P. PARASURAMI REDDY versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 02-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 656 
~ PARASURAMI REDDY 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2003) 
AUGUST 2, 2011 
[V.S.SIRPURKAR AND T.S.THAKUR, JJ.] 
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 
c 
ss. 7 and 13 (1) (d) rlw s. 13 (2)- Conviction by trial court 
for demanding and taking illegal gratification - Upheld by 
High Court - HELO: Prosecution has not been able to prove 
that the accused had fixed the time and place to receive the 
money - As per the complainant, when he approached the 
D accused on 12.1.1994, he was driven away by the accused-
There is no evidence as to what happened thereafter -
Besides, the treated currency notes could not be found out 
nor is there any explanation for the same - The only 
circumstance that the test of fingers of accused was positive 
E would not be sufficient to convict him - Accused given benefit 
of doubt and acquitted accordingly. 
The appellant-accused was prosecuted for 
committing offences punishable ulss 7 and 13 (1) (d) read 
with s. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
F The prosecution case was that the appellant, who was 
working as the Mandal Development Officer, demanded 
a bribe of Rs. 500/- from the complainant on 31.12.1993 
for releasing the loan amount granted to him for digging 
a community irrigation well. The demand was reiterated 
G on 6.1.1994. On 11.1.1994, the complainant approached 
the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption; a trap was 
laid and the accused was apprehended on 12.1.1994. The 
trial court convicted the accused of the offences charged 
H 
656 
t 
P. PARASURAMI REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 
657 
-· 
and the High Court upheld the conviction. Aggrieved, the 
A 
accused filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
:-
HELD: 1.1 Considering the overall circumstances, the 
~ 
prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused 
B 
had fixed the time and place to receive the money. The 
dates 31.12.1993, 6.1.1994 and 11.1.1994 mentioned in the 
complaint are rather speaking. It is further admitted in the 
evidence of the complainant (PW1) that on 11.1.1994, 
when the accused was tried to be approached, he was c 
not found present in his office. It was, therefore, that the 
accused was approached on the second day i.e. on 
12.1.1994. [Para 8] [661-E-G] 
J 
1.2 As per the complainant, when he approached the D 
accused on 12.1.1994, he was driven away by the 
~ 
accused. The complainant then remained silent as to 
what happened when he was turned away by the 
accused on his first meeting with the accused in his 
office. This circumstance creates doubt. There is no E 
evidence to suggest as to what transpired between the 
accused and the complainant when the accused was first 
approached by the complainant. [para 8-9) [661-H; 662-
A-C-F] 
.;"' 
1.3 The second circumstance, which is really F 
suspicious, is not finding of the treated currency notes 
which were thrown away by the accused. It cannot be 
accepted that a raiding party which consisted of nine 
persons would not be able to recover the currency notes 
.._ 
which were thrown away by the accused in the open 
G 
~ 
space and which were allegedly taken away by the 
members of public. There is absolutely no evidence given 
by the investigating officer (PW-9) as to what efforts he 
made to find out the currency notes. [para 9] [662-E-G] . 
1.4 Both the courts below seem to have been 
H 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A Impressed by the chemical test of the fingers of the 
accused, which would not be sufficient to convict the 
accused. It could have been the possibility that the 
complainant had touched the currency notes and had 
shaken hand with the accused or it could be that any one 
B of the investigating officer or the member of the raiding 
party had touched the fingers of the accused. That 
circumstance itself cannot be ruled out. The accused is, 
therefore, given the benefit of doubt and accordingly 
acquitted. [para 10-11) [663-B-0] 
c 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 462 of 2003. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.08.2002 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 
D 1071 of 1996. 
R. Sundervardhan, T. Anamika for the Appellant. 
I. Venkatanarayana, D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki, V. 
E 
Pattabhi Ram, Savita Dhanda for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SIRPURKAR, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the 
appellantaccused who was found guilty by the trial court for the 
F of

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