K. SUBBA REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 419

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN

Case summary

K. SUBBA REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.pdf

Judgment text

r - K. SUBBA REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D. K. JAIN,JJ. ] Prevention ofCorruption Act, 198& s. 7-Demanding ofbribe by Excise officialfrom complainantfor 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 Guardhadany knowledge that the money handed over was bribe. ~- Prosecution casewas that PW-1 and his fatherwere runningwine shops. The Excise Department raided the shop and found some stock without licence. They registered case against them and it ended in their conviction. The Excise Superintendent issued show cause notice for cancellation oflicence. A-1, the Excise Sub-Inspector sealed the shop pursuant to the direction ofSuperintendent.

PW-1 approached High Court seeking direction for the release of the seized stock. The High Court passed an order in favour ofPW-1, directing the excise officials to release the stock. PW-1 approached A-1 to remove the seals and to open the doors ofthe shop. A-1 demanded bribe ofRs. 5000/- to open theseal,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 ofshops, the amount may be 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 ofboth the hands and the left pant pocket of \ \. _ ' A-2 proved positive. The Trial court rejected the plea ofA-1 that PW- .

r 1 paid the amount to A-2 to hand over the same to one person 'S' for the purpose ofremitting the same to the treasury and convicted both A-1 and A-2 unders. 7ofPrevention ofCorruption Act, 1988. The High Court upheld the conviction. In appeal to this Court, A-2-Appellant contended that no definite role was ascribed to him and no material was adduced to show thatA- 2 had any knowledge thatthe money was being paid to A-1 as bribe. -( .. , Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There is no material to show about the knowledge ofA- 2regarding 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 evidenceofPW-1. He has onlystated thatA-1 asked him to hand over the money to A-2 ifhe had gone out for checking ofshops. [Para 7] (423-E, F] 1 2. Appellant(A-2) at the relevant point oftime was working as a Home Guard. Hewas assigned different duties at different places.

It is accepted in thecross-examination byPW-1 that thereis no Sub-treasury at Mydukur and ifanybody wants to remit money to the Government, one has to go out to different places. It is also accepted that there is a practice ofgiving money to some boys working in the shops or some placesto remitthe moneyto theGovernment treasury at differentplaces indicated by the shop owners. Itwas also accepted that 'S' was a person who used to remit the amountto Government on behalfofshop owners. Itis the accepted position that the present appellant had no role to play in the return ofthe stock register. [Para 8) [423-F, G; 424-A, B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1309of2007. > From the Judgment and Order dated 9. 9. 2005 of the High Court ofJudicature ofAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1362/1999. C. S. N. Mohan Rao for the Appellant. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Singlejudge ofthe Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction ofthe appellant punishable under Section 7 ofthe Prevention ofComiption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The appellant had faced trial along with ~- ... , another accused and for the sake ofconvenience he is described as A- 2 hereinafter. Both the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 ofthe Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment ofone year ea was a person who used to remit the ainount to Government on behalf9f shop owners. It is the accepted position that the present appellant had no role to play in the return ofthe stock register. It is the prosecution case that A-1 had wanted d1e bribe to be paid for the return ofthe stock register. · 9. Above being the position, the material is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. His conviction is accordingly set aside.

He was released on bail pursuant to the order ofthis Court dated 27. 2. 2006. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. l0. The appeal is allowed. D. G. Appeal allowed.