Prevention Of Corruption Act| Prosecution Must Stand On Own Legs While Proving 'Pendency Of Official Favour': AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal order under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that the prosecution must stand on its legs while proving the pendency of official favour.

Justice A.V. Rabindra Babu held that the prosecution had failed to prove 'pendency of official favour' and the lower court had rightly acquitted the accused office.

"However, the prosecution shall prove the case at its own feet. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all convincing. The learned Special Judge rightly disbelieved the case of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge considered the evidence of P.W.4 to negative the case of the prosecution."

The bench has relied on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in N. Vijay Kumar v. the State of Tamil Nadu to hold that a high court shall interfere with the order of the lower court only when a conclusion recorded by the trial court is not possible and so long as the judgement is reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees or not, the order is not to be interfered with.

The appellant/State contended that in the year 2000, the accused office/AO worked as a senior assistant in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Jarugumalli; and, had stalled the issuance of patta-passbook in favour of the defacto complainant for almost 2 months and upon making repeated requests agreed to issue the same for a bribe of INR 1,200/-.

The defacto complaint approached the police, who conducted pre and post-trap proceedings and upon recovering the tainted amount from the pocket of the AO registered a case against him under section 7 &13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

When the case reached trial, the Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Nellor acquitted the AO of all charges. The lower court noted that passbooks had already been sent to the MRO for signatures even before the date of the trap proceeding and due to errors in the passbook, were sent back for rectification. The Court also noted that on the day of the trap proceedings, it was the Village Administration Officer who presented the passbooks for signature before the MRO and not the A.O. who was a handicapped person.

When the State appealed against the said order, it contended that the lower court had acquitted the A.O. on minor technicalities despite the deposition of the de facto complainant favouring the prosecution and recovery of a tainted amount being made from the pocket of the A.O.

The Bench noted that as rightly held by the trial court, the passbooks had been sent for signatures before the de facto complaint prefered a complaint and due to the errors had been sent back for rectification. A fact that was verified by the deposition of the MRO and the Superintendent. The MRO and Superintendent also confirmed that it was the A.O. who had passed recommendations for the issuance of the passbooks and certified to his good character.

The bench also noted that the VAO had accompanied the de facto complaint in the office of the MRO on many occasions and the de facto complainant had witnessed the VAO and AO get into an argument on at least one occasion.

The Bench also chose to believe the incident as narrated by the A.O. wherein he stated that the wad of money was forcefully pushed into his shirt pocket as the A.O. narrated the incident to the officers immediately after post-trap proceedings and had no time to make it up.

"In the light of the above, I do not find any tenable reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The learned Special Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record extended an order of acquittal. As it is an appeal against an order acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot interfere unless the judgment with unreasonable findings. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed."

CrlA: 622 of 2007

Counsel for State: S.M Subhani

Counsel for A.O.: Hari Prasad Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order