Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Md.Ghouse Mohiddin vs State Rep By Range Inspector Iii on 16 March, 2026
APHC010030602006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1325/2006
Between:
1. MD.GHOUSE MOHIDDIN, S/O. SHAMSHUDDIN, SUB-
TREASURY OFFICER, VISSANNAPET, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. STATE REP BY RANGE INSPECTOR III, VIJAYAWADA
RANGE, VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying
that the High Court may be pleased to represent this Memorandum
of Grounds of Criminal Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the
Judgment of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,
Vijayawada, in C.C.No.5 of 2002, dated 15th day of September,
2006.
IA NO: 1 OF 2006 (CRLAMP 1654 OF 2006
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the
sentence passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,
Vijayawada, in CC.No.5 of 2002, dated 15.9.2006 and release the
petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.
2
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. RAVITEJA PADIRI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB
The Court made the following:
3
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1325 OF 2006
J U D G M E N T:
The appeal is preferred by the appellant/convict/accused
challenging the Judgment dated 15.09.2006 delivered in
C.C.No.05 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases at Vijayawada.
2. The Special Judge recorded the order of conviction for the
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the P.C. Act‘) against
the appellant, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the
offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The appellant was
further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three (03) months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.
4
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred
to as they were arraigned before the learned Special Court.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
4. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused is
working as Sub-Treasury Officer, Vissannapet at Krishna District.
On 06.04.2001 and on 11.04.2001, the accused demanded Sri
P.V.Subba Rao (PW-5), Senior Assistant, Government Junior
College, Vissannapeta to pay gratification, other than legal
remuneration of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for doing
official favour i.e., passing the G.P.F. temporary advance bill of Sri
P.V.Subba Rao. In continuation of the said demand, the accused
on 12.04.2001 at about 4:00 p.m., again demanded PW-5 to pay
the above amount for doing the official favour mentioned above.
Accordingly, PW-5 paid the amount to the accused, on 12.04.2001,
at about 4:10 p.m., in the Sub-Treasury Office at Vissannapeta.
Informed the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Officials, PW-7 and
others, conducted post trap proceedings, seized the tainted
amount under the cover of post trap proceedings in the presence
of mediators. After conclusion of investigation, PW-8 laid the police
report before the Special Court.
5
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
5. The accused was charged for the offence under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The accused
pleaded not guilty for the charge.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION:
6. The prosecution to prove the charge examined eight
witnesses i.e., PWs-1 to 8 respectively and filed Exs.P1 to P12
documents apart from MOs-1 to 7. Exs.X1 to X8 were also marked
during the evidence.
7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
regarding incriminating circumstances appearing against him from
the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances
as false and not true. Three witnesses were examined for the
defence as D.Ws-1 to 3.
FINDING OF THE SESSIONS COURT:
8. Basing on the above evidence, the learned Special Court
found the accused guilty of the above offence, convicted and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal came to
be preferred by the appellant/accused.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
9. Sri Raviteja Padiri, learned counsel for the appellant/
accused would argue that it is the specific case of the prosecution
6
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
that the accused demanded payment of the bribe amount on
06.04.2001, 11.04.2001 and 12.04.2001 at about 4.00 p.m.
Therefore, PW-5 presented a report to PW-7, which was registered
as FIR in the case on 12.04.2001. Later, PW-7 conducted pre-trap
proceedings as well as post-trap proceedings and seized the
tainted money from the possession of the accused.
10. It is the specific case of the accused that PW-5 did not make
any demand for bribe on 06.04.2001, 11.04.2001 or 12.04.2001 as
alleged by the prosecution. He was falsely implicated in the case
by PW-5 colluding with some of the officials in the Sub-Treasury
Office. Earlier, the accused refused to pass certain bills of PW-5
and other employees of the college on certain grounds, as
concurrence of the Government was required. But later, in his
absence, one of the employees of the Sub-Treasury Office passed
the bill, which was objected by the accused. Therefore, the higher
authorities issued a memo to the concerned official who passed
the said bills. Hence, the said employee and employees of the
college of PW-5 had grouse against the accused and implicated
him in this case. He would further submit that the evidence of
PW-5 is sufficient to say that the case of the prosecution is false.
7
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
11. It is the case of the prosecution that accused officer made
the demand initially on 06.04.2001 for passing the G.P.F.
temporary advance bill of PW-5. The evidence of PW-5 would
show that he did not submit any application on 06.04.2001 or
earlier in his college for sanction of temporary advance of G.P.F.
Therefore, PW-5 meeting the accused on 06.04.2001 would not
arise. He would submit that PW-5 deposed that he informed
accused officer about the bill presented in the college on
11.04.2001 for sanction and that bill will come to treasury for
passing and disbursement of the amount. On 11.04.2001, he
informed over telephone available at the house of accused officer.
At that time, the accused officer again made the demand for
payment of the bribe amount.
