Telangana High Court
State, Rep. Pp., Acb Hyd.Range, Thr ... vs Smt. R.Padma, Alwal Section, R.R.Dt., on 25 June, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1187 OF 2012
Between:
State rep. by Inspector of Police,
Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad
... Appellant/
Complainant
And
Smt.R.Padma
... Respondent/
Accused Officer
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 25.06.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ Criminal Appeal No. 1187 OF 2012
% Dated 25.06.2024
# State rep. by Inspector of Police,
Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad
... Appellant/
Complainant
And
$ Smt.R.Padma
... Respondent/
Accused Officer
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sridhar Chikyala,
Standing Counsel for ACB
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Srinivasa Srikanth
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
AIR 1957 SC 13
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1187 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the order of
acquittal recorded by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB
Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.9 of 2009, for the
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard the Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1 lodged a
complaint with the ACB-DSP, alleging that the respondent-Accused
Officer was a labour Contractor, working in the office of the Manager,
Alwal Circle, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board (for short "HMWS&SB") of Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation. She was entrusted with the work of receiving and
dispatching the applications concerned with the grant of water tap
connections. PW1 was looking after newly constructed house of
hisson. On 08.07.2008, he went to submit application seeking water
connection and also enclosed DD for Rs.500/- as required. However,
the accused refused to take the application for processing, unless
Rs.3,000/- was given towards bribe. Aggrieved by the said demand of
bribe by the accused, PW1 filed a complaint with the ACB on
15.07.2008. On 16.07.2008, trap was arranged. The trap party went
to the HMWS&SB office where she was present and on the demand
made by her, the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- passed on by PW1.
4. After trap, the investigation was handed over to the Inspector
who filed charge sheet. Learned Special Judge framed charges for the
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and examined the defacto complainant as PW1
and PWs.2 to 10. On behalf of the prosecution Exs.P1 to P14 were
marked.
5. Learned Special Judge, initially, framed Point No.1, which is as
follows;
"(i) Whether the A.O. was the "public servant" within the
meaning of Section 2(c ) of the Act and whether the A.O can
be prosecuted without obtaining any sanction under Section
19 of the Act?"
6. Learned Special Judge found that according to the witnesses
PWs.3, 5 who are working in the office stated that the accused was
pending contract labourers and the HMWS&SB has no authority to
remove the accused officer. Further, according to PW4, salary was not
paid by the GHMC and it was the consolidated cheque given to the
accused who is a labour contractor for providing labour from time to
time. PW5 who is another labour contractor stated that in accordance
with the procedure, GHMC would take labourers supplied by them.
The Department used to pay Rs.3,500/- for unskilled labour and
Rs.4,500/- for skilled labour.
7. The learned Special Judge relied on the Judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court in G.A.Monterio v. State of Ajmeer 1
wherein it is held that the test to determine whether a person is a
'public servant' within the meaning of section 21 of the IPC and
Section 2 ( c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is the ascertainment
of the question as to whether that person was in the service or pay of
the Government and whether he was entrusted with the performance
of public duty. The Honourable Supreme Court held that unless the
said two requirements are met, it cannot be said that a person is a
public servant. In the present case, no sanction was filed by the
prosecution, though it was claimed by PW10-Investigation Officer that
they have obtained sanction.
8. The learned Special Judge found that the accused was not a
public servant within the meaning of section 2 ( c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and she was not liable for the offence under Section 7
and 13 (1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
AIR 1957 SC 13
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the
State would submit that since the Labour Contractor would be paid
fees by the Department, it has to be considered that she falls within
the definition of public servant.
10. The said argument cannot be sustained for the reason of
accused entering into a contract with the Department for supply of
labour. When Labourers are supplied, in accordance with the services
that were rendered by the labour, consolidated payment is made by
the Department for the labourers. The Labour Contractor in the
present circumstances who provides contract labour on a monetary
fixed payment basis, it cannot be said that he is a public servant,
within the meaning of Section 2 ( c) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The accused is not appointed by the State nor any salary is paid
to her. Since there is no infirmity in finding that the accused Officer
is not a public servant and no sanction was obtained, there is no
necessity to delve into the other facts of the case.
11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 25.06.2024
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1187 OF 2012
Date: 25.06.2024
tk
