APHC010126472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1937/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK KHAJIBABU ALIAS HAJI BABU, S/O. BASHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION. SI OF POLICE, RESIDENT OF 10-95, OLD POLICE QUARTERS, ADDANKI ROAD, DARSI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. ANAMANMURI KHASIM VALI,, S/O. SIDDA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC.POLICE CONSTABLE, RESIDENT OF H.NO, 9-95, MUSLIM BAZAR, NEAR JANDATREE, DARSI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati., Through the Flying Squad Team No.1 (2024 General Elections), Darsi, Prakasam District, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. NAGENDRA BABU PARAGATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.1937 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C.,‟)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 7 in C.C.No.916 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 171-E and 171-H of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, „the IPC.,‟) Section 155(2) of „the Cr.P.C‟. 2. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. On perusal of the record, the allegation against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 7 are that they, along with the other accused, indulged in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 171-E and 171-H of „the IPC.‟ It is alleged that the petitioners and others attempted to bribe the voters during the assembly elections. This Court in Pathapati Yougendar Naga Varma v. State of A.P 1 relying on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. State of Telangana 2 set aside the C.C.No.558 of 2023 which was taken on file for the alleged offences under Section 171-E read with 34 of „the IPC‟ on the ground that there was no substantial material to establish that the accused therein tried to bribe the voters. 1 Crl.P.No.10143 of 2025 dated 06.02.2026 2MANU/TL/0002/2023 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.1937 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 4. In the present case, the petitioners are working as Sub-Inspector and Police Constable. The other Accused Nos.1 & 2, are specifically alleged to have tried to pay or bribe voters illegally. However, no such allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. The only allegation against the petitioners falls under Section 171-E of „the IPC‟. In view of the absence of any material to establish bribery, the impugned order of cognizance is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. From the material placed on record, it is evident that except for the confessional statements of other accused, there is no substantive allegation or proof to demonstrate that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 7 were involved in giving, offering, attempting to offer, or accepting any gratification to induce voters in the exercise of their electoral rights. The prosecution has not examined any voter or independent witness whose statement indicates that the seized amount was intended for distribution as bribe. 6. The core ingredients of Sections 171-B and 171-E of „the I.P.C.,‟ require clear proof of (i) giving or accepting gratification, (ii) an offer or attempt to offer such gratification, or (iii) any conduct showing inducement of voters. Mere possession of cash, unaccompanied by any act or attempt constituting bribery, does not satisfy these statutory requirements. In the present case, no material has been produced to show that the Petitioners engaged in any such act that falls within the definition of “bribery” under Section 171-B of „the I.P.C.‟ 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.1937 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 7. It is to be noted that the Investigating Officer has not recorded any statement from any voter or witness to establish that the money was intended to be used to influence electoral rights. The entire assumption that the seized amount was meant for bribery is based solely on suspicion, without any corroborating evidence. Such presumptive inferences cannot sustain a charge under Section 171-E of „the I.P.C.‟ 8. Furthermore, the charge sheet does not attribute any overt act to the Petitioners. The allegations specifically relate to Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are alleged to have attempted to distribute money to voters. No such allegation has been levelled against the present Petitioners, who were only shown as being present at the scene. As such, the invocation of Section 171-E of „the I.P.C.‟ is wholly untenable in the absence of any material showing common intention or participation in the alleged act. 9. The Courts have consistently held that mere possession or transportation of cash does not constitute an offence under Sections 171-B or 171-E of „the I.P.C.‟ unless there is evidence of inducement, attempted inducement, distribution, or acceptance of gratification by or to voters. In the present case also, the prosecution has failed to produce even a scintilla of material to connect the Petitioners with any act constituting bribery. 10. In view of the above, and in light of the consistent judicial view that assumptions or presumptions unsupported by material evidence cannot form the basis for prosecuting a person for the offence of bribery, this Court finds 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.1937 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 that the foundational ingredients of Sections 171-B and 171-E of „the I.P.C.,‟ are conspicuously absent in the case of the Petitioners. 11. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 171-E of „the I.P.C.,‟ against the Petitioners are unsustainable. Continuation of the proceedings would result in manifest injustice and amount to an abuse of the process of law. 12. This Court, in Crl.P. No.1411 of 2026, dated 20.02.2026, quashed the proceedings pending against Petitioner/Accused No.6 in the same calendar case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.916 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District, against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 7 are hereby quashed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.03.2026 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.1937 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 178 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1937 of 2026 Date: 31.03.2026 KMS