Dismissed

Puttapogu Srinivasulu v. The State of a.P., rep. by the Spl. P.P.

Telangana HC29 Jan 2013CRLRC/1774/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by a Task Force Member challenging his conviction on corruption charges. The bench upheld the trial court's finding that his duty to inspect and collect food samples constituted a public duty, bringing him within the definition of 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision case dismissed; order dated 30-8-2012 dismissing the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. remains intact.

Puttapogu Srinivasulu Vs The State of a.P., rep. by the Spl. P.P. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.1774 of 2012

¶3

(Dated: 29-01-2013)

¶4

Between: Puttapogu Srinivasulu Christian Colony, Mahabubnagar ….Petitioner A n d State of A.P. rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad

¶5

….Respondent

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶7

Criminal Revision Case No.1774 of 2012

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 30-8-2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2012 in C.C.No.26 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, at Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by A-3-Puttapogu Srinivasulu under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

¶10

2. The petitioner is a non-official Task Force Member of Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India for a period of two years commencing from 12-9-2007. He opened office of Ministry of FPI by appointing A-1-Smt.Sajida Khan @ Sajida Khatoon as Secretary and A-2-Salahuddin @ Iqbal Javed Mohd as Sample Collection Assistant. He issued fake identity card of Ministry of Food Processing Industries to A-1 and A-2 and printed a fake sample collection book/Register and receipts. He instructed A-1 and A-2 to visit various food establishments, collect samples and threaten the management of food establishments with dire consequences and extract money from them. Under the instructions of A-3, A-1 and A-2 collected samples from the bakery of Mir Khalid Ali and demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/-for not sending the samples to Laboratory test. Mir Khalid Ali having made up his mind not to pay the bribe amount approached the CBI and CBI laid a trap. The trap proved to be

¶11

successful and tainted currency came to be seized from the possession of A-2. The Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/Hyderabad after due investigation filed the charge sheet in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The learned Special Judge took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.26 of 2008. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2013 under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking his discharge for the offences with which he is accused of. The learned Special Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground for his discharge for the offences with which he is accused of and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 30-8-2012. Hence this Criminal Revision Case by A-3-Puttapogu Srinivasulu.

¶12

3. Heard Sri M.Atchutha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A-3) and Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI Cases appearing for the respondent.

¶13

4. Sri M.Atchutha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not a public servant and therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C.Act). In elaborating his contention, it is pointed that the petitioner is not a regular employee and no remuneration is being paid to him by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries and therefore, prosecuting him for the offence under the provisions of the P.C.Act is illegal and improper.

¶14

5. Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI submits that under Section 2(c)(viii) any person who holds an office by

¶15

virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty comes within the meaning of `public servant’ and as the petitioner has been authorized to inspect the food processing establishments and collect samples, his nature of duty comes within the meaning of Section 2(c)(viii) and therefore, he answers the description of public servant.

¶16

6. For better appreciation, I may refer Section 2(c)(viii) and it reads thus:-

¶17

“2 (c ) (viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty”.

¶18

7. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been appointed as a Task Force Member for a period of two years commencing from 12.9.2007. By virtue of his appointment as Task Force Member, he was authorized to collect samples from the food processing establishments and send the same for analysis. Since the nature of work involves a public duty as defined in Section 2(d), he answers the description of public servant’. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and came to the conclusion that the nature of duty performed by the petitioner makes him to fall within the definition of public servant’. I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

8. The Criminal Revision Case fails and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶20

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.29-01-2013 RAR

Puttapogu Srinivasulu v. The State of a.P., rep. by the Spl. P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttapogu Srinivasulu v. The State of a.P., rep. by the Spl. P.P.

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

Smt. B.Laxmi Vs Govt. of Ap

Guggilla Ratnachary Vs The State of Ap.

Tiruveedhi Nagaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Ahmed Vs Krishna Babu

Pappala Dharma Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sagiraju Appala Trinadha Varma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh