IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1176 OF 2007 Appeal under Section 372(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment of the Special. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore in CC.No. 32 of 2002, dt. 25-08-2007. Between: 1. Mopuru Armugam,, S/o Chinnaiah, aged 62 years. Retd. Employee, D.No. 8-121, Karnakamma Street, Back of SBI.,Venkatagiri,Nellore District. 2. Mopuru Soujanya W/o Late Mopuru Armugam, aged 65 years, OcciHousewife, R/o H.No.14-430, Hanuman Nagar, Venkatagiri Town,Nellore District A.P ...ACCUSED/APELLANT AND ...RESPODENTS The State if Inspector of Police of ACB, Rep by SC for ACB. (Since Appellant No.1 is died,Appellant LR,s is brought on record as Appellant No.2 as per the Court Order dated 10.03.2025 In I.A.NO.1.2022 In CRLA.No.1176 of 2007) Counsel for the Appellant(s) : SRI. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB The Court made the following ORDER : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.08.2007 passed in C.C.No.32 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The sole accused officer is the appellant herein. He 2. was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13 (l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). By his judgment dated 25.08.2007, the learned Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted him of the said offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (01) month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 SRK, j Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 one (1) month, for the offence under with 13 (1) (d) of the Act. imprisonment were directed to Section 13 (2) read Both the sentences of run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the accused officer worked Venkatagiri, 04.06.2002, as such he i as Additional Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL Nellore District, from 11.06.2000 to a public servant within the IS meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The de facto complainant (PW.l) was doing contract work of Electricity Department. He was entrusted with contract work by the Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Gudur under K2 Agreement Nos. 17, 45, 47/1998-1999 and PW-1 completed half of the work under the said agreements. He completed the entire work of re-wiring of Distribution Transformers under the K2 agreement No. 50/1998-1999 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and approached the Appellant several times and requested him to also to submit work order prepare the bill for Rs. 20,000/- and proposals to the Divisional Engineer for the work completed by agreement. The Appellant him without postponing the same was on 3 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 some pretext or the other, though about 7 months back PW-1 completed the work and the Appellant, being a public servant, demanded him to pay Rs. 5,000/- as illegal gratification and for preparation of the bill. PW-1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe as he had no money. Then, the Appellant demanded PW-1 to pay illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- initially within 2 or 3 days, so that he would complete the work and further demanded to pay remaining amount of Rs. 3,000/- afterwards. PW-1 accepted to pay Rs. 2,000/- initially as demanded by the Appellant as he had no other option, and approached the ACB and gave a report on 28.05.2002. Basing on report, a case in Crime No. 8/ACB-NLR/2002 was registered. After completion of pre trap proceedings, trap was laid on 06.06.2002. On that day, at about 8.20 AM, PW.l approached the accused officer and on seeing him, the accused officer reiterated his earlier demand and accepted the tainted amount from PW.l. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nellore, who received the pre-arranged signal, rushed to the Office of the Accused Officer along with his staff. He got prepared 4 SRK, j Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 Sodium Carbonate Solution in subjected the both hand fingers the chemical test and the Accused Officer took out pant’s rightside pocket and produced the currency was seized from the instance. After completion of i prosecution sanction charge sheet was filed against the aforesaid offences. two glass tumblers and of the Accused Officer test yielded positive result. The to a wad of currency notes from his same. The tainted accused officer at his investigation and on receipt proceedings dated 20.09.2002, accused officer for the of 4. On appearance of accused officer, were furnished to him Section 207 Cr.P.C, and, thereafter, 7 and 13(l)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act against the accused officer and the copies of documents as required under charges under Sections were framed contents are read and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. over not 5. In support of its PWs.l to 9 and got marked Exs.Pl case, the prosecution examined to P26 and MOs 1 to 8. 5 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. 6. On behalf of defence, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.Dl and 2 were got marked. 7. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Against the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 8. Heard. Perused the record. 9. Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused officer, strenuously contended that the material prosecution witness i.e. P.W. 1, did not support the case of prosecution and he completely resiled from his earlier version while deposing before the ■ 1 6 SRK, j Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 Court and he did not depose about either the demand acceptance of bribe by the accused officer, or as alleged by the prosecution. He submits that in order to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Act, it is essential that there should be demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused officer, but except the alleged recovery of possession of the accused officer, amount from the there is absolutely no accusation as against the accused officer that he is said to have made any demand for the bribe amount and accepted the said bribe amount from PW. 1 the demand. He further submitted that pursuant to according to P.W.l, prior demand of bribe or demand at the time of there is no acceptance of the amount, by the accused officer paid the money on the date of trap hand loan taken by him from the and he as repayment of the accused officer, submits that nothing has been elicited in his examination by the Public Prosecutor He cross- to connect the accused officer with the offences alleged, and there is legal evidence to prove either demand no or acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused officer. He submits that the 7 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 prosecution failed to establish the official favour pending with the accused officer as on the date of the trap, issuance of work order for the alleged execution of the work as by PW. 1, is not established. It is his further submission that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused officer, which are necessary ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Act, 1988. He submits that the theory of recoveiy of tainted currency notes is not acceptable in view of the clinching evidence of He submits that there is no accompanying witness along with PW. 1, and in the absence of any accompanying witness along with PW. 1, mere recovery of amount by D.S.P would not improve the case of the prosecution, and the Special Judge has not considered these aspects in right perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing the accused officer. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences passed by the learned Special Judge. P.W.l. 8 SRK, j Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 He relied on the decisions State of Rajasthani and Mansukhal reported in Kanhaiyalal Vithaldas Chauhan v. state ofGujarat, J-p, in support of his contention. V. 10. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for ACB- cum-Special Public Prosecutor, vehemently contended that merely because there is of the prosecution no proof of demand, the entire cannot be brushed aside. case It is evident that the amount has been recovered from the possession of the accused officer and the Sodium Carbonate solution test conducted the fingers of the accused positive. He further submitted that PW. the accused officer and for the said support the prosecution on officer proved 1 was won over by reason PW.l did not case. He further submitted that at the bribe amount to him by PW.l and by virtue of the the instance of the accused officer, handed was over same he and the when rinsed in sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour, and hence, seizure of tainted came into contact with phenolphthalein powder fingers of the accused officer currency notes from the possession of the ^ 1998 Crl.L.J.3155 (Rajasthan High Court) 1997(7) SC 695: (1997 Cri.L.J.4069) 9 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 accused officer is established. He submits that the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused officer for the offences alleged against him, and the learned Special Judge considered these aspects in right perspective, accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused officer of the offences with which he was charged, and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 11. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home its case against the appellant/accused officer for the offences alleged beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the judgment of the trial Court needs interference of this Court ? The substance of the charge against the accused officer is that he, being a public servant employed as Additional Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Venkatagiri, on 28.05.2002 at his office in Venkatagiri, attempted to 12. obtain (demanded) an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the de facto complainant, as gratification other than legal 10 SRK, j Crt.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing an official exercise of his official functions pay Rs. 2,000/- initially within to pay bribe favour, in the and demanded to 2 or 3 days therefrom and amount of Rs. 3,000/- afterw-ards and thereby committed under Section 7 of the transaction, the accused officer 5.30 P.M. at his office i an offence punishable Act. In the course of same on 01.06.2002 at about Venkatagiri, being a public corrupt or illegal means in servant, by abusing his position by obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.2,000/- from PW. 1 as part of gratification and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. 13. In order to attract an offence under Section 7 of the Act, 1988, the necessary ingredients to be established are that the accused officer is a public servant and that he obtained gratification other accepted or than legal remuneration and the gratification was to do an official favour. Under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, 1988, if public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise a 11 SRK, J CrLAppealNo.1176of 2007 abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, he is guilty of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act, 1988. The accused officer was working as an Additional 14. Assisdtant Engineer, APSPDCL, Venkatagiri at the relevant point of time of the incident. There is no dispute that he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act, 1988. 15. Coming to evidence, P.W. 1, who set the criminal law into motion, deposed in his evidence that he does contract works in Electricity Department; that in the year 2001- 2002, he did work in Dakkili mandal; that in the year 2001, he did rewiring work in Venkatagiri town; that he does not know about the agreements, as the officers used to obtain his signatures in documents; that at the instance of P.W.3- who was working as Additional Assistant Engineer, Venkatagiri, he did works in the year 2000, but he did not receive the amount of those bills; that he did not enter into 12 SRK, J Crl. Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 agreement with regard to that work; that he asked P.W.3 about the agreement as it is necessary for preparing the bills, but in the mean while, P.W.3 retired from service and that he asked P.W.5, but he P.W.5 succeeded P.W.3; protracted the matter, knows the accused officer, Dakkili, who entrusted completed the same and the bill It is his further evidence that he who was working as A.E. at 3 or 4 works to him and he amounts for the said works were paid; that the accused officer entrusted a work at Narasappanaidu palli of Dakkili doing the said work, mandal, and while he was P.W.5 was transferred and the accused officer succeeded his office, doing the said work, he and when he was was in need of money and the accused officer paid Rs.2,000/- to him. evidence that he asked the It is his further accused officer about the amount of the bills for the works done during the P.W.3, for which the accused officer period of stated that he does not know whether there is work order, etc. for those works and he would enquire with the A.D.E. and inform him, and after some days, he raised a dispute with the accused officer, at 13 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1176of 2007 which time, one Dandolu Ramana Reddy, a politician, was present; that the said Ramana Reddy enquired him about the dispute and told him that the accused officer did injustice to him also, and further told that if he acts as per his instructions, he would see that the bills are paid at the earliest point of time. P.W. 1 further deposed that he was taken to ACB Office, Nellore by the said Ramana Reddy, and after producing some papers, on 28* of a month, P.W.9-lnspector of Police, ACB dictated a report and it was written by a Constable, and by seeing that report, he copied down at the instance of P.W.9. Ex.Pl is the report. P.W.l further deposed that when he came out of the office, he found the said Ramana Reddy, who told him to give the report stating that the accused officer was demanding Rs.2,000/- as bribe. He further deposed that he gave the report to the D.S.P., who asked to come on of the coming month along with Rs.2,000/-, and the said amount was arranged by the said Ramana Reddy. It is the further evidence of P.W. 1 that on the date of the trap, at about 4.30 PM, after talking some other things. 14 Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 he gave Rs.2,000/- to the the amount due by him taken by him previously accused officer received the He deposed that at the time of of Police, he gave statement as said Ramana Reddy. accused officer stating that it was to the accused officer which a hand loan, and on that, the same and kept in pant pocket, examination by the Inspector per the instructions of the was as 16. With the permission of the Court, hostile and he Public Prosecutor. P.W.l was declared was cross-examined by the learned Special Even though P. W. 1 was cross- except putting suggestions, P.W.l, nothing incriminating against the accused officer has been elicited in the cross- examined by the prosecution, which have been denied by examination of P.W.l to alleged. Ramana Reddy told him that he amount was paid, he acted connect him to the offences He stated in cross-examination that as the said would see that his bill as per his instructions, deposed in cross-examination that the accused officer honest and si He was sincere employee and never demanded or accepted bribe from him at any time, and the contents iin 15 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 Ex.Pl and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are not correct and they are false. 17. P.W.2, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, SRBC, acted as a mediator for pre-trap and post trap proceedings under Exs.PS and PIO respectively, deposed about the same. He 18. P.W.3 is a retired Additional Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Venkatagiri. He deposed that during his tenure, P.W. 1 did not execute any agreement with the Department and he did not do any work under his supervision, further deposed that on 05.07.2002, he was called to the office of A.D.E., Venkatagiri, and as he underwent heart operation at that time, he was taken to the said office in a He police jeep, and at that time, he stated that on the instructions of D.E., he sent some estimates for the works to be done during Poleramma Jathara in February, 1999, but he did not receive any sanction orders from the D.E. to execute those works till his retirement and so he had not executed any works through P.W. 1. P.W.3 was declared 16 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 hostile by the prosecution with the permission of the Court. During cross-examination, he denied the by the prosecution that s'Liggestion given on the oral instructions of the D.E., he got done the works of rewinding works of transformers situated at (i) M.R. Rice Mill; (ii) Vinayaka temple; mill; (iv) Venkateswarara Palace and (v) Perumallasw temple, through P.W.l which denied a suggestion that P.W.l did Rs.16,000/-. (iiijSaw amy were worth Rs.16,000/-. those works worth He 19. P.W.4 was working as Sub Engineer in the office of the A.D.E., APSPDCL, Venkatagiri at the relevant point of time of the incident. His evidence is to the effect that the instructions of the DSP, he produced on Exs.P7 to P9- estimation copies of rewiring of transformer at Venkatagiri, on the date of the trap i.e. on 01.06.2002. It is also his evidence that on 5.7.2002, he was examined by the Inspector of ACB and he produced four work orders which are marked as Exs.PlS to P16. 17 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 20. P.W.5 is predecessor-in-office of the accused officer. His evidence is to the effect that in the month of September, 2002, ACB officials enquired him and he produced Exs.Pl? to P21-K2 agreements, which were entered by P.W. 1 with D.E., Gudur. It is his further evidence that Ex.P21 agreement No.37/01-02 relates to Dakkili Additional Assistant Engineer relating to Narasapanaidu palli village. and the accused officer was in charge of the post of the Additional Assistant Engineer, Dakkili and he sent the bill relating to Ex.PI to him, and he check-measured the same and sent to the D.E. The said bill is worth Rs. 13,425.31 ps, and after deducting income tax, it was Rs. 13,129.00 ps and he does not know whether the said amount was paid to P.W.l or not. 21. P.W.7, who worked as Chief General Manager, Operation, APSPDCL at the relevant point of time of the incident. His evidence is to the effect that he accorded sanction to prosecute the accused officer after perusing copies of final report, FIR and mediator reports 1 and 2. Ex.P22 is the sanction order issued by him. 18 Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 22. P.W.8 worked as D.S.P., ACB, Nellore at the relevant point of time of the incident. He deposed about recording statement of P.W.l, Ex.P25, registration of the subject crime under conducting pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. P.W.9 worked as Inspector of Police, ACB, the relevant point of time of the incident. He deposed about his assistance rendered to P. further investigation conducted by him i and filing of charge sheet after Kadapa during W.8 during trap proceedings, the subject crime completion of investigation in and receipt of relevant documents. 