Prosecution Failed To Prove ‘Demand’: Telangana High Court Acquits MRO Officer In Corruption Case

The Bench of Justice K Surender directed, “The prosecution has failed to prove ‘demand’ and the alleged partial recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant cannot be made basis to draw any inference of the version of P.W.1 being correct. In the background of the present case, the version given by the appellant appears to be more probable.”

Advocate C Sharam Reddy appeared for the Appellant while Special Public Prosecutor Sridhar Chikyala appeared for the Respondent.

The Appellant filed an appeal against a judgment where he was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

The prosecution case is as follows: The complaint alleged that the complainant had purchased land under an agreement of sale. To fix the boundaries, he went to the land, but the neighbours objected. For the said reason, GPA was obtained from the vendor and having filed a civil suit, obtained injunction orders. An application was filed before the MRO for correcting the survey numbers in revenue records. The appellant was working as the Senior Assistant in the office of MRO. The Appellant demanded an amount and therefore, a trap was arranged by the Police.The trap party entered the office. A sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the hands of the appellant to know whether the appellant handled the smeared currency bribe amount. The right hand test turned positive while the left hand tested negative. On the day of the trap, the bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/- was allegedly handed over to the appellant when demanded by the appellant.

The Court said that the prosecution failed to explain the sale transaction and how the amount of Rs. 500/- was recovered from the other Accused. Further, the Court said that only because Rs 500/- was recovered from the co-accused it cannot be inferred that the Appellant must have passed on the amount and placed it in the table drawer, unless there is convincing evidence to prove it.

The Court relied on the landmark judgment in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P (2014 SC), which has held that proof of demand is the sine qua non to prove the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held that mere recovery of the bribe amount is not sufficient to prove the above offences. It was also held that proof of acceptance of a bribe can only follow if there is proof of demand. Moreover, it was held that the presumption under section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if there is proof of acceptance of the demand for a bribe.

The Court also followed P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P (2015 SC), Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra (2002 SC) andBansilal Yadav v. State of Bihar (1981 SC).

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment passed by the trial court and acquitted the Appellant.

Cause Title: Kotla Narsimlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate C Sharam Reddy

Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Sridhar Chikyala

Click here to read/download the Judgment