No Capacity To Do Official Favor After Chargesheet Has Been Filed: Telangana HC Quashes Case Against Sub-Inspector For Allegedly Demanding Bribe

Telangana High Court has quashed an FIR against a sub-inspector accused of accepting a bribe to not implicate the father of the accused in a kidnapping case. Court held that once a charge sheet was filed, the police official becomes functus officio (one who holds no further official authority) and is not in a position to extend an official favor thus creating doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint. It held:

“The investigating officer becomes functus officio when charge sheet is filed after investigation, unless there would be further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C, which is not the case of the prosecution. The said circumstance creates any amount of doubt regarding the version given by P.W.1 at the time of lodging complaint being correct, since PW1 has knowledge about the charge sheet and the incapacity of the appellant to do any official favor."

The order was passed by Justice K. Surender in an appeal by the charged officer against the order of conviction for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 5000/-.

The Bench while passing the order noted that the de facto complainant had turned hostile at the time of cross-examination, and that coupled with the fact that the chargesheet had already been filed would make him a 'self-condemned witness'.

The prosecution contended that the de facto complainant had approached them in 2006, stating that upon his return from Dubai when the complainant went to meet the sub-inspector regarding a kidnapping case registered against his son, the officer demanded a bride to not implicate him in the kidnapping case and reduce the gravity of the case against his son.

It was submitted that the pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of two mediators and the complainant was called to the guest house of the sub-inspector to hand over the bribe. After handing over the amount to the inspector, the inspector was apprehended and the bribe amount was also recovered from him.

During the trial, the complainant who was also examined as the prosecution witness-1, turned hostile and stated that before the bribe was asked for, he had consulted his lawyer who informed him that since the charge sheet had already been filed, no modification could be possible.

Before the High Court, the prosecution stated that although the de facto complainant had turned hostile, the bribe amount being recovered from the charged officer invariably pointed towards his guilt.

The Court ignoring the fact that the complainant had turned hostile relied upon the documents filed to determine the guilt of the accused and held that mere recovery of amount cannot be made the base for conviction. It said:

“As discussed above, in the facts of the present case, it gives rise to any amount of doubt regarding the allegation of demand being correct. The subsequent recovery cannot be made basis to assume that demand was made by the accused officer. The prosecution failed to prove the demand allegedly made by the appellant.”

Accordingly it held that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification which was a sine qua non for establishing an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The conviction order was thus set aside.

CrlA 742 of 2023

Counsel for appellant: P.Yadaviri Reddy

Counsel for respondent: Sridhar Chikyala, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB

Click Here To Read/Download Order