1
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB
CASES IN RAYALASEEMA REGION AT KURNOOL
PRESENT: Sri.K.Sudhakar, Spl.Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool.
Thursday, this the 25th day of January, 2018
CALENDAR CASE No.5/2015
State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range, Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
Sri Racha Eswar Reddy, S/o.Late R.Narasimhulu, Aged 42 years, Village Revenue Officer, Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District. …. Accused officer
This case has been coming before me on 19-01-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri H.Venkatesh, Special Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri C.Nagendra Nath and Sri B.Rajesh Kumar, Advocates, Kurnool for the accused officer and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused officer being Village Revenue Officer, Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool
District had demanded Rs.7,500/- as bribe from the defacto-complaint for delivering D-Form Pattas, Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds related to
P.w.1’s(defacto-complainant) wife , mother and sister-in-law in the last week of January, 2014. But defacto-complainant pleaded inability to pay the bribe amount. On which accused officer informed that if the bribe amount is not paid, he will not deliver the above said documents. As there is no other go the defacto-complainant agreed to pay the bribe amount. Accused officer 2 informed him to pay the bribe amount at Gani Grama Panchayat Office within three days. Unwillingly defacto-complainant accepted to pay the bribe amount and gave Ex.P1-complaint to P.w.10 on 12-02-2014. P.w.10 registered a case against accused officer and issued Ex.P22-First Information
Report in Crime No. 1/RCT-KUR/2014 U/S. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act on 13-02-2014. Meanwhile P.w.10 secured P.w.2 and G.Kiran Kumar as mediators and entrusted the tainted amount of Rs.7,500/- to P.w.1 under
Ex.P6-pre-trap proceedings on 13-02-2014 from 9.15 a.m., to 9.30 a.m. They reached the office of accused officer at 10-15 a.m., and found he was not present in the office due to Samykyandhra Bundh and came to know he was present at his house in Kalva Village through Talari Venkata Ramana of Gani
Village. Then they proceeded to the house of accused officer. P.w.1 entered into the varandha of house of accused officer. On seeing P.w.1 accused officer enquired him about the bribe amount and asked to pay the same.
Then P.w.1 gave bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- to the accused officer who received with his right hand, counted with his both hands and went inside the main hall by holding the bribe amount in the right hand. Then P.w.1 came out and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party. On his signal trap party rushed into the house of accused officer. P.w.10 conducted chemical test to the both hand fingers of the accused officer and they proved positive result. When P.w.10 questioned about the bribe amount, accused officer took out the bunch of currency notes from the drawer of the dressing table.
P.w.10 conducted chemical test to the contact portion of the tainted currency notes with the table drawer with the help of cotton swab and proved positive result. Thereafter P.w.10 seized M.O.3-tainted amount Rs.7,500/- and other material objects i.e., M.Os.1,2 and 4 to 8 under cover of post-trap proceedings-I. When P.w.10 questioned the accused officer about the D-Form
Pattas, Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds of relatives 3 of P.w.1, accused officer let the trap party into the room in the Village
Revenue Office at Gani Village and opened small steel almarah and took out the above said documents. Then P.w.10 seized passbooks, title deeds and
Photostat copies of pattas and returned the original pattas to the Deputy
Tahsildar to hand over them to the applicants under cover of Ex.P18-post- trap proceedings-II. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction order charge sheet was filed against the accused officer.
2.After appearance of Accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as per Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. After examination of accused officer U/S.239 Cr.P.C., charges U/S.240 of Cr.P.C., for offences punishable
U/S.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against accused officer were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which accused officer pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3.The prosecution in order to establish the said charges examined
P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.26 and M.Os. 1 to 8.
4.After closure of the trial, accused officer was examined U/S.313 of Criminal Procedure Code and he was heard about the incriminating material appearing the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which, accused officer denied the same and filed written statement. Accused officer examined D.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.D1 to D9 on his behalf.
5.Heard both sides. Special Public Prosecutor and Counsel for
Accused officer filed written arguments separately.
6.Now the point for Determination is
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused officer?
POINT:- 4
7.P.w.1-B.Seenu Naik gave Exs.P2 to P4-6A forms, photographs,
Photostat copies of Adhar Cards and Ration Cards in the name of his wife-
P.w.6, his mother-Laxmi Bai and his sister-in-law-Savithri bai to Tahsildar,
Gadivemula for giving D-Form Pattas, Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds for an extent of Ac.2.01 cents each at about four years back. In the last week of
January, 2014 accused officer being Village Revenue Officer of Gani Village informed him that D-Form Pattas, Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds are ready with him for the last 15 days and demanded to pay Rs.7,500/- as bribe to deliver them. For which P.w.1 informed him that he was unable to pay the amount and he returned. Again 10 days after P.w.1 met accused officer in his office at Gani Village and asked about the documents and accused officer reiterated his earlier demand and informed that he will not give the documents without giving bribe amount. As there was no other go P.w.1 agreed to pay the bribe amount. Accused officer asked him to pay the bribe amount within two or three days. P.w.1 got prepared Ex.P1-complaint through his paternal uncle-P.w.4-B.Kalu Naik and gave it to P.w.10 on 12-02- 2014. At the request of P.w.10 he attended the office of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool on 13-02-2014 with proposed bribe amount. P.w.10 entrusted tainted amount of Rs.7,500/- to
P.w.1 in the presence of P.w.2, another mediator and other trap members under Ex.P6-pre-trap proceedings. They went to office of VRO at Gani
Village. P.w.1 went to the office of accused officer and found accused officer was not present in the office and came to know he was present at his house at Kalva Village due to Samykyandhra Bundh through Talari Venkata Ramana.
