1 gave a pre-arranged signal and the trap party who entered the office recovered the money from the pant pocket of the Accused Officer. Though PW1 was cross-examined on various aspects, but, nothing useful came to be elicited to discard the same. The suggestions given that Accused Officer did not demand bribe amount, was denied by him. It was further suggested to him that he did not present Ex.P2 report on 12.08.1998 and he was not asked by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., to come at 8.30 a.m., on 13.08.1998 along with the proposed bribe amount, but the same was also denied. Though, an admission came to be elicited that Ex.P2 does not disclose any demand on the date when Ex.P1 application was presented before the M.R.O., but the same in my view may not matter much because the demands made were on subsequent dates, which remain unimpeached.

¶46

Coming to the evidence of PW2, who was working as Additional Revenue Inspector in the Mandal Revenue Office, he in his evidence deposed that, on 07.08.1998 at about 6.00 p.m., Accused Officer gave him Ex.P1 application to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. On 09.08.1998, he was asked by Accused Officer to conduct enquiry immediately to the application of PW1. On 10.08.1998, he visited the Village of PW1, consulted the V.A.O., verified the records, obtained the

¶47

¶48

report of V.A.O., and submitted his report after due recommendation on 11.08.1998. Ex.P4 is the report. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that there is no endorsement on Ex.P1 that M.R.O., has received it and passed it on to him for enquiry. To a suggestion that he himself received Ex.P1 from PW1 was denied. He further admits that, by the time he received Ex.P1 application in his Office, it was only one sheet without any enclosures. He further admits that, V.A.O. did not enclose the copy of the Will to Ex.P1 in his presence on 10.08.1998. To a suggestion that M.R.O., was on leave on 08.08.1998 and 09.08.1998 was denied. He further admits that as per Ex.P4, which is the report of PW2 submitted to M.R.O., recommending for issuance of property valuation certificate, the M.R.O., received the same and forwarded it to A.S.O., for further process.

¶49

From the above, it is clear that the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that Ex.P1 application was never given to Accused Officer is not correct. No material has been elicited either in the evidence of PW1 or in the evidence of PW2 to discard the same.

¶50

As seen from the evidence referred to above, the evidence of PW1 show that Ex.P1 application, dated 05.08.1998, was given to Accused Officer by PW1, while the evidence of PW2 goes to show that it had an endorsement of Accused Officer for enquiry and report. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to

¶51

¶52

the evidence of PW6, who was working as Assistant Statistical Officer, in the Office of M.R.O. from 1995 to 2001. According to him, on 11.08.1998 in the evening, Accused Officer forwarded an application under Ex.P4 and Ex.P1 with an endorsement as “A.S.O.”. On that he met the Accused Officer and asked him that on Ex.P4 it was endorsed as A.S.O. and further asked whether he has to put up office note. On that, he was told by M.R.O., to keep it at abeyance. Then he kept the same in almarah.

¶53

From the evidence of PW6, it stands established beyond doubt that the Accused Officer forwarded Ex.P4 and Ex.P1 with an endorsement as “A.S.O.” and on that he met the Accused Officer and enquired as to whether he has to put up office note, but, the Accused Officer asked to put it in abeyance and, as such, he kept the same in almarah. This was around 11.08.1998.

¶54

The evidence of PW4 and PW8 the trap laying officers goes to show that Ex.P1 file was seized from the Office of the Accused Officer on 13.08.1998. Though, PW4 and PW8 were crossexamined, nothing useful came to be elicited to support the case of the Accused Officer. On the other hand, it stands established that Accused Officer asked PW6 to keep the file in abeyance; apparently for the reason that the bribe amount demanded by him was not paid by PW1 to him. Therefore, on the date of alleged demand and trap, an official favour i.e., issuance of property valuation certificate was pending with the Accused

¶55

¶56

Officer and as per the instructions of Accused Officer, the file was not processed. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant that no file was pending with the Accused Officer and it has reached the Office after passing the order, may not be correct.

¶57

One another fact, which requires to be noticed is that, according to Investigating Officer, 15 days time is required by the higher officials for preparation and issuance of property valuation certificate and, in this case, admittedly Ex.P1 does not contain the enclosure i.e., Xerox copy of the Will, though, PW1 claims to have enclosed. After due enquiry, PW2 – the Revenue Inspector, submitted its report, which was forwarded to PW6 and, thereafter, it was kept on hold. Merely because a certified copy of the Will and death extract of the executant was not enclosed, may not be a ground for not issuing the property valuation certificate. Intentionally the file was kept with PW6. As observed by the learned Special Judge, even assuming for a moment that all the certificates are necessary, instead of keeping Ex.P1 with him, the M.R.O., ought to have made necessary endorsement of returning them, but, he did not do so. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no official favour pending and the Accused Officer intentionally kept the file in abeyance as the amount demanded by him was not paid till then.

¶58

¶59

One another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that, demand of Rs. 1,000/- by the Accused Officer on 07.08.1998 when PW1 presented Ex.P1 application was false. The said fact was admitted in the cross-examination by PW1 to the effect that it was not mentioned in Ex.P2. Though, the evidence-in-chief of PW1 goes to show that when he presented Ex.P1 on 07.08.1998, the Accused Officer demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- for processing it, but, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 do not disclose the same. Therefore, I am of the view that, the prosecution failed to substantiate their case with regard to demand on 07.08.1998. On the other hand, the evidence on record positively establish that on 09.08.1998 when PW1 met the Accused Officer and enquired about Ex.P1 application, the Accused Officer demanded bribe amount to do the favour. When PW1 expressed his inability to pay and informed, the Accused Officer replied stating that he can pay the amount in two or three days. Therefore, the argument that there was no demand at all may not be correct. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 amply establish the same.

