Telangana High Court

Bandi Venkateshwarlu vs The State Of Telangana on 23 September, 2025

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   CRIMINAL PETITION No.11777 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1

seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.21/ACB-KNR/2018 on

the file of P.S. ACB, Karimnagar, registered for the offences under

Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Dr. G. Srinivasulu, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Bala Mohan, 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 Telangana 1, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that

failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification

would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person-

2022 Online SC 213

ETD,J Crlp.No.11777_2025

accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not

entail his conviction thereunder. He also placed reliance on Neeraj

Datta Vs. State Government of NCT Delhi 2, 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. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal

gratification without anything more would not make it an offence

under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the

Act. He further submitted that authentication of the electronic

evidence under Section 65-B 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

2022 SCC Online SC 1724

ETD,J Crlp.No.11777_2025

also recorded the audio, video conversation and proper certification

under Section 65-B is filed 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. State of Maharashtra 3,

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. It was found that it does exist

except that the relevant year of issuance thereof was mentioned in

the judgment of the Special Court as 1969, but the relevant

2025 SCC Online SC 1054

ETD,J Crlp.No.11777_2025

Government Order was issued on 19th April, 1989. It was observed

that the Government Order having been issued in terms of the

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.

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:- Offence relating to public servant being bribed.--Any public servant who,-- (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Illustration.--A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card

ETD,J Crlp.No.11777_2025

application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.

Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this section,-- (i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain"

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 his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;

(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.

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

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