They went to Kalva Village at 10-50 a.m. P.w.1 went to the house of accused officer and found accused officer at varanda. Then accused officer asked him whether he brought the bribe 5 amount of Rs.7,500/-. P.w.1 gave affirmative answer. Then P.w.1 asked about his documents for which accused officer informed they are available in his office and to come to his office and collect them. Then P.w.1 paid tainted amount of Rs.7,500/- to the accused officer. Accused officer received the amount with his left hand and went into house. P.w.1 came out and gave signal to the trap party.
8.P.w.4-B.Kalu Naik is paternal uncle of P.w.1 and Ex-Surpanch of
Lakshmaiah Kunta of Thanda. He stated that P.w.1 applied for D-Form Pattas, pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the name of P.w.6 and two others in the year 2012. In the last week of January, 2014 and on 12-2-2014 P.w.1 informed him accused officer demanded money of Rs.7,500/- for delivery of pattas and pattadar passbooks. At the request of P.w.1 he scribed Ex.P1- complaint.
9.P.w.6-B.Laxmi Devi-wife of P.w.1 stated that in the year 2012
P.w.1 gave three applications in her name and in the names of her mother-in- law and her sister for issuing D-Form Pattas, Pattadar Passbooks and Title
Deeds in Mandal Revenue Office, Gadivemula. P.w.1 informed her that accused officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- for delivering them.
10.P.w.3-M.Jaya Prasad the then Deputy Tahsildar, Gadivemula stated that accused officer worked as Village Revenue Officer at Gani Village prior to the trap. He stated the procedure for issuing of D-Form Pattas,
Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds. On 13-02-2014 he did not go to the office due to Samykyandhra Bundh. He came to know accused officer was trapped through P.w.8-Narasimhulu-the then Revenue Divisional Officer over phone. He went to the Village Revenue Office, Gani at 3-00 p.m. When
P.w.10 showed Exs.P9 to P17-pattadar passbooks, title deeds and 6 pattas in the name of P.w.6 and two others, he found they were in full shape and ready to deliver the same to the parties. He signed on Ex.P18-Post-trap proceedings-II.
11.P.w.7-Ch.Indrani the then Tahsildar stated that in the year 2013 she identified 295 beneficiaries for an extent of 450 acres under 7th Land
Distribution Programme for distribution land to the landless poor persons.
The Committee consisting she, MLA Panyam, P.w.8-Revenue Divisional
Officer, Nandyal passed resolution for distribution of the land to the beneficiaries. After preparing the documents, she signed on them. In the month of December, 2013 distribution programme was held and distributed the documents to the beneficiaries who attended to the programme. The documents related to beneficiaries who did not attend to the programme were given to the concerned Village Revenue Officers for distribution on the same day. At that time accused officer worked as Village Revenue Officer at
Gani Village. The documents pertaining to the Gani Village were handed over the accused officer to deliver them to the beneficiaries. When she was present at Collector Office, Kurnool on 13-02-2014, she came to know through P.w.3 that accused officer was trapped at his house for delivery of pattas, title deeds and Pattas of the relatives of P.w.1.
12.P.w.8-G.Narasimhulu- the then Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nandyal stated that he, P.w.7, the then MLA Rambhupal Reddy held
Assignment Review Meeting under 7th Phase Land Distribution during
December, 2013 and signed on the register of assignment review meeting and approved distribution land to the beneficiaries. He instructed P.w.7 to prepare pattadar passbooks, title deeds and pattas in the name of beneficiaries. Accordingly P.w.7 prepared them. He signed on the title deed books. They delivered pattadar passbooks, title deeds and pattas to the 7 beneficiaries in the land distribution programme through MLA. The documents pertaining to the beneficiaries who were absent in the programme were handed over to concerned Village Revenue Officers to deliver the same to the concerned beneficiaries. On 13-02-2014 he came to know accused officer was trapped while he demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.7,500/-. He deputed P.w.3 to attend the office of Village
Revenue Officer at Gani Village and to assist the Anti-Corruption Bureau officials.
13.P.w.9-T.Venkata Ramana–Village Revenue Assistant, Gani Village stated that accused officer worked as Village Revenue Officer, Gani prior to the trap. On 13-02-2014 accused officer and other officials did not attend the office due to Samykandhra Bundh. He alone attended to the office on that day. On the same day at about 3-00 p.m., Anti-Corruption Bureau officials along with accused officer came to the office. He came to know accused officer demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- from
P.w.1 for delivering the pattas, pattadar passbooks and title deeds related to the relatives of P.w.1. But P.w.1 did not come to the office at 10-15 a.m., on 13-02-2014 and ask about the accused officer.
14. P.w.2 is mediator, P.w.5 is section officer and P.Ws.10 and 11 are investigating officers. According to the evidence of P.Ws.2,10 and 11 on 13- 02-2014 P.w.10 registered Ex.P22-First Information Report basing on Ex.P1- complaint and he entrusted the tainted amount to P.w.1 in their presence under Ex.P6-pre-trap proceedings. They went to Village Revenue Office at
Gani Village at 10-20 a.m., on 13-02-2014. P.w.1 enquired about the accused officer and came to know accused officer did not come to office due to
Samykyandhra bundh and he was present at his house in Kalva Village through P.w.9. They went to the house of accused officer at Kalva 8
Village at 10-50 a.m. P.w.1 entered into the house of accused officer at 11- 00 a.m., and came out and relied the pre-arranged signal. Immediately trap party entered into the house of accused officer and seized M.O.3-cash of
Rs.7,500/- at the instance of accused officer after conducting chemical tests to the both hand fingers and contact portion of the currency notes to the dressing table drawer under Ex.P8-post-trap proceedings-I. Then accused officer let them to the office of Village Revenue Officer, Gani Village at 2-50 p.m., and produced Exs.P2,P4, P9 to P17 –documents by taking out from steel almarah and they were seized under Ex.P18-post-trap proceedings-II.
