TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case stems from a complaint laid by one S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (since deceased) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kurnool alleging that the Appellant who, at the relevant time was the Assistant Director, Commissionerate of Technical Education, Hyderabad had on 3.10.1996 demanded by way of illegal gratification Rs. 1000/- for effecting renewal of the recognition of his (complainant) typing institute, being run in the name and style of Rama Typewriting Institute in Laxminagar B. Camp, Kurnool since 1992. The complaint disclosed that on negotiation, the demand was scaled down to Rs. 500/- and the Appellant asked him (complainant) to meet him on 4.10.1996 in Room No. 68 of Meenakshi Lodge, Kurnool with the money demanded. Acting on the complaint, a case was registered and a trap was laid on 4.10.1996 and the tainted currency notes were recovered, in the process thereof, from the possession of the Appellant. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant, whereafter the charges Under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act were framed against him to which he pleaded "not guilty". At the trial, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(ii)) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as sustained by the High Court, if allowed to stand, would result in travesty of justice. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant to buttress his contentions, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55. 9. Learned Counsel for the State, as against this, has assiduously argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, taken as a whole, demonstrably proved the demand, receipt and recovery of the illegal gratification sought for and as such no interference with the Appellant's conviction is warranted. According to the learned Counsel, having regard to the office held by the Appellant at the relevant point of time, he was even otherwise not authorized to receive any deposit towards the renewal of recognition of the complainant's typing institute and that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did prove the complicity of the Appellant in the offence for which he has been charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. In reinforcement of her pleas, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the relevant excerpts of the evidence on record more particularly that of PW1-S. Udaya B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplainant to be paid to the Appellant on demand. PW1-S. Udaya Bhaskar was identified to accompany the complainant as an aspiring owner of a new proposed typewriting institute. The members of the trap team were briefed accordingly and instructions were given to the complainant to flag a signal in time for the interception of the Appellant after he had received the tainted notes. Accordingly, the complainant accompanied by PW1-S. Udaya Bhaskar went to the place agreed upon i.e. Room No. 68, Meenakshi Lodge, Kurnool on 4.10.1996 with the trap team waiting outside for the signal to intervene. According to the prosecution, the complainant and PW1-S. Udaya Bhaskar did meet the Appellant in Room No. 68, Meenakshi Lodge, Kurnool and on reaching the room, the complainant gave one renewal application along with the challan to the Appellant who enquired as to whether he (complainant) had brought the amount which he had directed him to bring on the previous day. On this, the complainant took out Rs. 500/- from the pocket of his shirt on which the phenolphthalein powder had been applied and handed over the same to the Appellant. The prosecution version is that the Appellant, accordingly, kept ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... too was asked to meet the Appellant in Room No. 68, Meenakshi Lodge, Kurnool at 8.30 P.M. 15. PW7-Iliyase Sait, who at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, in his evidence narrated in detail the steps taken to arrange for the trap to nab the Appellant, instructions to the members of the trap team, recovery of five currency notes amounting to Rs. 500/- smeared with phenolphthalein powder from the possession of the Appellant and submission of charge-sheet against him on completion of the investigation. 16. The evidence of other witnesses being not essentially related to the aspect of demand, receipt and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification with which the Appellant had been charged, does not call for a detailed reference. 17. It is expedient at this juncture to set out the relevant extracts of Sections 7 (as it stands today) and 13 of the Act under which the Appellant had been charged. 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act: Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cused without proof of demand would not establish an offence Under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence Under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence Under Section 7 and not to those Under Section 13(1)(d) (i) & (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption Under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 21. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of ....