LexK. SUBBA REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r - ~- K. SUBBA REDDY A v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.] B Prevention of Corruption Act, 198& s. 7-Demanding of bribe by Excise official from complainant for C returning the stock register and asking him to hand over demanded money on the next day to Home Guard-Money handed over-Trap laid and Home Guard caught with tainted money-Courts below convicting him-Correctness of-Held: Not correct as material not sufficient to prove that Home Guard had any knowledge that the money D handed over was bribe. Prosecution case was that PW-1 and his fatherwere running wine shops. The Excise Department raided the shop and found some stock without licence. They registered case against them and it ended in their E conviction. The Excise Superintendent issued show cause notice for cancellation oflicence. A-1, the Excise Sub-Inspector sealed the shop pursuant to the direction of Superintendent. PW-1 approached High Court seeking direction for the release of the seized stock. The High Court passed an order in favour of PW-1, directing the excise officials F to release the stock. PW-1 approached A-1 to remove the seals and to open the doors of the shop. A-1 demanded bribe ofRs.5000/- to open the seal, and when PW-1 expressed his inability, A-1 reduced the amount to Rs.3000/-. A-1 asked him to pay the amount the next day and further told him that in case he goes for checking of shops, the amount may be G paid to A-2-appellant. On the next day, PW-1 paid the amount to A-2. A-2 counted the notes, keptthe amount in his left pocket. Subsequently, the amount was recovered from A-2 and the phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both the hands and the left pant pocket of 419 H \ ~1 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I 0 S.C.R. \._ ' A A-2 proved positive. The Trial court rejected the plea of A-1 that PW- 1 paid the amount to A-2 to hand over the same to one person 'S' for .r the purpose of remitting the same to the treasury and convicted both A-1 and A-2 under s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court upheld the conviction. B In appeal to this Court, A-2-Appellant contended that no definite role was ascribed to him and no material was adduced to show that A- 2 had any knowledge thatthe money was being paid to A-1 as bribe. -( .., Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. There is no material to show about the knowledge of A- 2 regarding the money being bribe. He had offered the explanation that the money was to be paid to 'S'. In this connection, reference is made to the evidence of PW-1. He has only stated that A-1 asked him to hand D over the money to A-2 if he had gone out for checking of shops. [Para 7] (423-E, F] 1 2. Appellant (A-2) at the relevant point of time was working as a Home Guard. He was assigned different duties at different places. It is E accepted in the cross-examination by PW-1 that there is no Sub-treasury at Mydukur and if anybody wants to remit money to the Government, one has to go out to different places. It is also accepted that there is a practice of giving money to some boys working in the shops or some places to remitthe money to the Government treasury at different places F indicated by the shop owners. It was also accepted that 'S' was a person who used to remit the amount to Government on behalf of shop owners. It is the accepted position that the present appellant had no role to play in the return of the stock register. [Para 8) [423-F, G; 424-A, B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. G 1309of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.2005 of the High Court > of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1362/1999. H C.S.N. Mohan Rao for the Appellant. ~- ..., K. SUBBA REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 421 [PASAYAT,J.] D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT P ASA YAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned B Single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Comiption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The appellant had faced trial along with another accused and for the sake of convenience he is described as A- 2 hereinafter. Both the accused persons were convicted for the offence C punishable under Section 7 of the Act and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.