P.w.5-K.Satyanarayana-Section Officer placed the entire file relating to the accused officer before Principal Secretary –J.C.Sharma. He had gone through the entire file, applied his mind and accorded sanction to prosecute the accused officer under Ex.P20-Sanction Proceedings. P.w.11 obtained Ex.P23- letter dated 22-02-2014 from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal with acknowledgments, Ex.P24-job chart and service particulars of the accused officer, Ex.P25-attested copies of 1B Register, Adangal, Assignment
Committee Resolution copy, Ex.P26-Memorandum from Director General,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. After completion of investigation P.w.11 filed charge sheet against the accused officer.
15.D.w.1-S.Venkata Ramana is Deputy Tahsildar, Gadivemula
Mandal. D.W.2-Y.Sivappa and D.w.3-G.PRathap Reddy are Villagers of Gani
Village, Gadivemula Mandal. D.w.4-Y.Bhaskar Reddy is Panchayat Secretary of Kalva Village, Orvakal Mandal. D.W.5-M.Ramasubbaiah is the then
Tahsildar, Gadivemula Mandal. D.w.6-Smt.V.Vijaya Kumari is Deputy
Inspector of Survey in the office of Survey and land records, Collectorate,
Kurnool. D.w.1 furnished information with regard to the online of the survey numbers 971/6 and 1106/6 in the names of Laxmi Bai and two others as per
Ex.D4-Attested copy of online adangal. D.Ws.2 and 3 are attestors in Exs.P2 9 to P4-application and 6A forms at page No.7. They signed on them at
Tahsildar office, Gadivemula in the year 2014 at the request of P.w.7-
Tahsildar, Gadivenuma. D.w.4 prepared Ex.D5-rough sketch of the house of the accused officer with the particulars of the boundaries of the house of the accused officer. D.w.5 received scrutiny report from the District Survey and
Land Records office on 05-02-2014. The survey numbers 934, 1106, 971, 1010 were not identified in their office till 05-02-2014, as per Ex.D6-reply letter dated 27-6-2016. The last survey number within the limits of Gani
Village was 1079 in the year 2012, as per Ex.D7-reply letter dated 27-6- 2016. There was no sub-division to the above said survey numbers prior to 05-02-2010, as per Ex.D8-field measurement sketch for survey number 971,
Ex.D9-field measurement sketch for the survey number 1106. After scrutiny in their office, sent scrutiny record to the Tahsildar office, Gadivemula on 05- 02-2014. The survey numbers 971 and 1106 were not existing in the revenue records till the scrutiny records were submitted. The survey numbers 971 and 1106 are new survey numbers which are formed from old survey number 934. The details of new survey numbers 971 and 1106 are entered into resurvey settlement register by the Tahsildar. The extent of old survey number 934 will be reduced with the formation of new survey numbers 971 and 1106.
16.The Special Public Prosecutor filed written arguments and stating that P.w.1 categorically deposed in the Court that the accused officer demanded Rs.7,500/- to deliver pattadar passbooks, title deeds and pattas in the name of P.w.6 and others. Then P.w.1 got prepared Ex.P1-complaint through P.w.4 who is his senior paternal uncle and gave complaint to P.w.10.
Pw.6 is wife of P.w.1 deposed that P.w.1 gave applications in the office of
Tahsildar and informed her that accused officer demanded bribe amount of
Rs.7,500/-. P.w.1 further stated that on the date of trap accused 10 officer demanded and accepted tainted amount from P.w.1 in the Varanda of his house and went to his house. The evidence of P.w.2-mediator, P.Ws.10 and 11-investigating officers shows that they recovered the tainted amount from accused officer and also recovered Exs.P2 to P4 and Exs.P9 to P17- documents from the steel almarah at his office at the instance of accused officer. According to the evidence of P.Ws.3,7, 8 and 9 the Assignment
Review Committee distributed the land to the beneficiaries and delivered pattadar passbooks and title deeds to them. The undelivered pattadar passbooks and title deeds were given to the concerned Village Revenue
Officers for distribution on the same day. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds pertaining to Gani Village were handed over to the accused officer to deliver them to the beneficiaries. Therefore the accused officer was in custodian of pattadar passbooks, title deeds and pattas related to P.w.6 and others. Hence the prosecution established that the official favour was pending with the accused officer. P.w.5 spoke about issuance of sanction order to prosecute the accused officer. Hence the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused officer for the offences punishable U/S.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In this connection he relied upon the following judgments:
1. Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1995 Crl.L.J.-SC 2.State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Zakaullah AIR 1998 SC 1474
3. Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1974 (4) SCC 560 4.Billa Nagul Sharief Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2011 SCC (Crl) (1) 214 5.A.Abdul Kaffair Vs. State of Kerala 2004 SCC(9) 333 6.Shankerbhai Laljibhai Rot Vs. State of Gujarat 2006 SCC (Crl) 346 7.State of Maharashtra Vs.Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple AIR 1984 SC 63
After reading the above judgments, it is made clear that the facts and circumstances in the above judgments and facts and circumstances in the 11 case on hand are not similar and the above judgments are not applicable to this case.
17.The counsel for accused officer filed written arguments and stated that according to the evidence of P.w.1, his wife, mother and sister-in- law applied for issuance of pattadar passbooks to their ancestral land in the year 2012 which was given to the grand-father of P.w.1. Exs.P2 to P4- application and 6A forms given by P.w.6, Laxmi Bai and B.Savithri Bai do not contain the year 2012. They do not disclose they were given for issuance of pattadar passbooks. But they disclose they were given for fresh assignment.
