Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Patan Ali Khan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
APHC010053462023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 92/2023
Between:
Patan Ali Khan ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAJENDRA C
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. S M SUBHANI (SC FOR ACB AND SPL PP)
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2023
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.92 OF 2023
ORDER:
A Deputy Tahsildar being accused No.1 in C.C.No.8 of
2022 filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti
Corruption Bureau, Kadapa for the offences under Sections 7 and
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
prayed for his discharge before the learned Special Judge for trial
of SPE and ACB Cases at Kurnool. His prayer in Crl.M.P.No.963
of 2022 in C.C.No.8 of 2022 was heard and by order dated
12.12.2022 the learned Special Judge found no merit in it and
dismissed it and thus, refused to discharge him. That forced him
to file this revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
2. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the
Village Revenue Officer who was arraigned as accused No.2 in
C.C.No.8 of 2022.
3. Sri C.Rajendra, the learned counsel for revision petitioner
and Sri S.M.Subhani, the learned Standing Counsel for ACB and
Dr. VRKS, J
Special Public Prosecutor submitted their respective arguments.
Both sides cited legal authorities.
4. This revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.963 of 2022 in
C.C.No.8 of 2022 before the learned trial Court under Section 239
Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. Therefore, it is appropriate to
notice Section 239 Cr.P.C., which reads as mentioned below:
"239. When accused shall be discharged:--If, upon
considering the police report and the documents sent with it
under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of
the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after
giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of
being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against
the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the
accused, and record his reasons for so doing."
5. It is incumbent upon the Court below to consider the
material placed before it and the submissions made before it and
if it comes to a view that the accusation against the accused is
groundless then it is bound to discharge him. In other words, if
the accusation against the accused is discernible from the
material available on record, it has to charge him and proceed
further with the trial of the case. In the opinion of the trial Court,
there was prima facie material and in that view of the matter it
Dr. VRKS, J
dismissed the petition. This being a revision, this Court now has
to consider whether the view taken by the learned Special Judge
is illegal or irregular or improper and whether the material on
record discloses any facts constituting the offences or not as
against this petitioner. The test which may be applied for
determining whether the charge would be considered groundless
is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted,
would make out no case whatsoever. At the stage of charge
hearing, the Court below was to consider the report of the
investigation agency and the documents sent along with it and
give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to make
their submissions based on that material. On considering those
aspects, if it finds there is legal evidence to proceed further, it
should charge him and if it finds no ground to proceed further, it
should discharge him. "Groundless means there shall be no
basis or foundation in evidence to make an accusation" vide
State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Soundirarasu1. In view of these
principles, now it must be seen whether there is no ground for
presuming that the revision petitioner has committed the offence
or not.
(2023) 6 SCC 768
Dr. VRKS, J
6. Briefly stated the facts are this:
Sri Gorla Obulesh is the one who moved the criminal
justice machinery. He intended to purchase an immovable
property and obtained an agreement for sale from the vendor and
thereafter as it did not materialize into a sale deed, he had to sue
him and finally he had obtained a decree in his favour. During
execution proceedings, he got his registered sale deed through
the process of law. It was in that context he required his
passbooks since the property involved is Ac.6.46 cents of
agricultural land in Survey No.302/1. That need made him to
move the officers and staff of Tahsildar, Yerraguntla. This
revision petitioner was working as Deputy Tahsildar in that office.
Respondent No.2 was attached to that office in the capacity of
Village Revenue Officer. The case of the prosecution would
show multiple number of times the citizen approaching the
officers especially these two and they demanded for bribe. The
allegations are that each of them demanded money to do the
work that was required. Finally, he told them that he would pay
money, but met the ACB and the legal process commenced. A
necessary trap was laid and the decoy went to the office and
Dr. VRKS, J
found A.1 and A.2 together in the office room. A.1 questioned
him whether he brought the money and the decoy told him that he
brought the demanded Rs.10,000/- for obtaining his passbook.
On listening to his reply, the revision petitioner/A.1 told him to pay
the bribe amount to A.2. He handed over Rs.10,000/- to A.2
which he counted and kept it in his left side upper pocket of the
shirt. Matters did not end there. A.2 asked about his share of
bribe and the decoy told him that he brought the demanded
Rs.5,000/- and he handed it over to A.2. This time A.2 received it
and kept it in the left side pocket of trousers. The raiding team
came and they got A.1 and A.2. From the shirt pocket as well as
pocket of trousers of A.2, the tainted currency was recovered and
on conducting test using sodium carbonate solution, it yielded
positive result. Thus, bribe demanded by both the accused and
was paid by the decoy were physically recovered from A.2 only.
