The High Court · 2025

ACB cases, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT 2 Pilli Swamy, S/o. Venkataiah, aged about 43 yrs. . Agriculture, Rio. Navabpet (V), Chigurumamidi (tr/), Karimnagar Dist. Telangana ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under section 528 oF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to cc No. 1\l2oz1 on the file of the court of Honble Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Karimnagar, and euash the same against the Petitioner/A- 1. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Pending disposal of this Criminal Petition, grant an interim stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/A 1 in CC No. 1812021 on the file of the Court of Honble Spl Judge for SpE and ACB Cases at Karimnagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dr G SRINIVASULU, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI T BALA MOHAN, Standrng counsel for ACB on behalf of the Respondent No..1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No.117 77 oF 202s ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No 1 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No 21IACB-KNR/2O18 on the file of P.S. ACB, Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act' 20'tB'

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Dr' G' Srinivasulu' learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T Bala ti/lohan' learned Standing Counsel for ACB.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted the allegations against the petitioner are absolutely false and the ingredients do not attract the alleged offences' He further submitted that the scheme is not entrusted to the petitioner and that the entire process of the said scheme was completed prior to the trap laid by the ACB and therefore, there is no iota of truth in the allegations leveled against the petitioner. He further relied upon case of K' Shanthamma Vs' State of Telanganal , wherein it was held by the Apex Court that fairure of the prosecution to prove the demand for iregar gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person- I 202{ online sc 2 t 3 2 EI'D.J Ctlp.lio.n7j7 2OZ5 accused of the offence under Section Z or 13 cf the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. He also place,J relianc e on Neeraj Datta Vs. State Government of NCT Dethi2,wherein it was held that the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. ln other words, mere acceptance or .eceipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not rnake it an offence underSection TorSection 13(1Xd), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. He further submitted that authentication of the electronic evidence under Section 65_8 is also not produced by the Department before the concerned Court and hence, there is no materiel to prove the offences against the petitioners herein. Therefore, the prosecution has no evidence to put forth that the petitioners have demanded bribe He further submitted that sanction for prosecution was not obtained in this case and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for ACB has submitted the prosecution could collect the entire material disclosing the demand and also acceptance. He further submitted that the mediators report also proves the offences against the petitioner herein. They have 'z0:z scc online SC I724 I 3 ETD.J Crlp.No.I 1777_2025 also recorded the audio, video conversation and proper certification under Section 65-8 is flled before the trial Court. Under Section 7_A of the Prevention of Corruption Act even attempt to make such a demand itself is sufficed to constitute the offence.

5. He further relied upon Dashrath Vs. Stafe of Maharashtra3, wherein it was held that if a draft order is placed before the sanctioning authority and he is satisfied that nothing needs to be added/deleted therefrom, the grant of sanction cannot be faulted merely on the ground of absence of addition of words to/deletion of words from the draft.

6. The counsel contended that the sanction of prosecution has been taken in this case, and it is a matter to be decided by the trial Court and that the sanction order not being placed on record, cannot be the ground to quash the proceedings. In.the said Dashrath,s case (supra), it was contended that the relevant Government Order was not brought on record in a manner known to law, but it was observed by the Apex Court that it is not the case of the appellant that such an order does not at all exist. lt was found that it does exist except that the relevant year of issuance thereof was mentioned in the judgment of the Special Court as .1g69, but the relevant r 2025 SCC Online SC 1054 I \ .-4: 1 D'fD..I Crlp.No.tI777 2025 Government Order was issued on 19rh April, 1989 that the Government Order having been issued authority conferred by the first proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of the corruption Act is an order having force of a stature and is therefore law in terms of the It was observed

7. Perused the record

8. Since the matter falls under Section 7 of the pC Act, the same is extracted here under for the sake of reference:- Section 7= Ofte bribed _Any r,';;: ::":l::,|,n:uo,o,:u"?nt beins acceptsorittemot"l"it,ini,r,olil,:;o:i!..,"0::,,J;o:: advantage. with me nbnlion t^ ^^.t^.^ ;;; ; ;", i,' ;l"' ;;',,,3,.!i i T, r: to peiorm such dutv either by himsetf olru,.'.?'!u,1'un"u 3," : ::::' ", ^.:,! n;|r:: , oy anolher public servanl. or , : " p;; Lf;:"i:"i, Z f * ;fi i:,, ! i, ;: ?J,::',::;:;:,"2:;l':^:' attempts to obtain an undue o r, a i s ni i e sl r:,! * torbearing ,o oeno!! such duty ii'"i" ni,,i."ar o, anolher pubtic servaru,. or (c) performs or induces another public seruant .to perform tmproperly or disht pubtic duty or ti' forbear performance o1 ,l!^"tlla in .anticipation of ot i, consequence o, u"l!!,-o-u'' iTii:ilil:i,i,x"i::y,:y*i:::ti::;,:::,::t "rt"nato,u,"i,iiuzfiilT",l:izf."#1,!,u[,;,,i#* E^planation 1._For th^e purpose of this seclion. lhe oblaining, acceptins r;!;;;iiii{i.i:t;!i:;,yi;f "y*fiX [' : : o:"': ;::;7o' ?!" I r t " i' ii'i 1i ii ti,i' I u * thousa;d" r;;e;|"',o' ^::^n'uu .h.im an amoun' ot rive process hr's routine ratbn card n, " I I EI'D,J Crlp.No.I 1777 2025 application on time section. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this Explanation 2.-For the purpose of this section,_ (i) the expresslons "obtains" or "accepts" or ,,attempts to oibtain,, shall .cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his- position as a public servant or by using nii personit influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or iltegal means; (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage direc y or through a third pafty. 1 l

9. The mediators reports are found in the file which do point out the allegations under Section 7-A of the pC Act against the petitioner and the conversation between the accused-officer and de- facto complainant is recorded by audio and video means and the I { same is also a part of record. A perusal of the said recording also points out the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe against the petitioner herein. The evidentiary value of the electronic evidence needs to be tested during the course of trial. The petitioner counsel has contended that under the principle laid down in K. Shanthamma's case (supra) and Neeraj Datta,s case cited (supra), when there is no evidence to establish demand on part of the petitioner, the case of prosecution fails. But in the present case as put forth by the prosecution, there is ample prima_facie material pointing out the demand and acceptance on behalf of the petitioner 6 IrID..l Cr lp No. I I 777 201-i herein. Therefore, the said contention cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. t 10 ln the result, the Criminal petition is dismissec. No costs Miscellaneous apprications pending, if any, shail stand crosed SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// \ sECTtoN oFFtcER I '1. The Special Judge for SpE & ACB Cases at Karimnagar 2. The Station House Officer, ACB Karimanagar police Statron, Karrmnagar 3. One CC to SRt Dr G SR|N|VASULU, Advocate tOpUCl t ?Si^??jB".JlJr?Af MoHAN REDD' (sc FoR ACB {rpl pp

5. Two CD Copies GR,/PSI- HIGH COURT DATED:23 t09t2O2S I ORDER CRLP.No.11Tt7 of 2025 4t 'J c J\' ( 31 0tT 295 * DISMISSING THE CRLP

9.l w le{