But P.w.7-Tahsildar signed on them on 29-11-2013. So they are not related to this case. P.w.6 is not legal heir to apply passbook for the land of her father- in-law. P.w.1 did not mention identity particulars of the ancestral land. There was no partition among the legal heirs of the father of P.w.1. Exs.P2 to P4 were filled up by P.w.4 who is senior paternal uncle of P.w.1 in the Tahsildar
Office. P.w.4 obtained the signatures of P.w.6 and others in Exs.P2 to P4.
Survey numbers and other particulars of land are not mentioned in Exs.P2 to
P4. Therefore the question of pending official favour is not established by the prosecution.
18.According to the evidence of P.w.7-Tahsildar, Tahsildar has to receive applications from beneficiaries and should note the particulars in the
Darakasthu Register. After following digital register system Tahsildar should issue pattadar passbook and title deed. She has not received any acknowledgment from accused officer that she handed over the pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the accused officer for delivering them to the applicants. P.w.8-Revenue Divisional Officer stated that P.w.7 was the 12 custodian of pattadar passbook and title deed. So it is made clear that accused officer has no official role for possessing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Therefore the prosecution failed to establish that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were entrusted to the accused officer to deliver them to the applicants.
19.The counsel for accused officer further mentioned in the written arguments that P.w.1 is an illiterate and got drafted Ex.P1 through P.w.4 who is his senior paternal uncle. P.w.4 was Surpanch when accused officer was working in their village. Since accused officer did not oblige to do the illegal demands of P.w.4 for issuing death certificates, occupation certificates for applying old age pension, government houses and voter list. P.Ws.1 and 4 developed grudge against the accused officer and foisted this case with the help of Anti-Corruption Bureau officials. Hence Ex.P1-complaint cannot be taken into consideration.
20.The counsel for accused officer further mentioned in the written arguments that according to the evidence of P.w.10-investigating officer, he received Ex.P1-complaint from P.w.1 at 11-00 a.m., on 12-02-2014 and registered Ex.P22-first information report at 9-00 a.m., on 13-02-2014.
P.w.10 sent requisition to District Forest Officer, Social Forestry to depute mediators on 12-02-2014. It shows that P.w.10 used his power U/S/160 of
Cr.P.C., to summon mediators before registering FIR. According to P.w.10, he took 30 to 40 minutes to prepare Ex.P22-FIR from 9-00 a.m., to 9-40 a.m., on 13-02-2014. But P.w.2-mediator started to draft Ex.P6-pre-trap proceedings at 9-15 a.m., and concluded at 9-30 a.m. So it itself shows that P.w.10 violated the Law in preparation of Ex.P6-pre-trap proceedings. No importance can be given to the contents of Ex.P6-pre-trap proceedings.
21.There is inconsistence in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 10 and 11 with regard to taking vantage positions at Gani Village and also Kalva Village.
13
Therefore the prosecution failed to establish that the trap party visited the
Gani Village and Kalva Village straight away from the Kurnool.
22.P.Ws.1,4 and 6 are interested witnesses. There is no independent witness to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1,4 and 6 with regard to accused officer demanded and accepted bribe amount from P.w.1.
Serial numbers of the currency notes seized from the house of accused officer are not mentioned in the post-trap proceedings. So the seizure of
M.O.3 is not legally established.
23.Accused officer was not custodian of the Revenue Office at Gani
Village. As per the evidence of P.w.9, keys of the office will be in the custody of Talari. So Exs.P2 to P4- and Ex.P9 to P17 were not proved to be in the custody of accused officer. Hence it cannot be said they were recovered from possession of the accused officer.
24.As per the evidence of P.w.5, District Collector is the appointing authority for the accused officer. Ex.P20-sanction proceedings is not issued by the appointing authority of the accused officer. So prosecuting the accused officer is illegal. Hence the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this connection he relied upon the following judgments:
1.State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma 2013 SAR (Criminal) 945 SC
2. K.Subba Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008 AIR (SC) 106 3.Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P.& Others 2012(1) G.L.H.607 SC 4.M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India 206 CJ(SC) 508
After reading the above judgments, it is made clear that the facts and circumstances in the above judgments and facts and circumstances in the case on hand are not similar and the above judgments are not applicable to this case.
14
25.It is settled law that mere recovery of bribe amount from accused officer is not sufficient to convict the accused officer, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe and accused officer voluntarily had taken the bribe amount. Mere receipt of amount by accused officer will not bring home the offence, when there is no proof that accused officer demanded or accepted the bribe amount. The burden of presumption U/S.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act rests on the accused officer to establish either direct or circumstantial with reasonable probability that he accepted the money other than motive or reward as referred U/S.7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act for doing or forbearing to do any official Act. The Court is required to consider the defence of accused only on the preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Before accused officer establishes his defence how the money was found in his possession, prosecution must prove that accused officer accepts or obtains any illegal gratification to do any favour. The presumption U/S.20 of Prevention of
Corruption Act cannot be drawn to the offence U/S.13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act.
26.In order to prove the offence punishable U/S.7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:
1. Accused was public servant or expected to be public servant at the time when offence was committed.
2. Accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempt to obtain illegal gratification from some person for himself or any other person.
3. Such gratification was not remuneration to which the accused was legally entitled.
4. The accused accepted such gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do official act.
To prove the offence U/Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act the prosecution has to establish that 15
1. Accused should hold office as public servant.
2. Accused should obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for any person.
3. Such obtaining of valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
Firstly this Court has to see whether accused officer was public servant at the time of committing offence?
27.According to the evidence of P.w.3-the then Deputy Tahsildar,
Gadivemula, P.w.7-the then Tahsildar, Gadivemula and P.w.9-Village Revenue
Assistant, Gani Village, accused officer worked as Village Revenue Officer at
Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal prior to the trap incident. As per Ex.P25- service particulars pro-forma, accused officer worked as Neerukattu Talari of
Kalva Village from 21-11-1991 and Village Revenue Officer from 09-05-2011.
