The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 18_of 2O17 on the file of I-Additional Special Judge for SPtr & ACB Cases-cum-V- Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ?.C.ActJ and under Sections 201 and 5O6 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case are that on O4.O3.2013 the 2"d respondent-defacto-complainant gave a complaint to the police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad stating that he is running toddy business and having license. The said license is required to be renewed every hve years by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nagarkurnool. The 2.d respondent along with six other individuals from his village were also holding toddy business licenses, all of which expired on 30.09.2012. The 2"d respondent alleged that they applied for renewal of their licenses Z r'ffi.- for the next five-year period and, to that end, approached the Petitioner/Accused Officer in December 2Ot2 by submitting requisite license fee and advance rental amount through challans in duplicate. The 2"d respondent further aileged that the petitioner informed them that he would forward the renewal applications to the Excise Superintendent, Nagarkurnool. He also instructed the 2"a respondent to personally meet l-rim in the month of December, 2Ol2 on behalf of all the license holders. Subsequently, on 23.07.2O13, the 2"d responclent met the petitioner in his office, where he allegedly demalded a bribe of <7,OOO/- and warned that their license renewals would be kept pending if the bribe amount is not paid.

3. The 2nd respondent allegedly informed the petitioner that he would discuss the matter with the other srx license holders. Upon doing so, the license holders expressed their unwillingness to pay the bribe and asked the 2.d respondent to convince the ofltcer to reduce the amount. After two weeks thereafter, the petitioner allegedly contacted the 2"d respondent by calling him through his mobile phone and reiterated his demand threatening to withhold the renewed licenses which were allegedly in his possession. Upon the complainant,s request to reduce the bribe amount, the petitioner flnally agreed to accept 3 t4,5OO/-. Though unwilling, the 2nd respondent allegedly agreed under compulsion and sought two weeks' time to pay the bribe. As the 2nd respondent did not wish to pay the bribe but feared that the renewed licenses would not be handed over without it, he lodged a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, City Range-I, Hyderabad, on O4.03.2013 at 11:00 AM, seeking appropriate legal action. Upon receiving the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 7/ACB-CR-1/2013 under Section 7 of the P.C.Act. During the investigation, the ACB secured two mediators and, after completing the necessary legal formalities, organized a trap against the petitioner. On

05.03.2013, at about 2:2O PM, the 2nd respondent entered the Prohibition and Excise Station, Kalwa-kurthy, where he found the petitioner in his office. At around 2:30 PM, he entered the officer's room, the officer immediately enquired whether the bribe amount had been brought and further demanded {4,500/-. The 2"d respondent ailegedly took out the tainted currency from his right pant pocket and handed it to the petitioner, who accepted it with his right hand and put it in the left-side pocket of his shirt. He allegedly informed that the licenses would be handed over after lunch. Thereafter, the 2"d respondent exited the room and gave the pre-arranged signal to 4 *d;.i+ the trap party. The ACB team entered the room and confronted the officer. Though petitioner denied having demanded or accepted a bribe, the tainted currency of {4,5OO/- was recovered from his left side shirt pocket upon production. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the inner lining of his shirt pocket yielcled a positive result.

4. Further, on being questioned, the petitioner- claimcd that he did not demand any bribe and that the amount received was towards toddy rental dues for hve months liom Sri Bala Kistaiah. However, when confronted, the complainant reiterated that the amount was a bribe demanded by the officer for processing and handing over the renewed licenses but not rental dues. He categorically denied that the ofhcer had ever discussed toddy rental amounts with him. Further, during the course of investigation it was revealed that the petitioner demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the 2"d respondent for showing official favour and the Government had accorded sanction orders vide G-O.Ms.No.157, dated 07.O9.2015 to prosecute the petitioner. 5

5. Heard Sri R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum- Special Public Prosecutor ACB appearing for the 1"t respondent.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent, a honest public servant and he is falsely implicated in this case. The 2"d respondent and others went to the office of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent on Oa.lO.2OL2 and obtained renewal of their toddy licenses on the same day itself, for a period of hve years from 0i.10.2012 to

30.O9.2017 with annual ration 400 and annual rent of Rs.10,O00/- which amount was paid by them and received copies of renewals of TFT license of Kuppagaldla village and without the knowledge and processing of TFT licenses of Kuppagandla Village, by the petitioner. Further, after one ald half month, the 2"d respondent and others approached the petitioner for renewal of TFT licenses which were already renewed on O8. 10.2012 for a period of five years, with a malafide intention to implicate the petitioner in a false bribe case and ACB oflicials did not find any favour with the petitioner nor having renewed original TF"T license of Kuppagandla village. 6

7. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no official favour is pending with the petitioner and the trap lajd on 05.03.2013 at 2.45 p.m., is nothing but abuse. The report of the investigating officer is that due to non- payment of Rs.45OO/-, petitioner did not haldover the renewed licenses, whereas, the same were already renewed on

