Sri R. D. U. S. V. Prasad, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl Pp Hyd., For ... on 2 January, 2024

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri R. D. U. S. V. Prasad, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl Pp Hyd., For ... on 2 January, 2024

Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2007

Judgment:

Sole accused in C.C.No.14 of 2001 on the file of the

Special Judge for S.P.E & A.C.B Cases, Vijayawada (for

short 'the Special Judge'), filed this appeal challenging the

judgment dated 15.12.2006, whereunder and whereby he

was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine

of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment

for three (3) months for the offence punishable under

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for

short, 'the P.C. Act, 1988') and to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine

of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer

simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence

punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the

P.C. Act, 1988 and further directed that both the sentences

of imprisonment shall concurrently.
2
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to, as they were arrayed in the trial Court.

3. The charges framed against the sole accused officer

are for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C.

Act that on 10.11.2000 at about 12.00 Noon he demanded

and accepted an amount of Rs.1,500/- from Gudivada

Baburao (P.W.4) in pursuance of his previous demand as

illegal gratification or bribe for doing official act of

including the (O) forms in the licence and for not taking

any action on the inspection conducted on the shop of

G. Babu Rao (P.W.4); and for the offence punishable under

Section13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act that on the same

date i.e. on 10.11.2000 the accused officer being Public

Servant accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- from

Gudivada Baburao (P.W.4) which amounts to obtaining

pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means.

4. Heard both the learned counsel for the accused

officer/appellant and the learned Special Public

Prosecutor-cum-Standing Counsel for ACB and also

perused the entire material of both oral and documentary

brought on to record before the trial Court.
3
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

5. It is the case of the prosecution that the de facto

complainant (P.W.4)-Gudivada Babu Rao is a resident of

Chityala Village and doing business in Fertilizers under the

name and style of 'Sri Chandra Fertilizers'. He paid Rs.50/-

on 11.9.2000 in the Sub-Treasury Office, Gopalapuram

and went to the office of the accused officer who was

Mandal Agricultural Officer for inclusion of (O) form in his

fertilizer business licence. The accused officer was not

present in the office at that time. Inspite of some visits to

the office of the accused officer, he did not receive the

application of P.W.4. On 01.11.2000 the accused officer

along with another Agricultural officer, Chagallu Mandal

visited the shop of P.W.4 during morning hours and

inspected the stocks and records and took samples of two

varieties of fertilizers in the presence of the mediators and

gave instructions to P.W.4 to stop sales. When P.W.4

approached the accused officer for inclusion of (O) form in

his licence, the accused officer instructed him to meet him

in the office along with challan, application, form(O) and

records pertaining to his shop. On 03.11.2000 P.W.4

approached the office of the accused officer and came to
4
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

know that he was on camp and again on 07.11.2000 P.W.4

went and met the accused officer who instructed him to

come on the next day. On 08.11.2000 on receipt of phone

call from P.W.5 who was working as Attender in the office

of the accused officer, P.W.4 went along with application

form and other documents. Accused officer received the

application dated 07.1.2002 of P.W.4 and copy of the

memo for the inspection conducted on the shop, for which

P.W.4 received an acknowledgment. At that time, accused

officer demanded P.W.4 to pay a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for

doing official favour for inclusion of (O) form in the licence

and for not taking any action on the inspection conducted

on his shop. Accused officer also stated that if the bribe

amount is not paid, he would register a case against P.W.4

and he would not allow him to continue his business.

When P.W.4 expressed his inability to pay the bribe

amount, the accused officer reduced the demanded bribe

amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,500/-. Since P.W.4 did

not want to pay the said bribe, he gave a report to the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru

(P.W.6). Basing on the said report, P.W.2 said to have
5
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

conducted confidential enquiry and then registered a case

against the accused officer in Crime No.7/ACB-RCT-

EWG/2000 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of

the Act and submitted original FIR to the Court. On

10.11.2000 at about 12.00 Noon, the accused officer was

successfully trapped by P.W.6 when he demanded and

accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1500/- from P.W.4 and

the tainted amount was recovered from the exclusive

possession of the accused officer and when the currency

note numbers were compared with the serial numbers of

currency notes noted in the pre-trap proceedings they were

found tallied. The hand kerchief of the accused and the left

side table drawer which came in contact with the tainted

amount, when subjected to chemical test, proved positive

and the relevant documents were seized along with the

tainted amount by P.W.6 in the presence of mediators.

After obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused officer,

the charge sheet was laid.