He has been paid salary of Rs.8,940/- per month. According to the evidence of P.w.5-Section Officer, soon after the trap of accused officer P.w.10 sent radio message informing the trap of the accused officer. After receiving preliminary report along with copies of mediators report, the government recommended the department to place the accused officer under suspension. After receiving final report on 30-09-2014 they circulated the file to the concerned Minister and received advice from Vigilance
Commission, Hyderabad. Then the entire file was placed before 16
Principal Secretary-J.C.Sharma. He had gone through the file, applied mind
and accorded Ex.P20-sanction proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.18 Revenue
Department dated 02-02-2015 to prosecute the accused officer. It is made clear that accused officer being the Village Revenue Officer performed the public duty in the Tahsildar office, Gadivemula. Therefore the prosecution proved that accused officer was public servant as defined under Section 2© of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the date of committing the offence.
28.The counsel for the accused officer argued that the District
Collector is the appointing authority to the Village Revenue Officers, as per the evidence of P.w.5. The prosecution did not examine Principal Secretary-
J.C.Sharma who issued Ex.P20-sanction proceedings. Moreover, the Principal
Secretary has no authority to issue Ex.P20-sanction proceedings. The
District Collector is the competent authority to issue sanction proceedings.
Therefore Ex.P20-sanction proceedings is not valid to prosecute the accused officer.
29.P.w.5 is only the Section Officer in the Revenue Department.
There is no documentary evidence that P.w.5 worked under Principal
Secretary-J.C.Sharma. P.w.5 has no personal knowledge about Principal
Secretary-J.C.Sharma had gone through the entire file, applied mind and signed on the Ex.P20-sanction proceedings. P.w.5 categorically deposed evidence that District Collector is the appointing authority to the Village
Revenue Officers. So the District Collector is the competent authority to issue sanction proceedings to prosecute the accused officer. But the prosecution did not examine the Principal Secetary-J.C.Sharma to clear the doubt whether District Collector is the competent authority or the Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department is the competent authority to issue the 17 sanction proceedings to prosecute the Village Revenue Officers. Therefore
Ex.P20-sanction proceedings cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore the accused officer is entitled to discharge from this case on the ground of invalid sanction proceedings.
Secondly this Court has to see whether the official favour work of P.w.1 was pending before the accused officer as on the date of committing offence?
30.According to Ex.P1-complaint and evidence of P.w.1-defacto- complainant, the accused officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- from
P.w.1 to give pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas in the name of P.w.6 and others. So the official favour pending before the accused officer is only to give pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas to P.w.1 which are in his custody since 15 days. According to P.w.7-the then Tahsildar,
Gadivemula, the pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas related to the beneficiaries who did not attend Grama Sabha were given to concerned Village Revenue Officers for distribution. She handed over pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas pertaining to Gani Village to the accused officer in order to deliver them to the beneficiaries. She has not received acknowledgment from the accused officer with respect to she handed over pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas which were not delivered to the beneficiaries of Gani Village. She obtained the acknowledgments of the beneficiaries who received pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas in the assignment distribution register. She has not noted in the register with regard to the particulars of the beneficiaries who are absent on the date of distribution of pattadar passbooks, title deeds and
D-form pattas. According to P.w.8 the then Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nandyal, P.w.7-Tahsildar, Gadivemula was the custodian of pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas and she is responsible for proper 18 distribution of pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas to the beneficiaries. During his tenure period accused officer got best Village
Revenue Officer award in the District. In view of the evidence of P.w.8, the evidence of P.w.7 is false with regard to accused officer was in the custody of pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas. Moreover, the evidence of P.w.7 cannot be believed in the absence of acknowledgment of accused officer to show he received pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas relating to Gani village from P.w.7. Therefore the prosecution failed to establish that accused officer was in possession of pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas of P.w.6 and others as on the date of trap.
31.According to the evidence of P.w.10-investigating officer, accused officer opened small steel almarah in the Village Revenue Officer, Gani
Village and took out bundle of pattadar passbooks, D-form pattas and check memo pertaining to the farmers of Gani village. Accused officer took out
Exs.P9 to P17-D-form pattas, pattadar passbooks and title deeds and Exs.P2 to P4-applications to P.w.6 and others from the bundle and produced before him. According to the evidence of P.w.2-mediator, they proceeded along with accused officer to Gani Village. Then accused officer took out bundles of pattadar passbooks and D-form pattas, check memo pertaining to Gani village from small steel almarah and gave Exs.P2 to P4 and Exs.P9 to P17.
But P.w.2 did not speak the name of office in which accused officer produced the documents. The evidence of P.w.2 did not corroborate with the evidence of P.w.10 with regard to the name of offence in which accused officer produced the documents. According to P.w.9-Village Revenue Assistant, Gani
Village, as on the date of incident accused officer and other officials did not come to the office due to Samykyandhra Bundh. On the same day at 3-00 p.m., Anti-Corruption Bureau officials along with accused 19 officer came to the office. But he did not speak that the accused officer produced the documents by taking out from steel almarah. Further he stated that there are five Village Revenue Assistants in the Village Revenue Office,
Gani Village. All Village Revenue Assistants are having keys and open the door whenever Tahsildar and other staff members visited the office. When the keys of the office of Village Revenue Officer are with five Village Revenue
Assistants, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 10 that accused officer opened the steel almarah and took out the Exs.P2 to P4 and Exs.P9 to P17 is not possible. For the above said reasons the prosecution failed to prove the official favour pertaining to P.w.6 and others was pending with the accused officer as on the date of offence.
Thirdly this Court has to see whether the accused officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- from P.w.1 to do official favour pertaining to P.w.6 and others?