08.10.2012 itself, and the 2"d respondent and others have already obtained the renewed licenses on 08.12.2O12. However, the 2"d respondent and others have again approached the petitioner with a request to renerv the TFT licenses, as if they have not renewed the same. As the licenses were already renewed for a period of hve years, no oflicial favour is pending before the petitioner. In support of his contention, Iearned counsel relied on the judgment in Union of India V Prafulla Kumar Samalr. His further contention is that the 2nd respondent is an Ex-MPTC, approached the petitioner, and stated that there are eight persons who are running toddy business. Among them seven persons created a group or syndicate and kept aside the 8th person namely K. Narayana, and demanded not to renew the license of the sarcl person. The petitioner did not. heed to the demand of 2"d respondent, as t (1979)3 SCC 4 i I 4rr--?E:- 7 such, he bore grudge against him and irnplicated the petitioner in this false case. He further submitted that when the alleged TFT licenses were already renewed in the month of October, 20 12 itself, there cannot be any demand in the month of January, 2013. The ACB officials without any preliminary enquiry laid trap which is not in accordance with law. He also contended that the sanction order was issued by the Principal Secretary who is not competent to remove the petitioner from service, as such said sanction is bad in law. When there is no evidence collected against the petitioner, framing of charges is improper which is not considered by the investigating officer. As such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

8. The l"t respondent filed counter denying the averments of petition and contended that as per the evidence on record, the 2"d respondent along with six others approached the petitioner during the month of October, 2072 and submitted their appiication to the petitioner, who forwarded the same to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent on 08.10.2012 through his private Assistant Sri Balaiah, who halded over the same to the Senior Assistant at the oflice of P & E Superintendent, Nagarkurnool and received approved licenses on the same day 8 ;i and handed it over to the petitioner for further process. It is further contended that during the post-trap proceedings, when enquired about the pending work of 2"d respondent, petitioner admitted that 2"d respondent and six others submitted application for renewal of their licenses in the month of October, 2Ol2 and he forwarded the same to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nagarkurnool along with Annexure by recommending for renewal through Balaiah, retired Junior Assistant who was working as Private Assistant in the office to collect the same from ES Off,rcer after its approval. The said Balaiah brought the above renewed licenses two r.r,eeks back and kept it in the office a1mirah. So saying, petitioner took the said renewed licenses from the Almirah with the help of Balaiah and placed before the trap members. Therefore, the licenses were already renewed and handed over to the 2"d respondent is not at all correct and the question whether charge will eventually stand or not c.rn be examined only after the evidence is adduced in the case and there is no base to show that 2"d respondent developed grudge against the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be decided in a quash petition and it requires adjudication. The ACB ofhcials laid trap and he was red-handedly caught by them. In the preliminaw enquiry, he 9 stated that the amount received is rental arnount and his version is contradictory to his contention that the renewal was in the month of October, 2012 itself. The further contention of petitioner that receipt No.281092 dated 05.03.2072 at 2.3O p.m., was also issued to the 2"d respondent, was evident from the office of Prohibition and Excise is also fa-lse as it is an afterthought. According to the evidence of Sri Nune Veera Reddy, Prohibition and Excise S.I and FAC SHO, Kalwakurthy, the Kuppagandla village comes under Excise Station, Kalwakurthy and there are eight TFT licenses. The rent of the said village was Rs.l0,OO0/- approximately per annum for 8 TFT licenses and the monthly rent was Rs.834/- to all the above 8 licenses. On verification of cash book, it contained pages 1 to 185, maintained from 03.10.2008. It was the practice to make any entry in the said cash book about the receipt of net cash by the SHO. Further during the tenure of petitioner as SHO, Kalwakurthy, there was no entry about receipt of any amount. However at page No.66, on 05.03.2013, the opening balance was NIL and SHO affxed signature on the said entries. However, below the said entry, there was another entry mentioned by entering some entries with white fluid that 'received Rs.4,500/- towards toddy rental for the months October 2Ol2 to February, 10 2013 and part of Mach, 2013 from M.Balakistaiah, toddy shop, Kuppagandla at 2.3O p.m." Further on verihcation of cash book No-28001, it contained receipt Nos.281001 to 281100 were issued upto 24.03.2011 . Further, during the period from O 1 .O 1.2000 to 24.O3.2071 , there was no entry regarding receipt of toddy rents. However, receipt No.281092 was issued on

05.03.2013 for Rs.4,500/ towards toddy rental for October, 2Ol2to February20 13 and part of March,2013. There were no entries eithcr in the receipt books or in the General Diaries, that it came to light during last week of April, 2013, the petitioner visited the Excise Station, Kalwakurthy and made entries in the General Diary, cash book by threatening the Junior Assistant and petitioner himself wrote the receipt books with old dates. As such, the sard evidence is no way helpful to the petitioner for quashing the proceedings. Further the contention of petitioner that sanction for prosecuting him, issued by the Principal Secretary is not competent to remove the petitioner from his service, as such, bad in law is not correct. The State Government is the competent authorit5r to remove the petitioner from service under Section 19 (1) (b) of P.C.Act, hence, the Principal Secretary gave sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.157, Revenue (Vigilance.Il) Department, dated 07.O9.2O15. As such, the said Y/ 7L contention is also not tenable. The evidence on record clearly shows that petitioner accepted bribe amount of Rs.4,500/- from the 2"d respondent for showing ofhcial favour to hald over renewed licenses to him and six others. Therefore, there are no merits in this criminal petition and prayed to dismiss this petition.

9. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter filed by the lst respondent stating that the renewed TFT licenses were already processed on O8.10.2012 and 2"4 respondent already obtarned the said license from the office of Excise Superintendent, Nagarkurnool from Mahendra Raja Gopal, Senior Assistant who is the concerned person for issuing the renewed licenses and that it is not known to the petitioner how the Photostat copies of renewed licenses appeared in the room of petitioner at 2.45 p.m., on 05.03.2013, that petitioner has not received any Photostat copies of the said licenses from the oflice of Superintendent till the date of trap. It is further stated that the lst respondent failed to establish evidence before this Court and there is unexplained delay in filing complaint dated

04.03.2013 against the petitioner. The 2.d respondent and six others are not paying monthly rent of Rs.834/- to the Government from 01.10.2012 onwards for a period of five t2 It1r.;; - months, as such, petitioner had made a phone call to the 2"d respondent and others to ask them to pay nionthly rental amount regularly, but they have not paid the same till the trap date and the monthly toddy rental amount of Rs.450O/- was paid on 05.03.2013 and issued receipt to the 2ltd respondent. As such, there is no demand and acceptance. It is further contended that sanction of prosecution of public servarit is not in accordance with larv. In Crl. Appeal No.766 of 2001 , the Apex Court observed that sanction order did not indicate that authority examined any material against public ser-vant except the report of police, sanction is not valid. Application of mind on the part of sanction authorit5r is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Poiice.

10. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs State of Andhra Pradesh2, this Court opined that sanctioning authority cannot rely on the statutory presumption contained in Section 4 of the P.C.Act a,nd 1 11979) 4 SCC 172 13 also relied on the judgment in R.S.Nayak V A.R.Antulay3 and Prakash Singh Badal and another V state of Punjab and Othersa.

11. In the present case also the Principal Secretary has not examined any material against the accused Officer and the G.O. does not indicate any valid sanction and authority did not apply its mind. All these facts show continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law, as such, requested this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

72. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel ald a perusal of the material on record, the points to be considered is whether, there is any prima-facie case against the petitioner for continuation of proceedings and whether the sanction under the G.O., is in accordance with law ?

13. The contention of petitioner herein is that the alleged renewal was in the month of October, 2Ol2 and by the time of alleged trap, the Iicenses were already renewed by the concerned Department and petitioner is no way concerned with it and that petitioner does not know how the Photostat copies of the ! (1984) 2 SCC r83 . (2007) 1 SCC I 74 *.,ira:i: ,r{ renewed licenses appeared in the Almirah on thc date of trap and that the amount of Rs.450O/- was towards the rental amount for four and half months.

14. Going through the said contention, the counter affidavit of the 2"d respondent shows that the alleged receipt book does not contain any materiai with regard to payment of rental amount from the last twenty years and issuing of licenscs were after closure of the said book under the signature. On the alleged date of trap it was mentioned that it is the receipt of rental amount. The further allegation is that petitioner itr:rein went to the Prohibition and Excise ofhce after the trap laid and during the pendency of trap proceedings, he forcibly made entries in the G.D., and that the license fee paid was for lour and half months is not at all believable. Even accepting the contention of petitioner, it has to be for five months, when the rent amount is due for five months, the allegation that petitioner forcibly made entries in the G.D, has to be adjudicated by the trial Court. Petitioner was red handedly caught by the officials of 1"t respondent when he demanded bribe for doing favour. Whether tainted arnount is paid for rental arnount and the issue of entries in the concerned register requires adjudication ald the same cannot be considered at this stage in a quash proceedings. {/ 75 t t

15. The further contention of petitioner is that the alleged sanction is not in accordance with law. The contention of petitioner in the quash petition is that the Principal Secretary is not the sanctioning authority, whereas in the reply affidavit petitioner stated that sanction was not given by the salctioning authority in accordance with law, as he has not gone through any record and there are no such averments in the sanction order vide G.O.Ms.No.157 dated 07.O9.2015.

16. After going through the said contention as the Government is the removal authority of the accused officer, the Principa-l Secretary is the proper authority for giving sanction and the contention that sanction order was not in accordance with law has to be adjudicated during the course of trial, as in the sanctioned G.O., the accusations were explained in detail. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of petitioner on this aspect. Viewed from any angle, the contentions raised by the petitioner are not at all tenable ald the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the petition against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed. A I,\ 1b -1,

17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. I\f i e^all.na^r r a nafifi^he ^.n.lino if 6nrr ch.ll cf anr{ nloscd SD/- K,BHAVANI SWAMY ASSITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases - cum- V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad 2. The station House Officer, ACB, City Range, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI R. PRABHAKAR, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies ADK/PSt, I \ HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3580 of 2025 a .,.1;i'\. - c; -.. a I t-. 30$tzffi \:t ' \- ',', DISMISSING THE CRLP ,4 /t J2/7