23. In the case on hand, to accused officer, the witness P.W.l. He did not as regards the demand and officer. prove the alleged demand by prosecution examined the material support the prosecution version acceptance by the accused A perusal of the evidence of P.W.l, it is clear that he resiled from his earlier He deposed that the Narasappanaidu palli of Dakkili version. He is the decoy witness, accused officer entrusted a work at mandal, and while he was doing the said work, accused officer succeeded his P.W.5 was transferred and the office, and when he was 19 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 doing the said work, he accused officer paid Rs.2,000/- to him. evidence that he asked the accused officer about the amount of the bills for the works done during the period of P.W.3, for which the accused officer stated that he does not know whether there is work order, etc. for those works and he would enquire with the A.D.E. and inform him. P.W.l further deposed that one Ramana Reddy told him to give the report stating that the accused officer was demanding Rs.2,000/- as bribe. It is the further evidence of P.W. 1 that on the date of the trap, at about 4.30 PM, after talking some other things, he gave Rs.2,000/ officer stating that it was the amount due by him to the accused officer which was taken by him previously hand loan, and on that, the accused officer received the same and kept in pant pocket, time of examination by the Inspector of Police, he statement as per the instructions of the said Ramana Reddy. In view of the said reasons, prosecution declared him hostile. P.W.l is the material prosecution witness who in need of money and the was It is his further to the accused as a He deposed that at the gave 20 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 set the criminal law into motion, to his earlier He gave a complete go-by version. Though he was declared hostile cross-examined by the prosecution with the and permission of the Court, nothing has been elicited i his cross- in examination to connect the accused officer offences alleged with regard to either demand of the alleged illegal gratification by him. evidence to show that ‘‘suggested by the prosecution. with the or acceptance There is no legal occurred as The evidence of other witnesses does not incriminate anything as against the the incident had accused officer as regards the alleged demand for doing acceptance of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused officer. official favour and 24. To attract the aforesaid offences, it is essential that there should be the Accused Officer. There i show that there is only other circumstance available is the recoveiy of the tainted a demand and acceptance of the bribe by IS no accompanying witness to a demand by the accused officer. The currency notes from the possession of the accused officer. It is settled that mere possession and recovery of 21 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. As seen from the evidence of the material prosecution witness P.W. 1, he took a hand loan of Rs.2,000/- from the accused officer and the said amount was repaid by him to the accused officer on the date of the P.W. 1 did not speak an37thing either about any trap. demand by the accused officer on the date of the trap or prior thereto, or about acceptance of the amount as bribe by the accused officer. There is no evidence to prove the demand or acceptance of the tainted currency, by the accused officer. Further, even if recovery of tainted money from the accused officer is accepted, mere recovery of money by itself may not be sufficient to show that the money was received as an illegal gratification by the accused officer from P.W. 1 for doing an official favour. The prosecution failed to prove the demand, and in the absence of evidence to show that the money was paid as illegal gratification, mere recovery of money, is not sufficient to 22 r , . 5RK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 convict the accused officer of the offences Sections 7 punishable under 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of the Act, 1988. or 25. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy Police and Anr.,3 the HonlDle possession and officer without proof of demand 7 as well as Section 13(l)(d)(i) & (ii) been propounded that in the absence of demand for illegal gratification, the use of means V. District Inspector of Apex Court held that. mere recovery of currency notes from an accused would not establish Section of the Act, 1988. It has any proof of corrupt or illegal a public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been or abuse of position any valuable thing as or held to be an indispensable essentiality and mandate for an offence under Sections 7 Dealing with the same, the Court observed of permeating and 13 of the Act. as under; The proof of demand of illegal gratiifcation, thus, is the 13(l)(d)(i)&(ii) absence thereof unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of allegedly by way of illegal gratiifcation gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and of the Act and in any amount or recovery thereo.f h2015) 10 see 152 23 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufifcient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." The said principle was reiterated by the HonTDle Apex Court in Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his Legal Representative v. State of Punjab‘S, as under:- ”23. The proof of demand of illegal gratiifcation, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereo,f unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. ” mere (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 136 24 ^ SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 26. In C.M. Sharma V. State of Andhra Pradesh etc.,5 the HonT^le Apex Court held as under: -In support of the submission reliance has been placed decision of this Court in the case ofPanalal Damodar State of Maharashtra attention has been drawn to the following judgment: on a Rathiv. and our paragraph of the (1987) Suppl. see 266 26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution shaken to a great extent. case IS