Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pathapati Yougendar Naga Varma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 February, 2026
APHC010518202025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10143/2025
Between:
1. PATHAPATI YOUGENDAR NAGA VARMA, S/O SARRAJU, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O ADARSHA NAGAR, BHIMAVARAM, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF A.P.,AT
AMARAVATHI.
2. K SRINIVASA KUMAR, SUB
SUB-INSPECTOR
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BHIMAVARAM
II TOVM P.S.,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accus
Petitioner/accused:
1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. YLR, J
Crl.P.No.10143 of 2025
Dated 06.02.2026
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 'the BNSS') seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.558 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru for the alleged offence punishable under Section 171(E) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC').
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitionerand the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2014, Respondent No.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, seized cash of Rs.2,89,80,000/- from the possession of Accused No.2, alleging that the said amount was intended for bribing voters in the thenensuing elections. A mediation report was drafted, and a case was registered in Cr.No.82 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 171-E, 188, 489(B)(C) read with 34 of 'the I.P.C.,' and Section 123 read with 131 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951(for brevity, 'the R.P Act') by the Respondent No.2. After completing the Investigation, the Respondent No.2 filed a charge sheet against the Petitioner and six other accused by adding Section 3 Read with Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the P.M.L Act'). 3
Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10143 of 2025 Dated 06.02.2026
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. State of Telangana1wherein at paragraph 8, it isheld that:
"8. To attract an offence punishable under Section 171-E of IPC, the ingredients of Section 171-B of IPC have to be fulfilled. If a person gives any gratification to any person for exercising any electoral right or for having exercised such right or accepts such amount from any person as a reward for exercising any right or inducing or attempts to induce any person in exercise of such rights amounts to bribery. In the present case, the amounts were allegedly found in the possession of the petitioners. The police assume that the said amounts are meant for political leaders to bribe the voters in the ensuing elections of December, 2013. Admittedly, no person was bribed or any money was accepted by those people for such purpose of exercising electoral franchise. For the said reasons, the offence under Section 171-B of IPC is not made out and consequently the question of prosecuting these petitioners for the offence of bribery punishable under Section 171-E of IPC does not arise."
5. Ergo, the High Court of Telangana in Sunil Kumar Ahuja supra held thatmere possession of cash does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 171‑B and 171‑E of 'the I.P.C.,' as bribery requires proof of giving or accepting gratification for exercising electoral rights. It was observed that the police only presumed the money was meant for voter bribery without evidence of any inducement or acceptance. Since no voter was bribed and no gratification was established, the offence under Section 171‑B of 'the I.P.C.,' was not made out. Consequently, prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 171‑E of 'the I.P.C.,'was held unsustainable.
6. In the present case also, except for a reference in the mediator's report regarding the seizure of cash, there is no material to indicate the persons to whom the amount was intended to be distributed as bribes. 1 MANU/TL/0002/2023 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10143 of 2025 Dated 06.02.2026
7. On careful perusal of the investigation conducted by Respondent No.2, it is evident that there is no statement from any voter(s) or witness(s) to establish that the seized cash was meant for bribing them.
8. In this context, it is apposite to refer to Sections 171-B and 171-E of 'the I.P.C.' "171B. Bribery.--
(1)Whoever-
(i)gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or
(ii)accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section.
(2)A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3)A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.
171E. Punishment for bribery.--
Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only."
9. A combined reading of Sections 171-B and 171-E of 'the I.P.C.,'makes it evident that bribery requires proof of giving, offering, or accepting any gratification to induce or reward a person for exercising electoral rights. These provisions further clarify that even attempts to offer or accept such gratification are treated as acts of bribery. In the present case, the prosecution has not produced any material to show that the seized cash was offered, attempted to be offered, or accepted by any voter as gratification. Consequently, in the 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10143 of 2025 Dated 06.02.2026 absence of any act constituting bribery as defined under Section 171-Bof 'the I.P.C.,' the charge under Section 171-E of 'the I.P.C.,'cannot be sustained.
10. In the instant case, the amount was allegedly found in possession of Accused No.2, and the Investigating Officer merely assumed that it was meant for bribing voters. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the money was intended to be distributed to voters. There is no iota of material connecting the seized cash with any act of bribery or inducement of voters.For the above reasons, the proposed charge under Section 171-E of 'the I.P.C.,' cannot be sustained.
11. Further, the charge sheet also mentions offences under Sections 489(B)(C) of 'the I.P.C.' However, it is not the case of the prosecution that the seized cash consisted of counterfeit currency. Therefore, invocation of these provisions is wholly unjustified. Likewise, there is no basis for prosecuting the Petitioner under Sections 123 read with 131 of 'the R.P Act' or under Sections 3 and 4 of 'the P.M.L Act'.
12. Be that as it may, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance only for the offence punishable under Section 171-E read with 34 of 'the I.P.C.' In view of the absence of any material to establish bribery, the impugned order of cognizance is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
13. It is not out of place to refer the order of the High Court of Telangana by following Sunil Kumar Ahuja suprain Crl.P.No.4032 of 2024 on 16.09.2025 at paragraph No.9 it is held that the mere possession or transportation of cash, 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10143 of 2025 Dated 06.02.2026 without any act of distributing the same to voters, does not attract the ingredients of Sections 171‑B or 171‑E of 'the I.P.C.' The Court observed that the flying squad had not caught the accused while offering or delivering money to any voter, and the assumption that the cash was intended for electoral purposes was unsupported by any witness or material evidence. It was further held that in view of Section 195 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' an offence under Section 188 of 'the I.P.C.,'can be taken cognizance of only upon a written complaint by the competent public servant, and therefore registration of a case by the Sub‑Inspector was legally untenable. The Court concluded that even the foundational requirements of Sections 171‑B and 171‑E of 'the I.P.C.,'were absent, as no inducement, attempt, or gratification was established. Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances was held to be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.558 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 171-E read with 34 of 'the I.P.C.,' are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this matter shall stand closed.
________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.02.2026 PRA 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10143 of 2025 Dated 06.02.2026 152 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10143 of 2025 Date: 06.02.2026 PRA