6. On appearance, the accused officer was furnished

with the copies of documents and on hearing both sides

and on perusal of the record, the trial Court framed
6
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

charges under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the P.C.Act

and explained to him for which, he pleaded not guilty,

hence the trial Court proceeded with the trial.

7. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution

examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.19 and

Ex.X1 besides Material Objects in M.Os.1 to 10. The

accused officer then was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. The accused officer denied the incriminating

material found against him in the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses. Accused officer got marked Exs.D1

to D7 on his behalf and closed his side evidence.

8. The trial court, accepting the evidence adduced by

the prosecution, found the appellant/accused guilty of the

charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read

with Sec.13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly,

convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. Challenging

the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution and he

was declared hostile. Even according to the prosecution the

Sodium Carbonate solution test proved negative in respect
7
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

of the accused officer. According to the prosecution as per

the instructions of the accused officer the amount has been

kept in the drawer of the table, but the said amount was

recovered by the investigating officer from tennis Court,

which is adjacent to the office and the said tennis Court is

accessible to all. He further strenuously contended that

MO6 white kerchief does not belong to the appellant. There

is no evidence forthcoming to show that the said kerchief

belongs to the accused officer. At the same time, the

kerchief used by the de facto complainant for signalling the

success of the trap has not been produced by the

prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed

that there is animosity between the accused officer and the

de facto complainant for the reason that the accused officer

inspected the stocks and records in the shop of the de facto

complainant twice i.e. in the year 1997 and on 01.11.2000

and issued instructions to him to stop sales. In view of the

said direction the de facto complainant resorted in giving

the report to the police against the accused officer with

malafide intention. Therefore, the learned counsel for the
8
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

appellant prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial

Court and acquit the accused officer/the appellant herein.

10. On the other hand, learned Special Public

Prosecutor-cum-Standing Counsel for ACB strenuously

contended though the amount has not been recovered from

the possession of the accused officer, the demand and

acceptance of bribe by the accused officer is quite evident

from the evidence of P.W.4. She submits that as per the

evidence of P.W.4, on the date of incident there is a

demand made by the accused officer in pursuance of which

demand only, P.W.4 gave the tainted currency notes and

the same was accepted as an illegal gratification by the

accused officer and that the learned trial Court rightly

convicted and sentenced the accused officer and as such

no interference is required. Thus she prayed to dismiss the

present Criminal Appeal.

11. Now the points for determination are;

1) Whether the learned trial Court committed error in

holding that the prosecution established the guilt of the

accused that he demanded and accepted illegal
9
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

gratification for doing an official favour, so to attract the

charges levelled against the accused officer?

2) Whether the judgment of the learned trial Court is liable

to be reversed and consequently accused officer is to be

acquitted?

12. Points No.1 and 2:

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the

accused officer is a public servant as defined under Section

2(c) of the P.C. Act and the same is not at all in

controversy.

Ex.P12 is the Sanction Order for the prosecution of

the accused officer issued by the Commissioner and

Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad. P.W.3, who was the

then Administrative Officer, stated about the processing of

file from stage to stage and after approval of the file, the

then Commissioner and Director of Agriculture issued

sanction to prosecute the accused officer. The trial Court

considered this issue elaborately and held that the

sanction order is a valid one. This Court finds no reason to

interfere with the said finding.
10
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

13. P.W.4 is the decoy witness. There is absolutely no

accompanying witness along with P.W.4. According to

P.W.4, he paid Rs.50/- on 11.9.2000 in the Sub-Treasury

Office, Gopalapuram and went to the office of the accused

officer for inclusion of (O) form in his fertilizer licence and

approached the accused officer along with original shop

licence, challan receipt, 'O' forms and application. In

connection with the process of the said application, it is

alleged that the accused officer made demand for bribe.

Thereby P.W.4 resorted to file the present complaint.

14. P.W.1 is the mediator who did not accompany decoy

witness. He only states to the extent of what transpired at

the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings.

15. P.W.2 is the Range Inspector, ACB. He speaks with

regard to receipt of report of P.W.4 from the

Dy. Superintendent of Police (P.W.6) to cause discreet

enquiries about the antecedents of the accused officer and

enquired into the same. He further stated that he got

recorded the statement of P.W.4 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

and on receipt of sanction to prosecute accused officer, he

filed charge sheet.
11
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

16. P.W.3 is the then Administrative Officer, Office of the

Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad

stated about processing of issuance of Ex.P12-Sanction

Order to prosecute the accused officer.

