BABJI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 09-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
BABJI
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 2159 of 2009)
AUGUST 9, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.8 – Conviction under
– When not sustainable – PW-4 complained that when he had
approached Indian Airlines Office for reservation of a seat, an
Airlines employee advised him to contact Appellant – Appellant told
him that though, there was long waiting list but he can arrange a
confirmed ticket and demanded Rs.2,100/- as against the actual
fair of Rs. 1646/- – Appellant convicted u/s.8 – Held: Evidence
adduced by the prosecution is vague as to for whom the appellant
demanded the money and whether the person for whom the appellant
demanded and received the money was a public servant – Though
the receiver of the money may not be a public servant, like in the
present case, the prosecution has to establish that the amount was
received for inducing a public servant for doing something in his
official capacity – In the absence of evidence to show that the
appellant received money to induce a public servant to get the
confirmation of the ticket, the conviction of the appellant cannot
be sustained and he is acquitted.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988– s.8– Offence under–
Factors to be proved– Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In order to establish the offence under Section
8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it must be proved:
(i) That the accused  accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept,
or attempted to obtain, from someone; (ii) For himself or for some
other person; (iii) Any gratification whatever; (iv) As a motive or
reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any ‘public servant’
to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render
any service to any of the persons specified in the section. [Para
5]  [1062-D-E]
1060
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 1060
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
1.2 In the present case, the evidence adduced by the
prosecution is vague for whom the appellant had demanded the
money and whether the person for whom the appellant demanded
and received the money is a public servant. Though the receiver
of the money, like in the present case may not be a public servant,
the prosecution has to establish by convincing evidence that the
amount must have been received for inducing a public servant
for doing something by that public servant in his official capacity.
So far as confirmation of the seat in the Indian Airlines, there
may be persons in the middle who may be a public servant or a
travel agency or others. In the absence of convincing evidence
to show that the appellant had received the money from PW-4, to
induce a public servant to get the confirmation of the ticket, the
conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The appellant is
acquitted. [Para 6]  [1062-G-H; 1063-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2159 of 2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2005 of the High Court
of   Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.421
of 2000.
P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, Anil Kumar Tandale, Advs. for
the appellant.
P. K. Dey, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, A. K. Sharma, Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Advs. for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the conviction under
Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the appellant has preferred
this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-4 Sumeet Asthana
gave Ex.P1-complaint to Vigilance Officer, Indian Airlines, Hyderabad,
stating that he had approached the Indian Airlines Office on 20.06.1995
for reservation of a seat in Flight I.C. No. 948 for his travel to Madras
on 21.06.1995 but there was a long waiting list and that an employee of
the Indian Airlines, whom he does not know, had told him contact Babji
(A-1) of M/s Varun Movies at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. PW-4 had
approached A-1 on 01.06.1995 and A1 told him that there was long
BABJI  v.  STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
waiting list but he can arrange a confirmed ticket and demanded Rs.2,100/-
as against the actual fair of Rs. 1646/-. On receipt of the said complaint
PW-1, the Manager, Vigilance, Indian Airlines, Hyderabad, gave report
Ex.P-2 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI Hyderabad stating that A-
1 and A-2 are cheating the public.
3.
Based on the evidence of PW-4 and PW-2 who accompanied
PW-4, the Trial Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.