Orsu Yellamanda Raju S/o Late Malakondaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
2025-08-20
HARINATH N.
body2025
DigiLaw.ai
- ORDER : 1. The petitioner is seeking quash of CC.No.19 of 2019 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 and is facing trial for alleged offence under Section 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Sri.B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was entrusted to conduct survey with respect to land in Survey No.298/2, 299 and 300 at Maddaluru Village of Santanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District. The petitioner was required to conduct survey and fix boundaries of the subject lands. 3. It is alleged that the complainant approached the petitioner on several occasions for conducting survey. It is also alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.21,000/- for conducting survey and on 05.01.2014 accused No.2 visited and surveyed the lands in-part. The accused No.2 was paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- by LW.5. - 4. It is also alleged that the petitioner supervised the survey on09.10.2015 and asked LW.1 to meet the petitioner at his private office at Shanthapeta on 10.01.2015. It is also alleged that LWs.1 and 5 met the petitioner at his private office and that accused No.2 was also present at that time. Accused No.2 returned Rs.1,000/- rupee note as the same was not exchangeable. It is also alleged that petitioner demanded the remaining bribe amount of Rs.17,000/-. On account of inability to meet the demand for bribe, LWs.1 and 5 approached the ACB officials. 5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that a trap was laid and the case was registered vide Crime No.1/RCT/OGL/2015 of ACB, Prakasam District against the petitioner and another. The learned senior counsel further submits that the accused No.2 is a private surveyor and the accused No.1 was transferred on 02.01.2015 and he was relieved from the office of Tahsildar, S.N. Padu and directed to attend survey work in Capital Region, Vijayawada for a period of three months. It is also submitted that the petitioner was relieved from duty vide proceedings dated 08.01.2015. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner was no longer working in the office of Tahsildar, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal as a Surveyor as on the date of trap i.e., 12.01.2015.
It is also submitted that the petitioner was relieved from duty vide proceedings dated 08.01.2015. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner was no longer working in the office of Tahsildar, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal as a Surveyor as on the date of trap i.e., 12.01.2015. In such circumstances, there could not have been an occasion for the petitioner to demand and accept bribe for conducting a survey and issuing a report for the survey conducted by him. 7. It is submitted that no amount was recovered from the petitioner and that the Sodium carbonate Test was conducted on petitioner did not change colour, whereas, when the accused No.2 rinsed his fingers in a glass tumbler containing sodium carbonate, the solution turned pink. This would go to show that the money was recovered from the possession of accused No.2 and not from the petitioner. 8. The learned senior counsel further submits that there was no demand for bribe and acceptance of the bribe amount by the petitioner. It is submitted that the accused No.2 was a private surveyor and he was entitled to charge amount for the survey conducted by him. The License issued by the Commissioner, Department of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 17.07.2012 to the accused No.2 was valid and subsisting as on the date of survey. 9. The learned senior counsel further submits that there is no independent witness to establish the demand and acceptance. It is submitted that to charge the petitioner for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is essential for the prosecution to prove the demand for bribe by the charged officer and the acceptance of bribe in exchange of an official favour. In the present case there is no evidence of demand and an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid to accused No.2 and the return of Rs.1,000/- rupee note by the accused No.2 to LW.1 and subsequent payment of Rs.17,000/- to accused No.2 would only go to show that prima facie there was no demand for bribe by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the accused No.2 being a private surveyor was entitled to collect the survey fee as fixed by him. - 10. It is submitted that even as per the charge sheet amount was paid to accused No.2 and that no amount was recovered from the possession of petitioner.
It is also submitted that the accused No.2 being a private surveyor was entitled to collect the survey fee as fixed by him. - 10. It is submitted that even as per the charge sheet amount was paid to accused No.2 and that no amount was recovered from the possession of petitioner. It is also submitted that the mediators were supposed to accompany LW.1 and that they were standing outside when the trap was conducted. LWs.2 and 3 who worked as mediators had stood outside the place where the trap proceedings were conducted. As such, the allegations against the petitioner cannot sustain the scrutiny of trial. 11. The learned senior counsel places reliance on B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , (2014) 13 SCC 55 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be drawn under Section 7 of PC Act and not the offences under Section 13(d)(1) and (2) of PC Act and such presumption can be drawn only on proof of acceptance of the illegal gratification. When there is proof of acceptance of illegal gratification presumption under Section 20 of PC Act cannot subsist. C. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala , (2015) 11 SCC 314 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the case on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance of money by the charged officer. Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani Vs. State of Gujarat and another , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment also considered the issue relating to absence of allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe, presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be fastened in absence of the acquisition of demand for a bribe in exchange of an official favour and acceptance of the said bribe. - 12. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent filed counter and submits that the petitioner had filed CRLP.No.5647 of 2015, whereby the petitioner challenged the registration of crime against him and this Court dismissed the criminal petition by holding that the factum of the petitioner being relieved from the office of Tahsildar, S.N. Padu Mandal to CRDA, Vijayawada could not have been within the knowledge of the complainant and that there is every possibility for the petitioner to demand and accept bribe on 12.01.2015.