The question as to the handing accused material any bribe, was made by the given a false story in that view the allegation of payment of the recovery of the same from the accused over of any bribe and should be recovery of the same from the considered along with other circumstances one of which is the question whether demand was at all made by the appellant for the When it is found that no such demand accused and the prosecution has ai regard, the court will bribe to and with suspicion. In Sura] Mai v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC Court took the view that (at SCC 725 this P- 727, para 2) recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufifcient to convict the when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere mere accused recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any 'laws (SC) 2010 11 84 25 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to he bribe. Another decision on which reliance is placed is the decision of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Dyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 in which it has been held as : V.. “16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratiifcation have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. ” 27. In State of F^njab v. Madan Mohan Lai Verma^, the Hon^ble Supreme Court held that, mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification’. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No.7 of the said judgment, which reads thus: ® 2013(3) MLJ (Crl) 565 26 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 7. The law on the issue iIS well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine gua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money accused when substantive IS not sufficient to convict the evidence in the case IS not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the taken voluntarily money was as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and the amount as illegal gratiifcation. Hence, on the accused to displace the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, acceptance of the burden rests raised by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the explanation offered by the court is required to consider the accused, if any, only on the and not on the doubt. However, touchstone of preponderance of probability touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his foundational facts must be established possession, the by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his must be tested in the same evidence way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person." 27 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 28. In B.Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.A.No.696 of 2014 dated 28.03.2014, the HonlDle Apex Court held at paragraphs 8 and 9 thus: “8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant. to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himsel.f Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(l)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2007 illegal gratiifcation, the abuse of position valuable thing orpecuniary advantag established. use of corrupt or illegal means a public servant or as to obtain any e cannot be held to be 9. Insofar as the under Section 20 of the Act i presumption permissible to be drawn IS concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(l)(d)(l) and (ii) of the Act In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratiifcation that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratiifcation was received for doing any ofifcial act. Proof of acceptance of can follow only if there i or forbearing to do illegal gratification demand, the IS proof of case the is lacking in the present primary facts on the basis of which the legal under Section 20 same presumption can be drawn are wholly absent. 29. From the judgments referred that the Honhle Apex Court has order to prove a charge under Sections 1988, the prosecution has to above, it is clear categorically held that, in 7 and 13 of the Act, to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Hon hie Apex Court held that till that i officer should be considered demand of illegal gratification, offence under Sections 7 and IS accomplished, the accused to be innocent. The proof of thus, is the gravamen of 13(l)(d)(i) and (ii) of 1998 Act 29 SRK, J Crl.AppealNo.1176 of 2007 and in the absence thereof, unmistakably the charge, therefore, would fail. The HonT)le Apex Court went on to hold that mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under aforesaid two sections. 30. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled proposition of law, it is unsafe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution for convicting the There is no legal evidence to find the accused officer guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and accused officer. 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act, 1988 leveled against him. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused officer for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused officer is entitled to acquittal. The trial Court did not consider these 1 30 ^ SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1176 of 2007 aspects in right perspective i judgment. passing the impugned in 32. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and appellant/accused officer i passed in C.C.No.32 of 2002 by the learned ACB Cases, Nellore. sentence recorded against the in the judgment dated 25.08.2007 Special Judge for SPE and The appellant/accused officer is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and of Corruption accordingly acquitted of the said offences. 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention Act, 1988 and is Fine amounts, if officer shall be refunded to him. any, paid by the appellant / accused Miscellaneous petitions pending, if Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. any, in the SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional Sessions Judge Cum Spl Judge for Special Cases,Nellore. (with records) 2. The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau District. & ACB Nellore Range, Nellore 3. One CC to SRI. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 6. Three CD Copies TAC »■ HIGH COURT DATED:28/04/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.1176 of 2007 2 6 JUN 2025 j [iwntSwlkaiXy ALLOWING THE APPEAL