17. P.W.5 who worked as Attender in the office of the

accused officer stated that as per the instructions of

accused officer, he called P.W.4 over telephone to produce

records relating to his business. He did not support the

case of the prosecution and was treated hostile by the

prosecution.

18. P.W.6 is the trap laying officer stated that on receipt

of Ex.P10 report, he endorsed the same to P.W.2 for

causing discreet enquiries about the antecedents of the

accused officer and after receipt of report from P.W.2, he

registered a case against the accused officer and conducted

pre trap and post trap proceedings in the presence of

mediators, seized the tainted amount, conducted chemical

test, examined the witnesses and filed charge sheet.

19. During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

accused officer stated that he did not demand or accept

any bribe amount from P.W.4 and he was falsely implicated
12
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

in the present case out of grudge as he has endorsed on

01.11.2000 in the stock register of P.W.4 shop to stop sale

for want of 'O' form.

20. On the date of incident, according to P.W.4, he found

the accused officer talking with another person in his office

room and 5 minutes thereafter when that person left the

office of the accused officer, he approached the accused

officer and asked him about the completion of his pending

work. Then the accused officer answered in negative.

Further the accused officer enquired him whether he

brought the bribe amount of Rs.1500/- and he replied

positively and he called him nearer to his chair and he

pulled his left side table drawer and asked him to keep the

tainted amount in the table drawer. At request of the

accused officer, P.W.4 kept the tainted amount in the table

drawer. P.W.4 requested the accused officer to complete

the pending work at the earliest. Thereafter P.W.4 came out

from the office of the accused officer and gave the

pre-arranged signal to the trap party. On that the trap

party rushed to the office of the accused officer. P.W.4

stated that he was examined by P.W.6 and he explained as
13
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

to what transpired between himself and the accused

officer, Ex.P3 is the Amendment of Licence file of Fertiliser

shop of P.W.4. Ex.P4 is the shop Inspection file of P.W.4.

Ex.P13 is the original licence of P.W.4. for doing Fertiliser

business. Ex.P14 is the application of P.W.4 for inclusion

of 'O' form addressed to the Assistant Director of

Agriculture, Kovvur. Ex.P15 is the Challan receipt. Ex.P16

'O' Forms submitted by P.W.4. Ex.P17 copy of Photostat

shop Inspection mediators' report of P.W.1 along with letter

addressed to P.W.4 by the accused officer.

21. Now the question that arises for consideration is

whether any official favour was pending with the accused

officer.

22. P.W.4 in his cross-examination categorically stated

that it is the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who is the

authority to issue 'O' Forms including licence and that

Ex.P13 is Licence, which has been issued on 08.1.1999 by

including 'O' forms in licence on 20.10.1988.

23. P.W.4 categorically stated that he did not give

complaint to the Assistant Director of Agriculture against

the accused officer for passing an order of not to sell the
14
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

stocks. A suggestion has been made to P.W.4 with regard

to the fact that the accused officer directed P.W.4 who is

the owner of shop to stop sale of fertilisers for want of 'O'

form in the year 1997 and on 01.11.2000. P.W.4 denied the

said suggestion. Irrespective of the same, as on the date of

incident, as per the instructions of the accused officer, it is

stated by P.W.4 that the amount was kept in the left side

table drawer of the accused officer. It is admitted that

within two minutes of keeping the money in the table

drawer of the accused officer, the ACB officials rushed to

the office. But surprisingly, the amount has not been

recovered either from the possession of the accused officer

or from the table drawer. It is quite evident from the

evidence of P.W.4 that after he kept the money in the table

drawer, he went outside the office and gave the

pre-arranged signal to the trap party. He further stated

that from the place where he was standing he could see

what transactions are taking place in the office. It is not

the case of P.W.4 that the accused officer had thrown away

the cash from his place or any kerchief was thrown out

from the place where the accused officer was sitting.
15
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

Learned counsel for the appellant stressed on the rough

sketch of scene of offence i.e., Ex.P7. On perusal of Ex.P7,

it clearly shows that the accused officer was sitting at the

place where there is an exit. A person who is standing

outside the office also can see what is transpiring inside

the office and in fact the place where the accused officer is

sitting. There is a window from where one can see the

tennis court. It is difficult for any person to throw the

money from the place where the accused officer is sitting,

into the tennis Court. At the same time, it is not the case of

the prosecution that the accused officer had gone to other

side and placed the money through the window into the

tennis Court.