That apart, the mediator report would also show that the survey file was produced by the petitioner from his private office. It is also submitted that the petitioner had engaged the service of the accused No.2 for conducting survey and had portrayed the accused No.2 as a private surveyor for conducting survey. It is submitted that it was the duty of the petitioner to conduct survey, however, a third party has been introduced by the petitioner. The complainant had approached the petitioner to conduct a survey and to furnish a report, which is acceptable in any revenue office. The survey conducted by a private surveyor cannot be relied upon for any purposes and the complainant had approached the petitioner for survey of his property. The complainant did not approach the private surveyor for conducting survey of his property. As such, introduction of a private surveyor by the petitioner for conducting survey is only for facilitating the petitioner for demanding the illegal gratification. - 13. It is submitted that the trap proceedings were successfully completed and that the matter would have to be relegated for trial as all the grounds as raised by the petitioner for seeking quash of the case would have to be raised before the trial Court during the trial. The grounds raised by the petitioner seeking quash cannot be considered when there is ample evidence which is staring that the conduct of the petitioner and the issues are triable before the trial court and the petitioner can have the opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial. - 14. It is also submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are also not relevant at this stage as all the cases were after the trial was completed except for the judgment of Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani Vs. State of Gujarat and another, whereby the issue dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court pertaining to dismissal of a discharge petition. 15. The learned standing counsel further submits that the date on which the petitioner was transferred and the date on which the trap was conducted is completely different. The petitioner had resorted to making an illegal demand in exchange of an official favour inspite of his transfer from the said office would itself disclose the fraudulent intentions of the petitioner.
15. The learned standing counsel further submits that the date on which the petitioner was transferred and the date on which the trap was conducted is completely different. The petitioner had resorted to making an illegal demand in exchange of an official favour inspite of his transfer from the said office would itself disclose the fraudulent intentions of the petitioner. The petitioner was aware that he could no longer conduct a survey and issue a survey report as on the date of survey. However, with an eye on the bribe amount had engaged the services of a private surveyor and got conducted the survey. - 16. The learned standing counsel for the respondent places reliance on Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta , (1996) 5 SCC 591 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is essential to determine whether any prima facie case is made out or not for quashing a criminal complaint at the threshold before evidences are lead in support of the complaint. Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) and another , (1999) 8 SCC 728 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that quashing of a complaint by accepting the contention of the respondent that the investigating officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station at Delhi was not proper as the same would have to be determined only after a trial. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.M. Sharan , (2008) 4 SCC 471 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet would constitute a prima facie case, the Court should not quash the cases at the threshold. 17. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 18. The petitioner was working as a Surveyor at the office of Tahsildar, S.N. Padu Mandal and as per the proceedings dated 02.01.2015 he was relieved from his duty from the office of Tahsildar, S.N. Padu Mandal and was required to report to Commissioner, CRDA, Vijayawada. Further proceedings dated08.01.2015 confirmed the same. 19.
Perused the material on record. 18. The petitioner was working as a Surveyor at the office of Tahsildar, S.N. Padu Mandal and as per the proceedings dated 02.01.2015 he was relieved from his duty from the office of Tahsildar, S.N. Padu Mandal and was required to report to Commissioner, CRDA, Vijayawada. Further proceedings dated08.01.2015 confirmed the same. 19. If this Court is to go-by the submission of the learned senior counsel regarding the inability of the petitioner to conduct a survey and issue report even after his transfer is concerned, the same is a question of fact as to whether the petitioner relieved and joined duty at the new place of posting and whether the petitioner was on duty at his new place of posting is a matter to be ascertained during trial. 20. The further contention of the petitioner that there was no demand or acceptance by the petitioner is concerned, listed witnesses speak about the demand though no amount was recovered from the petitioner’s possession and the sodium carbonate solution did not turned pink when the petitioner rinsed his fingers in the said solution, the same is also a question of fact, which has to be determined before the trial Court. - 21. The findings of this Court in criminal petition No.5647 of 2015 with regard to the mediators report-II regarding production of the survey file by the petitioner from his private office would indicate that there is some correlation between the petitioner and the survey file as to why the same was pending in his private office if he is relieved on 08.01.2015. 22. On the facts of this case, there are several questions of fact which would have to be determined before the trial Court. This case does not fall within the ambit of consideration for quashing. The petitioner can raise all the grounds as raised in the quash petition before the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial. 23. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.