LexPARITALA SUDHAKAR versus STATE OF TELANGANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 180 : 2025 INSC 655 Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana (Criminal Appeal No. 2541 of 2025) 09 May 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the offence punishable u/s.13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Act by the trial Court. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) – The complainant sought compensation for trees that dried due to drought – Allegation that appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to conduct an inquiry and prepare a report – A trap was laid for appellant – It was alleged that at the decided place, appellant asked PW1 to keep the bribe amount in a rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of his motorcycle – Accordingly, PW1 kept the bribe amount in the said bag – PW1 then signalled to the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe by the appellant – The trap party then approached the appellant and questioned him regarding the bribe amount – Tests were conducted on the hands of the appellant which proved negative – However, money was recovered from the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the appellant’s motorcycle: Held: To begin with, PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the incident, there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and the appellant, and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the appellant for quarrelling with PW1 – However, the High Court has disbelieved this aspect without assigning any reason(s) for the same – On perusal of the Judgment(s)/Orders(s) of the Courts below and the material on record, it transpires that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses – From all the official versions of the witness’ depositions before the Trial Court, the claimed/projected sequence of events by the prosecution-respondent, of both (i) * Author [2025] 6 S.C.R. 181 Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the appellant’s bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether the same was in the presence of the appellant, does not seem to inspire confidence – The same cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt – As far as presumption u/s.20 of the Act is concerned, the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the appellant and complainant, is not proved – In such circumstances, the presumption u/s.20 of the Act would not militate against the appellant – Thus, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt – The judgments of the Courts below are quashed. [Paras 17, 19, 21, 22] Case Law Cited Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh [2016] 7 SCR 713 : (2017) 11 SCC 195; Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka [2017] 4 SCR 934 : (2017) 13 SCC 98; Om Parkash v. State of Haryana [2006] 1 SCR 423 : (2006) 2 SCC 250 – relied on. Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P. [2024] 7 SCR 640 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1689; Rajesh Gupta v. State [2022] 2 SCR : 864 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107; K Shantamma v. State of Telangana (2022) 4 SCC 574; Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra [2023] 11 SCR 1135 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. List of Keywords Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Bribe; Prior verification of demand by investigator; Use of shadow witness; Successful pH test; Trap cases; Contradictions in evidence of witnesses. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2541 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLA No. 157 of 2008 182 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Abhinav Sekhri, Ashish Raghuvanshi, Pareekshit Bishnoi, Ms. Mehaak Jaggi. Advs. for the Respondent: Ms. Devina Sehgal, Vineet George. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Leave granted. 2. This is an appeal at the instance of the sole Appellant-convict (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘accused officer’) against the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) in Criminal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.