¶60

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 show that the alleged demand on the said date is false, as the Accused Officer was on leave on 08.08.1998 and 09.08.1998 as he took his wife to Hyderabad for her medical treatment.

¶61

¶62

DW1 is no other than the Administrative Officer of SubCollector’s Office, Vijayawada, who in his evidence-in-chief stated that, Ex.D1 application was submitted by the Accused Officer requesting permission to avail public holidays on 08.08.1998 and 09.08.1998 in order to take his wife to Hyderabad, for medical check up. Ex.D2 is the leave register for the year 1998 of M.R.Os., working in Krishna District; Ex.D3 is the certified copy of E.D1 [application]; Ex.D4 is the certified copy of Ex.D2 relevant entry in Ex.D2 granting permission; Ex.D5 is the tour diary of the Accused Officer for the month of August 1998, submitted to the Sub- Collector’s Office, which was received by the Office on 05.11.1998. However, in crossexamination, he admits that, he does not know personally about granting of permission and receiving of permission letter. He further admits that his office is having the habit of noting down the papers which are received every day, in a register maintained by each section of the house, but however, admits he did not bring the relevant register, wherein the entry in respect of receipt of Ex.D1 was made. He further admits that, there is no office order in writing to substantiate his evidence that the in-charge officers will be intimated over phone about their keeping in-charge.

¶63

From the above, it is clear that, DW1 has no personal knowledge about the granting permission and receiving permission letter and that their office is having the habit of noting down the papers, which were received on each day in a

¶64

¶65

register maintained by each section of the office but he has not brought the relevant register, wherein, the entry in respect of receipt of Ex.D1 was made. It is to be noted here that, original file relating to entry in the relevant register of receipt of the application of Accused Officer and the sanction proceedings issue register and dispatch register etc., were not produced, which are the vital documents to probablise the case of the defence that the Accused Officer applied for leave and it was sanctioned by the then Sub-Collector and sanction was communicated to the Accused Officer by keeping some other M.R.O., as in-charge. In fact, admittedly DW1 is not the custodian of the records pertaining to the record room and the concerned record clerk was not examined.

¶66

At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW2 - the then Additional Revenue Inspector, who in his crossexamination, admits as under:

¶67

“It is not true to suggest that M.R.O. was on leave on 08.08.1998 and 09.08.1998 and that there was incharge M.R.O. for the M.R.O. Office for those two days. It is true that as per Ex.P4, M.R.O. having received the same forwarded it to A.S.O. for further process.”

¶68

From the above, it is clear that, PW2 denied the suggestion that the M.R.O. was on leave on 08.08.1998 and 09.08.1998. Even, PW6, the then Assistant Statistical Officer, M.R.O. Office, denied the suggestion that he received the communication from C.C. of Sub-Collector that the Sub-Collector had accorded

¶69

¶70

permission to leave the headquarters on 8^th and 9^th August, 1998, and that the M.R.O. of Kankipadu was kept in-charge.

¶71

DW2 is the Resident Medical Officer in A.Damodara Reddy Memorial Hospital, Ramananthapur, Hyderabad, who is said to have issued Ex.D7 certificate in favour of the wife of Accused Officer, stating that she is suffering with T.B. and that she appeared before him, accompanied by the Accused Officer, on 08^th and 9^th August, 1998. In the cross-examination DW2 admits as under:

¶72

“I cannot identify all the attendants who will accompany the patients. Witness adds: in some cases I can identify. It is true that even now I cannot identify the patient in whose favour I have issued Ex.D7 since it does not disclose identification marks . I am only M.B.B.S., graduate. There is no special qualification or specialization for treatment of T.B. Patient. I am not maintaining any type of registers in order to show the visit of the patients, treatment, collection of fee etc., in my hospital.”

¶73

It is evident from the above, that DW2 is not having any specialization to treat T.B. patients, but, the Accused Officer took his wife, who was suffering with T.B., to DW2, though he is not having any specialization. It is not the defence of the Accused Officer that because DW2 is their family doctor, he approached him. It is also not the case of the defence that Accused Officer was in the habit of taking treatment with DW2. On the other hand, it is the defence of the Accused Officer that, he took his wife to a Corporate Hospital located in Hyderabad.

¶74

¶75

Thus, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence of DW2 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D5, I am of the opinion that the evidence of DW2 is not reliable. For the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of DW1 and DW2 cannot be accepted.

¶76

Hence, viewed from any angle, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused Officer and, as such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court requires no interference.

¶77

In the result the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed , confirming the conviction of the Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, passed in C.C. No. 7 of 2000, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, on 02.05.2006.

¶78

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶79

______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶80

Date: 17.12.2021… SM…

¶81

¶82

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶83

Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2006

¶84

Dt. 17.12.2021

¶85

Kota Sampoorna Pawani [Died] v. The State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kota Sampoorna Pawani [Died] v. The State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Kalpana, Chittoor Dist. Vs R. Jayakrishna, Chennai and 8 Othrs

Smt. N. Uma Lakshmi, Vs Shri Aditya Nath Das, I.A.S.

G. S. Subrahmanya Sastry, Vs the Spl. Pp for Acb, High Court of Ap Hyd.

Bellam Suryavani Vs The Managing Director -Lpg Region Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

S Shameer Vs K R M K Kumar

P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs Sri Sreenivasulu Ganjarapalli