24. P.W.6 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Eluru Range, Eluru. He categorically stated to the extent

that nothing has been recovered from the open window

which is on the Western side of the office. Whereas the

accused officer was sitting on the Eastern side of the wall.

Apparently on seeing the rough sketch of the offence that

has been prepared, it is impossible for any person to throw

the money from where the accused officer is sitting through
16
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

the Western side window, since one has to pass through

the place where he is sitting to put the money on the open

window of the Western side. It is not the case of the

prosecution that the accused officer had gone and placed

the money on the Western side of the wall. The said place

is accessible to any person.

25. On instructions of P.W.6, sodium carbonate solution

was prepared in one glass tumbler. On instructions, the

accused officer rinsed his hands fingers in the aforesaid

solution. There was no change in colour of the solution.

Again at the request of P.W.6, the accused rinsed his left

hand fingers in Sodium Carbonate solution prepared in

another glass tumbler. Then also there was no change in

its colour. P.W.6 subjected the hand kerchief to Sodium

Carbonate Solution test and it is proved positive.

Thereafter a portion of the window which came in contact

with the tainted amount was also subjected to Sodium

Carbonate Solution test and it is proved positive. It is not

the case of the prosecution that hand kerchief which was

seized at the chair of E.O. belongs to the accused officer.

No material has been placed on record to show that the
17
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

hand kerchief belongs to the accused officer. Learned

counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the

hand kerchief of P.W.4 which he used for pre-arranged

signal has not been seized. If such is the case,, it cannot be

said that the hand kerchief which was seized at the chair of

E.O. belongs to the accused officer.

26. Apparently, as per the material on record, there is

animosity between the accused officer and P.W.4 for non-

obtaining of 'O' form. The accused officer said to have

surprised the shop of P.W.4 and for want of 'O' form he

instructed him to stop the sales in his shop. Apparently

because of the said action of the accused officer, P.W.4

must have developed agony and foisted false case against

the accused officer. Admittedly, on perusal of the entire

evidence on record, it goes to show that no amount, much

less tainted money, was not recovered from the possession

of the accused officer and the kerchief which yielded the

positive result, has not been recovered from the possession

of the accused officer and the same has been recovered

from one of the chairs of E.O. who was present in the

office.
18
SRK, J
Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007

27. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon

the following decisions.

Kothapalle Nageswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein it is held, "In this case, there is no accompanying witness involved by the trap laying officer to witness the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant. Excepting the sole testimony of PW.2 at whose instance, the trap was laid which is to the effect that the appellant demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.100/- from PW.2 there is no evidence in proof of demanding and accepting the bribe. Further even according to the evidence of PW.2, the appellant did not directly receive the amount from PW.2 and it is said that on the instructions of the appellant, PW.2 placed the amount on the table and put a stamp pad on the amount. When it is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellant did not receive the amount paid by PW.2, it cannot rely on the point that the phenolphthalein sodium carbonate reaction test yielded positive result. The charge is that the appellant demanded illegal gratification for the purpose of entering the challan particulars in the concerned registers, so as to enable PW.2 to obtain non judicial stamps. But in the cross-examination PW.2 admitted that without assigning challan number, payment will not be made and in the present case, after obtaining the challan 1 2012 (2) ALD (CRL.) 917 (AP) 19 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007 number, he went to the bank for making payment and one clerk by name Ibrahim allotted challan number. He also further admitted in the cross-examination that when the amount was paid into the bank, the stamps will not be issued on the same day and will be issued on the next day after receiving the bankers scroll. He also admitted in the cross examination that Ex.P.4 challan was with him at the time of pre-trap proceedings and that he had shown the challan to the mediators at the time of pre-trap proceedings. He further stated in the cross-examination that on 17.06.1998 when he approached the appellant at the first instance, the appellant gave challan to him and on that the appellant informed him to bring the discount bill and indent which were available with Shroff and accordingly, he brought and gave them to the appellant."

