Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 172 (AP)

Kasineni Srinivasa Rao v. State of A. P.

2015-03-18

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2015
Judgment :- 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner/A1 seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.378 of 2014 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) A1 is the contesting candidate of Member of Parliament of Vijayawada Constituency from Telugu Desam Party (T.D.Party) during General Elections of 2014. A2 to A4 are his associates and sympathizers of T.D.Party. b) While so, on the night of 01.05.2014 at about 10 P.M. when the Sub-Inspector of Police of Sector-I, Governorpeta PS, Vijayawada along with staff was conducting patrolling, he found A2 and A3 along with gunny bag at Kesineni Cargo Godown situated at Namburi Gopala Rao Street, Hanumanpet and on suspicion when he enquired them, they revealed that they were vegetable vendors and they were working as election agents for A1 and A1 instructed them to distribute T.D.Party T shirts in their area, and they went to Kesineni Cargo Godown situated at Namburi Gopala Rao Street, Hanumanpet and secured T shirts in a gunny bag from A4 and came out for a vehicle to carry the gunny bag and in the meanwhile, the police came and caught them. They led the police to godown where A4 was present and after enquiring A4 the police recovered around 2860 T shirts packed in seven bags each containing about 400 T shirts. On examination they found that the T shirts were in yellow colour which was the colour of T.D.Party and with the pictures of A1, N.T.Rama Rao, Nara Chandra Babu Naidu and also cycle symbol. The accused confessed that those T shirts were meant to distribute to voters to influence them to vote for A1. The S.I. seized the T shirts and submitted a report to the Magistrate who in turn accepted it as a charge sheet and registered C.C.No.378 of 2014. 3 a) Denying the allegations, learned counsel for petitioner/A1 argued that T shirts and other articles like caps, towels, kanduvas, kurtas, cross banners, wrist bands etc. are only election material and intended to be distributed to the party workers for making election propaganda and hence such material cannot be treated as bribe to woo the voters. 3 a) Denying the allegations, learned counsel for petitioner/A1 argued that T shirts and other articles like caps, towels, kanduvas, kurtas, cross banners, wrist bands etc. are only election material and intended to be distributed to the party workers for making election propaganda and hence such material cannot be treated as bribe to woo the voters. He submitted that even assuming that A1 intended to distribute the T shirts to the voters to woo them, none of the voters would accept those T shirts as bribe and wear them for the reason that those T shirts are vividly imprinted with photos of political leaders and party symbol and further they are in the yellow colour i.e. the colour of T.D.Party. The recipients of those T shirts feel shy to wear them in public and therefore, those T shirts shall not be regarded as bribe to capture votes from the voters. On this main plank of argument, learned counsel sought for quashment of proceedings. b) Secondly, he argued that the same S.I. who is said to have conducted investigation laid charge sheet which is legally impermissible. He thus prayed to allow the petition. 4. In oppugnation, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the police have recovered large number i.e. 2860 T shirts from the godown of A1 and by no means such huge number of T shirts can be said to be intended to distribute to the party workers. The accused have clearly confessed that those T shirts were intended to be distributed to the voters to capture the votes and hence the act of accused clearly constitutes an offence under Section 171-E IPC. He further argued that merely because the T shirts containing political leaders and party logo and they were in the colour of T.D.Party, it cannot be said that voters will not accept them. He thus prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is: “Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?” 6. He thus prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is: “Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?” 6. POINT: The offence of bribery is explained in Sec.171B of I.P.C and its punishment is provided under Sec.171-E of I.P.C. Sec.171B reads thus: “Section 171B – Bribery: (1) Whoever-- (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section, (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he docs not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.” a) So as per Section 171-B(1) of IPC, a person gives gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right can be said to have committed the offence of bribery. The term ‘gratification’ has not been defined in the I.P.C or for that matter in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hon’ble Apex Court explained the term gratification in Mahmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1998 SC 2360 ) as follows: “Para 7: The primary condition for acting on the legal presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act is that the prosecution should have proved that what the accused received was gratification. The word "gratification" is not defined in the Act. Hence it must be understood in its literal meaning. The word "gratification" is not defined in the Act. Hence it must be understood in its literal meaning. In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, the word "gratification" is shown to have the meaning "to give pleasure or satisfaction to". The word "gratification" is used in Section 4(1) to denote acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient. If the money paid is not for personal satisfaction or pleasure of the recipient it is not gratification in the sense is used in the section.” 7 a) From the above, it is clear that the term gratification should be understood in the perspective of the recipient rather than the giver that is to say whatever has been paid by the giver should give pleasure or satisfaction to the recipient. Here, one more thing should be noted. The term gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or gratification estimable in money. It embraces all forms of gratification in the ordinary and simple meaning of term gratification. The scope of the meaning of the word gratification is thus very wide and will cover any return which pleases for some favour done. So in order to hold a person guilty of offering bribe to another person under Sec.171-B of IPC, the giver may pay money or kind to the recipient but it must please or satisfy the recipient to exercise any electoral right. It is, in this context, we have to see whether the accused are guilty of the offence of bribery under Sec.171-B or not. b) As per prosecution, they seized from A.2 to A.4, 2860 T shirts which are in yellow colour i.e, the colour of T.D Party and having on them the pictures of A.1, N.T. Rama Rao, Nara Chandra Babu Naidu and the cycle symbol. The crucial question at this juncture is, even assuming that the A.1 and his electoral agents tried to distribute those T shirts which are said to be valued at Rs.12/- each, to the voters to woo them, whether such T shirts can be termed as gratification to satisfy the voters. As rightly pointed out by counsel for petitioner, the recipients cannot use them freely unlike other clothes as they feel shy to wear them since those T shirts manifestly exhibit themselves as belong to a particular political party. As rightly pointed out by counsel for petitioner, the recipients cannot use them freely unlike other clothes as they feel shy to wear them since those T shirts manifestly exhibit themselves as belong to a particular political party. The passers by and even the inmates of the house will taunt the wearers. So by no stretch of imagination, one can say those T shirts with the given colour and pictures, will give satisfaction to the recipients to term as gratification. Therefore, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner that those T shirts are part of the election material intended for the party workers and election agents as they are bound to wear them as a part of election propaganda. However, that is not the case with the voters. Moreover, admittedly the T shirts were found and seized in the godown of A.1 but they were not seized when they were being distributed to the public and particularly the voters. Except the alleged confession of A.2 to A.4, there is no independent material to hold that those T shirts were secured for distribution to the voters. In these circumstances, continuation of proceedings will certainly amount to abuse of process of law. 8. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.378 of 2014 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are quashed against petitioner/A.1. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.