32.P.w.1-defacto-complainant is an illiterate person. P.w.4 is senior paternal uncle of P.w.1 and worked as Surpanch. P.w.6 is wife of P.w.1. P.w.1 is solitary witness to speak about demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused officer. P.w.4 scribed Ex.P1-complaint. So P.Ws.4 and 6 are hearsay witnesses with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount made by the accused officer. So the Court has to carefully scrutinize the evidence of P.w.1 before taking consideration of his evidence. In this connection it is necessary to refer the judgment reported in Vadvidelu Thevar
Vs. State of Madras 1957 AIR (SC) 614, wherein it was held thus: (Para 10) “Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into these categories, namely: (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable in the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach on suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty incoming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for 20 corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.”
33.In the present case P.w.4 studied B.A., and worked as Surpanch to Laxmaiah Kunta Thanda. During the tenure period of Surpanch, he helped his villagers belonged to sugali caste in constructing houses and granting pensions. During the said period accused officer worked as Village Revenue
Officer within the limits of Laxmaiah Kunta Thanda. As per Ex.D2-Mee-Seva
ROR and Adangal Register, the land an extent of 13 acres is in the name of wife of P.w.4-Bujjamma. But P.w.4 denied the suggestion put by the counsel
for accused officer that he pressurized the accused officer to give
possession certificates and insert the names of his persons in the voter list and also he got 13 acres of land in the name of his wife by threatening the
Revenue Authority. P.w.4 admitted that Anti-Corruption Bureau officials registered case against Devasahayam-MRI and Sunkanna-Talari as in
C.C.No.13/2013 on the file of this Court. In the said case he deposed evidence as P.w.2 and Laxma Naik was defacto-complainant. He denied the suggestion put by the counsel for accused officer that he foisted the case as
C.C.No.13/2013 against them through Laxma Naik and that used to threat the officials to do favour to him and if the officials did not oblige him, he used to get file Anti-Corruption Bureau cases against the revenue officials. P.Ws.1 and 6 are close relatives to P.w.4. For the above said reasons it can be said that P.Ws.1,4 and 6 are interested witnesses and possible to implicate the accused officer in this case. Except the evidence of P.w.1, there is no evidence of independent witness with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe amount made by the accused officer from P.w.1. In view of the grudge between P.w.4 and accused officer, there is possibility 21 that P.w.4 used P.w.1 as defacto-complainant and drafted Ex.P1-complaint against the accused officer and implicated the accused officer in this case.
Therefore the evidence of P.Ws.1,4 and 6 cannot be taken into consideration without corroboration of evidence of the independent witness.
34.According to Ex.P1-complaint, U/S.164 Cr.P.C., statement and
U/S.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.w.1, accused officer demanded P.w.1 to pay bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- to deliver pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D- form pattas which are under his custody since 15 days. For which P.w.1 stated that he is a poor person and could not pay such huge amount and returned to his house. Two days after when P.w.1 approached the accused officer he reiterated his earlier demand. Whereas P.w.1 deposed in the Court that in the last week of January, 2014 accused officer demanded bribe amount. Again 10 days after accused officer reiterated the earlier demand.
After considering the above said facts, it is made clear that P.w.1 did not mention place, date and time of demand of bribe amount made by the accused officer. Therefore the contents of Ex.P1-complaint and evidence of
P.w.1 do not inspire the confidence to show the accused officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- from P.w.1.
35.According to the evidence of P.w.8-the then Revenue Divisional
Officer, Nandyal, P.w.7- Tahsildar, Gadivemula was the custodian of pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas and she was responsible to deliver them to the beneficiaries. It is already discussed supra there is hesitation to believe P.w.10 seized Exs.P2 to P4 and P9 to P17 at the instance of accused officer in the presence of P.w.2 under cover of Ex.P18-post-trap proceedings-
II. When Exs.P2 to P4 and P9 to P17 were not in the custody of accused officer, the question of accused officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- from P.w.1 does not arise.
22
36.According to Ex.P1-complaint, unwillingly P.w.1 agreed to pay bribe amount of Rs.7,500/-, accused officer asked him to pay the bribe amount at his room in the Panchayat office at Gani Village within two or three days. According to U/S.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.w.1, accused officer asked him to pay the bribe amount at his office within two or three days.
According to U/S.164 Cr.P.C., statement of P.w.1, when P.w.1 approached the accused officer and expressed his inability to pay huge amount and asked him to give some concession. For which accused officer refused. Then he gave complaint to P.w.10. So accused officer did not demand P.w.1 to pay the bribe amount at his office or at his room in Panchayat office. According to the evidence of P.w.1 unwillingly he agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount and accused officer asked him to pay the amount 2 or 3 days. But
P.w.1 did not state the place where P.w.1 has to pay the bribe amount to the accused officer. For the above said reasons, it is made clear that there is inconsistence evidence with regard to the place where P.w.1 has to pay the bribe amount to the accused officer.
37.However P.Ws.1,2,10 and 11 after completion of pre-trap proceedings, proceeded to the office of accused officer and P.w.1 found the accused officer was not present in his office at Gani Village. P.w.1 came to know through P.w.9 that accused officer did not come to his office at Gani
Village and he was present at his house in Kalva Village. If really accused officer demanded P.w.1 to pay the bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- either at his office or at his room in Panchayat office, Gani Village, accused officer should wait for P.w.1 to accept the bribe amount. But accused officer was not present at his office. This circumstances shows that the allegations in the
Ex.P1-complaint and U/S.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.w.1 that accused 23 officer asked P.w.1 to pay the bribe amount either at his office or at his room in Panchayat Office are not believable. For the above said reasons the evidence of P.w.1 is unreliable and it is not sufficient to prove accused officer demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- from P.w.1. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove accused officer demanded bribe amount of
Rs.7,500/- from P.w.1.