2. Ganapathi Sanya Naik Vs. State of Karnataka 2, wherein it is held, "5. The trial court observed that the foremost question to be established by the prosecution was as to the demand for money from the complainant, PW-6 and the recovery of the money at the instance of the appellant. The Court also observed that the evidence of PW4 and 6 with regard to the recovery of the cash from the table under the files was not believable and the defence version that the money had been put on the table 2 2007 Crl.L.J.4689 20 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007 surreptitiously and without the knowledge of the accused/appellant appeared to be more plausible and worthy of acceptance. The trial court accordingly acquitted the accused. The State thereafter preferred an appeal before the High Court .The learned Judge in judgment dated 31.3.2003, which has been impugned before us, however set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months observing that Nagaraja's statement as to the recovery had been corroborated by PW4 an independent witness and that no doubt could be created in the story merely because the currency notes had not been touched by the appellant. The Court also observed that the plea of the appellant that there was no occasion for the demand of money as the necessary documents had already been prepared was not acceptable as the possibility that the documents had been prepared in anticipation of the receipt of the money, could not be ruled out. It is in these circumstances that this matter is before us by way of special leave"

3. C. Sivakumar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3, wherein it is held "16. On the other hand, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on 3 2005(1) ALD (Crl.) 863 (AP) 21 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007 behalf of the accused submits that merely because money was recovered from the accused, it cannot be said that the accused demanded and accepted bribe. In support of his contention, he relied on a Judgment of the apex Court in the case of G.V Nanjundaiah v. State (Delhi Administration) (2) 1987 Supp SCC 266 : AIR 1987 SC 2402. It is just and proper to extract the relevant paras 25 to 28.

"25. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. The question as to the handing over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances one of which is the question whether any demand was at all made by the appellant for the bribe. When it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the Court will view the allegation of payment of the bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused with suspicion.

26. In the instant case, the foundation of the prosecution case of the demand made by the appellant for bribe has, as observed already, been shaken to a great extent. In any event, it casts a gave doubt on the subsequent event that was alleged to have taken place in the matter of giving of bribe to the appellant and recovery of the bribe money from him coupled with the unusual behaviour of the contractor in purchasing sweets and fruits for the appellant on the plea that it would justify the presence of 22 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007 Verma at the time of giving of bribe to the appellant.

27. In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all doubts. The appellant was found by the learned Special Judge to be honest and his service record shows that he was an officer of integrity throughout his career. The learned Special Judge seems to have accepted the statement of the appellant that he has no immovable or movable property. His wife and children have no Bank account nor have they any property in their names. His insurance is also not more than Rs. 30,000/- and his Bank balance is less than Rs. 1,000/-. For the defence of the case he had borrowed Rs. 6,000/- from his GPF Account. He has a wife and three minor children to support and there is no other source of income for the subsistence of the family. The above statement of the appellant has been recorded by the learned Special Judge in considering the sentence to be imposed on the appellant.

28. After a careful consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant under Sec. 311 Cr. P.C, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant".

17. In the instant case, it is not possible to believe the version of the prosecution. More so when there are complaints that have been filed 23 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007 against each other and the accused himself apprehending that the Sarpanch of the village Rajagopal Reddy was making attempts to implicate him in one or other case and he himself filed a complaint before the District Collector about non-granting of patta of Kalva Poramboke in respect of Sy. No. 277, it cannot be said that the accused demanded and accepted bribe for doing official favour. The prosecution has not stated anything as to what are the duties and functions to do official favour or to do dis-favour or his duty of action to be attended for grant of patta to PW. 1. If the accused is not at all competent to do any act, it cannot be said that he demanded and accepted the bribe. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and the defence taken by the accused, the prosecution is not at all able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt."

28. Coming to the fact of acceptance, money was not recovered from the place where P.W.4 is said to have kept the money. But the money was recovered from the window on the Western side of the wall which is adjacent to the tennis Court and the same is accessible to any person.

Thus the amount was not recovered from the possession of the accused officer and the amount which was said to be kept in the left side drawer of the table has not been handled by the accused officer as is evident that on 24 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007 conducting Sodium Carbonate test, both hand fingers of the accused officer proved negative. Apart from the same, the accused officer is not the authority to pass official favour for P.W.4. It is the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who has to pass order to issue 'O' form. Admittedly, there is animosity between P.W.4 and the accused in connection with the inspection conducted by the accused officer on the shop of P.W.4 and in directing him to stop the sales for want of 'O' form.

29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused officer for the offences alleged, beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant/accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. The trial Court did not consider the evidence on record in right perspective and came to wrong conclusions. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

23. In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 15.12.2006 passed in C.C.No.14 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge for S.P.E & A.C.B Cases, Vijayawada. The appellant/accused is found not 25 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and is accordingly acquitted of the same. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused shall stand discharged, and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

____________________________ (K.SREENIVASA REDDY,J.) 02.1.2024 GR 26 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2007 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2007 02.01.2024 GR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati