Partly allowed

State, v. G.Krishna Murthy

Telangana HC21 Dec 2012CRLA/1677/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the acquittal of an Engineer. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove voluntary demand or acceptance of bribe, thus confirming the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Note: Subject 'cheating-and-forgery' in schema is incorrect contextually but included due to schema constraint or mi

What did the court decide?

The order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is confirmed, and the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed.

State, Vs G.Krishna Murthy — Corruption | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1677 OF 2005

¶6

Between :

¶7

The State, Represented by Dy.Supdt.of Police Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, East Godavari district. … Appellant

¶8

V/s.

¶9

G. Krishna Murthy Asst.Divisional Engineer [Operations] APSEB Jaggampet, East Godavari district. … Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy Standing counsel & Spl.PP for ACB Counsel for the Respondent : Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy

¶11

The Court made the following : [Judgment follows] `

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶13

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1677 OF 2005

¶14

J U D G M E N T :

¶15

This criminal appeal is filed at the instance of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, East Godavari district, against the judgment dated 16-5-2005 passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences under section 7 and 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶16

2. The respondent-accused was tried for the charges under section 7 and 13 [2] read with section 13 [1] [d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short “The Act”] on the allegation that he demanded an amount of Rs.1,700=00 from Sri Surath Venkatadri [PW-1] for rendering official favour; namely, approving the estimates prepared by the Additional Assistant Engineer, [Operation], APSEB

¶17

Prathipadu for shifting of the electrical transformer and electrical line in the land of PW-1.

¶18

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows :

¶19

PW-1 is an agriculturist and there was electrical line running across his land and the transformer was situated in the middle of his land. There used to be short circuit quite often resulting in sparks and flames and on one occasion due to short circuit the entire sugarcane crop raised by PW-1 was burnt. Therefore, he made an application to shift the electrical transformer and also electrical line from out of his field. The application was sent to the respondent-accused, who was the Assistant Divisional Engineer, [Operation], East Godavari at the relevant time for approval. It is said that for approving the estimates prepared by Additional Assistant Engineer [Operation] APSEB, Prathipadu, the respondent-accused demanded an amount of Rs.1,700=00 from PW-1 and ultimately received in the course of trap laid by Anti-Corruption Bureau pursuant to the report lodged by PW-1 with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range.

¶20

4. To prove the aforesaid allegations, which culminated in

¶21

framing of charges under section 7 and 13 [2] read with section 13 [1]

¶22

[d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs. P-1 toP-9 besides MOs-1 to 8. 5. PW-4, who lodged a report with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, did not support the prosecution version. His version before the trial court was to the effect that the respondent-accused did not demand any bribe from him but as the matter was delayed, some staff members told him to pay an amount of Rs.2000=00 to the respondent but as he was not

¶23

willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range and to the dictation of the Anti-Corruption Bureau staff he scribed a report. He stated in his deposition before the trial court that on the date of trap, he went into the residential house of respondent and found him sitting in the living room, asked him to do his work, for which the respondent-accused agreed. This witness did not however support the prosecution version as to the demand and accepting bribe by the respondent-accused. He stated in his evidence that as the staff members told him to give an amount of Rs.2,000=00 to the respondent, he attempted to give the tainted amount to him but he pushed the amount with his left hand, then he came out and found the Anti-Corruption Bureau Constable , who told him again to make an

¶24

attempt to give the amount to the respondent-accused. Then this witness states that he went inside the living room of the respondentaccused and found the respondent-accused taking out his shirt and he thrusted the bundle of currency notes into left side pant pocket of the respondent-accused. He further stated that the respondentaccused called him by his name, Venkatadri but he went out and gave pre-arranged signal and on receiving the same, the raiding party rushed in.

¶25

6. PW-2 was the Additional Assistant Engineer, APSEB, Prathipadu at the relevant time. The respondent-accused was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer [Operation] APSEB, Jaggampet during the said period. PW-2 stated in his evidence that the respondent was the competent authority to approve the estimates upto Rs.30,000=00. According to him, the respondent may approve the estimate or make personal inspection of site and also make a revised estimate. PW-2 was examined to establish that at the relevant date official favour was pending with the respondentaccused. However, there is no dispute about the fact that the official favour was pending with the respondent-accused in the matter of approving the estimates.

¶26

7. PW-3 was the Assistant Geologist in the Office of the

¶27

Assistant Director, Mines and Geology. He was taken as mediator by PW-4 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, in the course of trap laid against the respondent-accused. PW-3 deposed before the trial court that after receiving the pre-arranged signal from the Head Constable, the raiding party rushed into the house of the respondent-accused, Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein reaction test conducted on the fingers of the respondent-accused yielded positive result. He further deposed that when PW-4 questioned the respondent-accused about the tainted amount, he took out the currency notes from the right side pocket of his pant and handed over them to PW-4. This witness further stated in his deposition that the numbers of the currency notes noted down in pre-trap panchanama were tallied with the numbers of currency notes recovered from the respondentaccused. This witness also stated in his evidence that when the inner lining pant pocket of the respondent was subjected to chemical test, it also yielded positive result. The evidence of PW-4, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, who was the trap laying Officer is also to the same effect.

¶28

8. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the tained amount of Rs.1700=00 was recovered from the respondent-accused

¶29

and that the chemical test conducted on the fingers of the respondentaccused as well as the inner lining of the pant pocket yielded positive result. The crucial question however would be whether there is any voluntary demand or acceptance of bribe by the respondent-accused from PW-1. The court would be in a position to draw presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only in the event of the prosecution establishing either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the respondent-accused voluntarily received the tainted amount from PW-1. In this case, the evidence of PW-1 reveals that the respondent-accused did not demand any bribe from him nor did he accept the bribe from PW-1. According to him, initially when he offered bribe amount the respondent-accused refused to receive the same and on the instance of the Head Constable again he approached PW-1 and thrusted the currency notes into his pant pocket. Thus, in this case, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence showing that the respondent-accused demanded or accepted the bribe voluntarily. The learned trial court considering all these aspects rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the offence alleged against the respondent-accused. The order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court, therefore, does not call for any interference in this appeal.

¶30

9. In the result, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau

¶31

is dismissed.

¶32

------------------------------------------JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶33

21/12/2012. I s L

¶34

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶35

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1677 OF 2005

¶36

CIRCULATION No. 9 1 Date: 21/12/2012 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43

State, v. G.Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State, v. G.Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dl-ta Seetha Ramalingeswara Sarma, (D.S.R.L.Sarma) Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor

G.v.Narayana Rao, Vs State , rep by Dsp Acb, Ciu Hyderabad through Spl.

Pothina Hanumantha Rao Vs The State of a.P., rep. by P.P.

Thota Seetamalakshmi, (A-2), Vs K.v.Jyothi Prasuna

B.Chitti Babu, Vs The State Acb, City Range, Rep.by its Special

A.Sreeramulu, Vs The State of A.P.