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
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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.
(2015) 10 SCC 152
(2016) 12 SCC 150
Criminal Appeal No.1943 of 2024
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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