Fourthly this Court has to see whether the accused officer voluntarily accepted or obtained the amount of Rs.7,500/- as it was illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration ?
38.According to the evidence of P.w.1, though the accused officer did not demand P.w.1 to pay the agreed bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- at his office on the date of trap, P.w.10-investigating officer instructed him that he should pay the bribe amount to the accused officer at his office, Gani Village.
So P.w.1 followed with P.w.2-mediator, P.Ws.10 and 11-investigating officers and other trap party to the Village Revenue Office, Gani Village and P.w.1 found the accused officer was not present in the office and he came to know through P.w.9-Village Revenue Assistant that the accused officer did not come to the office due to Samykyandhra Bundh and he was present at his house in Kalva Village. Thereafter P.w.1 informed the same to P.w.10 and they all went to the house of accused officer at Kalva Village. Whereas P.w.9 denied the portion of Ex.P21-statement U/S.161 Cr.P.C., that on 13-02- 2014 at 10-15 a.m., P.w.1 came to the office and asked about accused officer. For which he informed that accused officer was present in his house at Kalva Village. For the above said reasons, there is inconsistence in the evidence of P.Ws.1,2, 10 and 9 with regard to P.w.1 and trap party went to the office of accused officer on 13-02-2014 to lay trap against the accused officer. On the other hand it indicates that the trap party including
P.Ws.1,2,10 and 11 went to the office of accused officer without accused officer called P.w.1 to his office to pay the bribe amount.
24
39.According to the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,10 and 11, when the accused officer was not present at his office, they proceeded to the house of accused officer at Kalva Village and P.w.1 entered into the house of accused officer. As per the evidence of P.w.1, accused officer accepted the tainted amount in the varanda and went into his house. P.Ws.2,10 and 11 rushed into the house of accused officer on the pre-arranged signal given by P.w.1.
Then P.w.10 seized the tainted amount from the dressing table drawer at the instance of accused officer after conducting chemical test, as per evidence of
P.Ws.2,10 and 11. It is already discussed supra that there is no documentary proof to show Exs.P2-to P4-applications, Exs.P9 to P17-pattadar passbooks, title deeds and D-form pattas were not in possession of the accused officer to deliver them to P.w.1. On the other hand P.w.7-Tahsildar was custodian of
Exs.P2 to P4 and P9 to P17-documents as per the evidence of P.w.8-the then
Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. Moreover there is no evidence that the accused officer demanded bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- from P.w.1. The trap party went to the office of accused officer and to the house of accused officer without accused officer called P.w.1 to pay the bribe amount at his office or at his house. P.w.10 gave requisition to District Forest Officer, Kurnool to depute two officials to act as mediators after receipt of Ex.P1-complaint and
before registering Ex.P22-First Information Report. P.w.10 also got prepared
Ex.P6-pre-trap proceedings and entrusted the tainted amount to P.w.1 before registering First Information Report. Admittedly there is enmity between accused officer and P.w.4, who is close relative of P.w.1. In view of the above said circumstances, it can be safely said that P.w.4 got laid trap against accused officer through P.Ws.1 and 10 to take revenge against the accused officer without accused officer voluntarily accepted the bribe amount of
Rs.7,500/- from P.w.1.
40.There is inconsistence in the evidence of P.Ws.2,10 and 11 with regard to taking vantage positions at the house of accused officer. As per
Ex.P7-rough sketch, one group took vantage position in front of the house of 25 accused officer and another group took vantage position at a distance of 40 feet from the house of accused officer. The incident took place between
P.w.1 and accused officer at the varanda. The trap party at V1 vantage position was close proximity to P.w.1 and accused officer. If really accused officer accepted the bribe amount from P.w.1 in the varanda, he should have kept the same in his person instead of put the same in the dressing table drawer in the house. There is possibility that the trap party can catch hold of the accused officer in the varanda immediately after he received the currency notes from P.w.1. It is noticeably unusual that the currency notes when allegedly handed over by the defacto-complainant to the accused officer in the varanda, the same instead of being keenly kept with him was placed consequently in the dressing table drawer in the house. According to the evidence of P.w.1, Accused Officer received the amount with left hand and went into house. So there is no possible to yield chemical test positive result to both hands of accused officer. Hence the plea of the accused officer that P.w.1 forcibly placed the currency notes in the dressing table drawer without demand and acceptance made by the accused officer due to ill- feelings can be taken into consideration. Hence the prosecution failed to prove accused officer voluntarily accepted the amount knowing it to be bribe amount from P.w.1.
Lastly this court has to see whether the accused officer was in possession of the tainted amount of Rs.7,500/- and the same was recovered from the dressing table drawer at the instance of accused officer on the date of trap?
41.The evidence of P.Ws.2,10 and 11 and contents of Exs.P18-post- trap proceedings and material objects show that P.w.10 recovered the 26 currency notes from the dressing table drawer at the instance of accused officer. But the currency notes were not seized from physical possession of the accused officer. Moreover, the seized currency notes numbers are not mentioned in Ex.P18-post-trap proceedings. There is possibility to believe the plea taken by the accused officer that when accused officer entered into the house, P.w.1 placed the tainted amount in the dressing table drawer and that accused officer questioned P.w.1 why he put the amount in the dressing table drawer. P.w.1 left his house hurriedly due to ill-feelings between
P.Ws.1,4 and accused officer and that the accused officer did not voluntarily demand and accept the amount knowing it to be bribe amount. When the prosecution failed to prove accused officer demanded and accepted the bribe amount from P.w.1, the presumption U/S.20 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act cannot be drawn because accused officer explained how he came into possession of the amount. Hence the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused officer for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
42.In the result, the accused officer is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and is acquitted U/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused officer shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C., and sureties shall be discharged. M.O.3-currency notes of Rs.7,500/- shall be confiscated to the
State and to destroy other material objects i.e., M.Os.1,2 and 4 to 8 after appeal time is over.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 25 th day of January, 2018.
Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases *Next Date: in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool.
27
Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution:For Defence: P.w.1-E.Seenu NaikD.w.1-S.Venkata Ramana P.w.2-B.Ramaiah ChowdariD.w.2-Y.Sivappa P.w.3-M.JayaprasadD.w.3-G.Prathap Reddy P.w.4-Illavath KalunaikD.w.4-Y.Bhaskar Reddy P.w.5-K.Satyanarayana RaoD.w.5-M.Ramasubbaiah P.w.6-B.Laxmidevi BaiD.w.6-V.Vijayakumari P.w.7-Ch.Indani P.w.8-G.Narasimhulu P.w.9-T.Venkataramana P.w.10-M.Mahaboob Basha P.w.11-G.Seetha Rama Rao
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: 6-A form in the name of L.w.5-B.Laxmi Devi Bai along with photographs, Xerox copy of Adhar Card and Ration Card Ex.P3: 6-A form in the name of L.w.7-B.Laxmi Bai along with photographs, Xerox copy of Adhar Card and Ration Card Ex.P4: 6-A form in the name of L.w.5-B.Savitri Bai along with photographs, Xerox copy of Adhar Card and Ration Card Ex.P5: Copy of complaint Ex.P6: Pre-trap proceedings Ex.P7: rough sketch Ex.P8: Post-trap proceedings-I. Ex.P9: Original pattadar pass book of Laxmi Devi Bai. Ex.P10:Original title deed of Laxmi Devi Bai. Ex.P11: Pattadar pass book of B.Saraswathi Bai. Ex.P12: Title deed of Saraswathi Bai. Ex.P13: Pattadar pass book of B.Laxmi Bai. Ex.P14: Original title deed of B.Laxmi Bai. Ex.P15: Attested Xerox copy of D-Form Patta in the name of Laxmidevi Bai. Ex.P16: Attested Xerox copy of D-Form Patta in the name of Saraswathi Bai. Ex.P17: Attested Xerox copy of D-Form Patta in the name of Laxmi Bai. Ex.P18: Post-trap proceedings-II. Ex.P19: Authorization. Ex.P20: Sanction proceedings. Ex.P21: U/S.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.w.9. Ex.P22: First Information Report in Cr. No.1/RCT-KURNOOL-2014. Ex.P23: Letter dated 22-2-2014, xerox copies of pattadar pass books and title deeds of wife, mother and sister-in-law of P.w.1. Ex.P24:Job chart and service particulars of accused officer containing 1 to 5 sheets. Ex.P25:Attested copies of 1B register, adangal and assignment committee resolution copy from Tahsildar, Gadivemula Mandal. Ex.P26:Memo dated 25-2-2015 from Director, General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad.
For Defence:
Ex.D1:Photograph of accused officer. Ex.D2: Mee-seva ROR and adangal. Ex.D3:Attested copy of letter dated 29-11-2013.
28
Ex.D4:Attested copy of online adangal land holding details of Sy.Nos.971/6 and 1106/6 in the name of Laxmidevi Bai and two others. Ex.D5: rough sketch of the house of acused officer. Ex.D6: Reply letter dated 27-06-2016 with regard to scrutiny of survey number. Ex.D7: Reply letter 27-06-2016 with regard to last survey number by the year 2012. Ex.D8: Attested copy of field measurement sketch for the Sy.No.971. Ex.D9: Attested copy of field measurement sketch for the Sy.No.1106.
Material Objects Marked
M.Os.1 &2: Resultant solutions of right and left hand fingers of accused Officer. M.O 3:Tainted amount of Rs.7,500/-. M.O.4:Resultant solution of dressing table draw. M.O.5:Cotton swab. M.Os.6 &7: Sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powders. M.O.8:Sample of sodium carbonate powder used during post-trap proceedings.
Sd/-K.Sudhakar
Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool.
29
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES
IN RAYALASEEMA REGION AT KURNOOL.
C.C.NO.5/2015
1. Date of OffencePrior to 12-2-2014
2.Date of Report or Complaint12-2-2014
3.Date of Appearance of the 10-04-2015 accused
4.Date of Release on bail07-03-2014
5.Date of Commencement of 22-7-2016 trial
6.Date of close of the trial20-09-2017 But as per orders in
Crl.M.P.No.965/2017
dated27-12-2017
P.Ws.1,2 and 10 were recalled and examined on 12-01-2018.
7.Date of Sentence of Order 25-01-2018
8.Explanation of delay and - remarks
JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO. 5/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES IN RAYALASEEMA
REGION AT KURNOOL.
ComplainantThe State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range, Kurnool. AccusedSri Racha Eswar Reddy, S/o.Late R.Narasimhulu, Aged 42 years, Village Revenue Officer, Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District. OffencePublic servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act punishable U/Sec. 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for offence punishable U/Sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act. FindingAccused Officer is found not guilty.
Sentence Accused officer is present. or Order Judgment is pronounced in the Open Court(V.S.J.).
30
In the result, the accused officer is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and is acquitted U/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused officer shall be in force in terms of Sec.
437-A of Cr.P.C., and sureties shall be discharged. M.O.3-
Currency notes of Rs.7,500/- shall be confiscated to the State and to destroy other material objects i.e., M.Os.1,2 and 4 to 8 after appeal time is over.
Sd/-K.Sudhakar
Spl.Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool.
Copy submitted to: The Registrar(Judl.), High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, II Floor, Bus Bhavan, Vijayawada.
Copy to : The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool.
Sri.H.Venkatesh, Special Public Prosecutor, A.C.B.Court, Kurnool.