The test was conducted to the hands of A.1 and that did not yield
any result. Investigation progressed further and citing 18
witnesses, the charge sheet was laid after obtaining necessary
sanction orders from the Government.
Dr. VRKS, J
7. It is against record so available, the revision petitioner/A.1
seeks his discharge. In this revision, the following grounds are
urged:
The allegations made against him are false.
He has been discharging his duties as per the work
manuals in issuing pattadar passbooks and for
entering the entries in the web land. He has never
violated his duties.
The allegations levelled against him are far from truth.
The record produced including Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statements do not indicate any iota of evidence.
Statement of the decoy/LW.1 made before the learned
Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and made
before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were
contradictory to each other.
The witnesses cited in the charge sheet are pocket
witnesses of the State.
Dr. VRKS, J
Tahsildar is the competent officer to issue passbooks,
but the petitioner is falsely implicated.
There is no conspiracy between this revision petitioner
and respondent No.2.
The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the real
facts and circumstances and failed to appreciate the
essence of concept of prima facie case in this type of
cases.
The rulings cited by the revision petitioner were not
properly considered by the trial Court.
Since the material on record itself indicated that the
tainted money was not with the petitioner, there was
no acceptance of bribe and therefore, he should be
discharged.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner cited E.Venkataiah v. State
of A.P.2.
2014 (1) ALT(CRI.) 82 (A.P.)
Dr. VRKS, J
9. That was a case where after due trial, the accused was
convicted by the trial Court under various provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the appeal placed before
this Court, a learned Judge found that the trial Court committed
an error in invoking the presumption contained in Section 20 of
Prevention of Corruption Act; since such presumption would arise
only when the prosecution was able to prove the basic facts but
not otherwise. Observing that the evidence on record did not
establish voluntary acceptance of tainted amount and did not
establish recovery of tainted amount from the accused, this Court
found doubts in the veracity of the prosecution and granted the
benefit of that doubt and upset the trial Court judgment and
acquitted the accused.
10. Emphasizing his contention, the learned counsel submits
that the revision petitioner is innocent, and his innocence can be
clearly seen in the fact that his hands were clean, and nothing
was recovered from him.
11. Truth or otherwise of the prosecution case, the strength
and weakness of the case and the quality of the evidence that is
proposed are matters that require trial. However, the stage of the
Dr. VRKS, J
case is earlier to the commencement of the trial. Here Court is
not concerned with truth or otherwise of the allegations and it is
obliged to see what the allegations are and whether those
allegations are made based on any facts available through the
oral statements of the witnesses or the documents. If such
allegations are based on such material and if those allegations
indicate demand and acceptance of bribe, then one must
necessarily record that there is a prima facie case. The material
on record in this case does in detail contain the statements of the
witnesses showing that there has been consistent demand for
bribe on part of this petitioner. Coming to acceptance of the
bribe, the oral statements on record abundantly show that a
dialogue took place between the petitioner and the decoy
consequent upon which the decoy handed over the bribe money
to A.2. The fact from the record is that in two separate bunches
from two different places of his wearing apparels of A.2, tainted
money was received. This one fact when read in this context
standing in the shoes of decoy it would be noticed that to meet
the demand of this revision petitioner he had paid the amount in
the manner directed by him. If all this material remains
unrebutted, it would certainly show facts that would constitute the
Dr. VRKS, J
penal provisions for which the charge sheet was filed. The fact
that nothing was recovered from this revision petitioner is a fact
that would fall for consideration in assessing the credibility of the
evidence as and when it is produced. Merely because tainted
money was not received by the very hands of the public servant
has no bearing at this stage as he was in the company of his
accomplice who was holding tainted money meant for both. In
similar circumstances, this Court laid the law refusing to
discharge and reference in this regard could be made to
O.Yellamanda Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3.
12. In the light of what is mentioned above, it is clear to the
mind of this Court that the learned Special Judge appropriately
appreciated the material on record and rightly considered the
legal position and arrived at proper conclusions. The refusal to
discharge is the reasoned order passed by the learned Special
Judge. This Court finds no illegality or impropriety or irregularity
in the said order. Therefore, no interference is needed.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The
impugned order dated 12.12.2022 of learned Special Judge for
Crl.P.No.5647 of 2015 dated 14.06.2018
Dr. VRKS, J
trial of SPE and ACB Cases at Kurnool in Crl.M.P.No.963 of 2022
in C.C.No.8 of 2022 stands confirmed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 06.08.2024
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.92 OF 2023
Date: 06.08.2024
Ivd
