Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mandava Subba Rao vs State Of A.P. Rep.By Insp.Of Police on 25 August, 2015
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, V. Gopala Gowda, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 2009
MANDAVA SUBBA RAO ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE ..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.1541 of 2001, dated 31.12.2007.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Agricultural Officer, Bapatla and was in full Additional Charge of the post of Mandal Parishad Development Officer from 17.6.1995 to 22.6.1996. The complainant (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2) were working as Secondary Grade Teachers at Mandal Parishad Elementary School and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2015.08.27 17:19:20 IST Reason: 2 had filed applications before the Mandal Parishad Development Officer for sanctions of additional increments in early 1995. Subsequently, they filed several more representations. On 13.06.1996, PW-1 met the appellant in his office regarding the same where the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.600/- in return for sanctioning the increments. On PW-1 expressing his inability to pay the said amount, the appellant reduced the amount to Rs.400/- and PW-1 agreed to pay the same.
3. On 14.06.1996, PW-1 filed a written complaint before the ACB, Vijayawada. On 15.06.1996, the DSP, ACB registered a case and at 10.00 am on the same day, PW-1 met the Deputy Superintendent and his staff and the pre-trap proceedings were completed. PW-1 then went to the appellant and paid the said amount to the appellant on his demanding the same. On receiving PW-1’s signal, the raiding party entered the appellant’s office. The appellant was searched and the said amount was recovered. The 3 sodium carbonate test was conducted and a post-trap panchnama was prepared. The appellant was arrested and, on his executing a self-bond, was released on the same day.
4. Subsequently, the investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The accused appeared before the Trial Court. After both sides were heard, charges were framed against the appellant for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). The charges were read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the case was committed to trial.
5. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 15 documents and nine material objects. While no witnesses were produced by the defense, the appellant’s statement was recorded under Sections 4 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated.
6. The Trial Court considered the evidence on record as also the arguments of the parties and noticed that PW-1’s testimony was consistent with respect to the demand for illegal gratification and variations in minor details would not be sufficient to discredit his testimony. The Trial Court further rejected the appellant’s contention that the prosecution was false and malafide and noted that the appellant had failed to account for his possession of the said amount. The Trial Court thus concluded that the prosecution had been able to prove that the appellant, with malafide intention, abused his official position in order to receive illegal gratification. Therefore, by its judgment and order dated 24.09.2001, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1000/- fine for 5 the offence under Section 7 of the Act and one year of rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1000/- fine for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, with directions that both sentences would run concurrently.
7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant approached the High Court, on the ground, inter alia, that there were several discrepancies in the prosecution’s version. By the impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.2007, the High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and concluded that there was sufficient evidence on record to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
6
9. We have heard Shri G.V.R. Choudary, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh and have carefully perused the material available on record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, in the absence of corroboration by an independent witness, mere recovery of the said amount is not sufficient to convict the appellant. On the question of sentence, he would further submit that, in light of the appellant’s advanced age, the sentence awarded ought to be commuted to the sentence undergone, i.e., three months.
11. Having considered the submissions made before us and after going through the entire evidence on record, the appellant’s case fails to convince us. In light of the fact that the minimum sentence prescribed for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act is 7 one year, to commute the sentence to a period less than that would tantamount to re-writing the statute, which is beyond the powers of this Court.
12. Therefore, we do not see any good ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
.............CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ...............J. (V.GOPALA GOWDA) ...............J. (AMITAVA ROY) NEW DELHI AUGUST 25, 2015.
8
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.1 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 35/2009
MANDAVA SUBBA RAO Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P. REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 25/08/2015 This appeal was called
on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. G.V.R. Choudary, Adv.
Mr. A. Chandra Sekhar, Adv.
For Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
For Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv. (NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
As a sequel to the above, pending
interlocutory application(s), if any, are
disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Vinod Kulvi)
Sr.P.A. Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file.)