Telangana High Court
Dr.Kunta Ramakrishna vs The State Of Telangana on 3 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6352 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.69 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Court for SPE and ACB Cases - cum - III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, engaged in the medical gases business for the past 22 years, had received a purchase order for a liquid oxygen plant at MGM Hospital, Warangal. He also operates through a sister concern, M/s Sri Tulasi Agencies, Hanamkonda, owned by his wife, Smt. Bindu, which has supplied medical gases and surgical items to the hospital for the last 10 years. Under existing orders (Rc.No.S2/10397/2009 dated 18-01-2011), uninterrupted supply of medical gases has been made to MGM Hospital, particularly for emergency and Arogyasri 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6352 of 2025 patients. Bills amounting to Rs.10,84,000/- for March and April 2013 were pending clearance, though previously approved by the former Superintendent. After a new Administrative Officer (AO) assumed charge in May 2013, the complainant repeatedly requested payment clearance. On 02.07.2013, the AO allegedly demanded a 15% bribe to process the bills. When the complainant refused, the AO again insisted on 12.07.2013, summoning him to his clinic in Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda. On 13.07.2013, the AO reiterated the demand and threatened to obstruct the proposed oxygen plant's functioning if the bribe, Rs.1,50,000/-, was not paid. Although the complainant initially agreed under pressure, he instead approached the DSP, ACB, and filed a written complaint requesting necessary action.
3. Basing on the same, the ACB Officials registered the case in Crime No.09/ACB - WRL/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.69 of 2024, before the learned Special Court for SPE and ACB Cases - cum - III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. 3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.6352 of 2025 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him.
4. Heard Sri R. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are manifestly untenable and constitute a gross abuse of the process of law and that the FIR dated 13.07.2013 and the consequential charge sheet under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, do not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioner, who had already retired from service and was no longer in a position to extend any official favour. He further submitted that the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe are unsupported by credible evidence, and the trap proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities, including the absence of any direct recovery from the petitioner and the lack of independent witnesses to corroborate the version of the prosecution and 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6352 of 2025 that the complainant himself is facing criminal proceedings under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, thereby casting serious doubt on the bona fides of the allegations.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on several authoritative pronouncements to support the plea for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner i.e., in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand and acceptance is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the PC Act. Similarly, in V. Sejappa v. State 2, it was reiterated that demand is a sine qua non for the offence. The petitioner also placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Pratap Singh Verka 3 , where the Court underscored the mandatory requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act before cognizance can be taken. He further contended that in light of the absence of sanction, lack of prima facie evidence, and the malicious intent behind the complaint, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 1 (2015) 10 SCC 152 2 (2016) 12 SCC 150 3 Criminal Appeal No.1943 of 2024 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6352 of 2025
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that that the trap proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law and yielded conclusive evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner and that the phenolphthalein test conducted immediately after the trap confirmed the presence of the tainted currency in the possession of the petitioner, and the recovery was made from a concealed location within his private clinic, thereby negating any possibility of false implication. He further submitted that the petitioner voluntarily admitted to having received the bribe amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant for clearing pending bills related to the supply of oxygen cylinders, and such admission was corroborated by the mediators' reports and the complainant's consistent statement. He contended that the procedural safeguards under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were duly followed, and the sanction for prosecution was not required as the petitioner had already retired from service. He further contended that once demand and acceptance are established through credible evidence, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act operates against 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6352 of 2025 the accused, and the burden shifts to him to rebut the same. In light of the overwhelming material collected during investigation, including the recovery of tainted currency, chemical test results, and corroborative witness statements, he prayed the Court that the matter requires trial. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and on a careful perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the report of the mediators, the phenolphthalein test results, and the voluntary admission of the petitioner collectively disclose a prima facie case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, attracting the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9. It is evident from the record that the petitioner's right- hand fingers tested positive for phenolphthalein and that the tainted currency was recovered from a concealed place in his private clinic. These facts stand corroborated by the 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6352 of 2025 mediators as well as the trap party, in addition to the petitioner's own post-trap admission. The version of the complainant has remained consistent and finds support from contemporaneous records, including the mediator's report and the case diary. Further, all procedural safeguards appear to have been duly complied with, and the integrity of the trap proceedings remains unimpeached.
10. As regards the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand and acceptance would not be sufficient to convict an accused. However, in the present case, both demand and acceptance are established through direct evidence, including forensic confirmation. Further, in the case of V. Sejappa (cited supra), while reiterating that demand is a sine qua non for conviction under the Act, the Court noted that in cases where demand is established through clear evidence or admission, the bar is satisfied. In the present case, the petitioner himself has admitted the demand post-trap. Furthermore, the reliance 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6352 of 2025 placed on State of Punjab (cited supra) is also misplaced as the question of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act does not arise herein, as the petitioner had already retired from service prior to the initiation of proceedings.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature, which requires trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K. SUJANA Date: 03.07.2025 SAI