12. PW-5 in the cross-examination did not say what is the
telephone number of the accused officer’s house. No material is
placed on record to prove that the accused officer is having
telephone facility at his residence to probabilise the case of the
prosecution that PW-5 spoke to accused officer over telephone on
11.04.2001. PW-5 purposefully deposed that he does not know the
telephone number of accused officer. He knows very well that
accused officer is not having any such telephone facility. The
8
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
prosecution intentionally did not take steps to produce record
relating to telephone service available at accused officer’s House,
as it would disclose the truth that accused officer is not having any
such facility. In those circumstances, no evidence is coming forth
to establish that PW-5 spoke to accused officer over telephone on
11.04.2001. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that accused
officer made demand on 11.04.2001 also not proved.
13. He would further argue that it is the case of the prosecution
that on 12.04.2001, PW-5 again met accused officer at 4:10 p.m.,
on 12.04.2001 regarding passing of the bills. Then, accused officer
reiterated the demand for payment of the gratification amount to
pass the bills. Therefore, PW-5 paid Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) to the accused officer. Then, he informed trap
party and trap party came and seized the tainted money from the
possession of the accused. PW-5 in the cross-examination
admitted that he presented the bill relating to G.P.F. advance and
another bill of a lecturer for passing and payment of the amount in
the treasury on 12.04.2001. Both the bills were passed by the
accused officer. Amount payable under the said bills also
disbursed by the Sharoff. He also signed in the register of the
Sharoff, acknowledging receipt of the amount paid under the bills.
9
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
It would establish that the bills were passed, amount was
disbursed, by the time, PW-5 met accused officer in the evening.
14. In fact, the evidence of Investigating Officer and the FIR in
the case would disclose that the PW-5 presented a report to
Investigating Officer at about 7:00 a.m., on 12.04.2001, alleging
that accused officer making demand to do the official favour. PW-5
admit that he presented the bills on 12.04.2001, after treasury
opened. It means after 10:30 a.m. in the morning. Therefore, no bill
of PW-5 or any other employee of PW-5’s college pending with
accused officer, by the time PW-5 presented the report to PW-7.
It would disclose that PW-7 without making any enquires about the
truth of the contents of the report causally registered the report as
an FIR and proceeded with investigation. PW-5 for the reasons
best known to him, mislead PW-7 and made PW-7 to proceed with
trap proceedings, though bills were passed and amount was paid
to him in the morning itself. In those circumstances, the
prosecution failed to prove the ingredient of demand which is sine
qua non to prove the case of the prosecution i.e., obtainment as
mentioned as Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act,
1988.
10
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
15. He would further submit that in the light of Judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta V. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi)1 in Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009, if it is the case
of the prosecution that Government servant obtained the
gratification, other than legal remuneration, the prosecution must
established both the ingredients, demand and receipt. Both are
sine qua non to prove the obtainment as mentioned in Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.
16. In the case on hand, the above circumstances would show
that prosecution miserably failed to prove the demand. Therefore,
the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable either on facts or
in law. The trial Court evidently made a gross mistake in observing
that PW-5 presented application for G.P.F. advance on
04.04.2001, though it is not the case of the prosecution at any
point of time.
17. On the other hand, Ex. P6 coupled with the evidence of.
PW-5 would disclose that he presented the application in the
college on 11.04.2001. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court is not
in accordance with facts.
1
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724
11
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ACB:
18. Learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor
for ACB, Sri S.Syamsunder Rao, per contra would argue that the
prosecution by examining PWs-1, 5, mediator and trap laying
officer proved its case for the offence under Section 7 and
Seciton13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The evidence on
record would establish that the accused officer made a demand for
gratification other than legal remuneration to pass the G.P.F. bill of
PW-5, and therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant.
There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial
Court.
19. In the light of above rival submissions, the point that would
arise for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is as under:
“Whether there are grounds to interfere with the
judgment of the trial Court”?POINT:
20. The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused
made demand for gratification other than legal remuneration to do
official favour i.e., passing of G.P.F. advance bill of PW-5.
12
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
21. The case of the prosecution is that PW-5 presented an
application in the college prior to 06.04.2001 for sanction of G.P.F.
advance. Immediately, he met the accused who is Sub-Treasury
Officer informed him that his G.P.F. bill will come to the treasury
and requested the accused to pass the bill and to pay the amount.
Then, the accused made demand for Rs.1,000/- to pass the bill.
Again, PW-5 contacted the accused on 11.04.2001 over telephone
available at the residence of the accused and requested him to
pass the bill. The accused reiterated the demand for bribe. Later,
PW-1 met the accused at 4:10 p.m. on 12.04.2001 during post trap
proceedings, then also the accused made demand for payment of
Rs.1,000/- to pass the bill. Then PW-1 paid the amount rest is the
story mentioned in post trap proceedings.
22. PW-5 evidence plays vital role regarding demand to prove
the demand. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution is obtainment
of gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused.
23. In the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj
Dutta‘s case, the prosecution has to prove two ingredients i.e.,
demand and receipt of the bribe amount by the accused to
establish their case of obtainment.
13
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
ANALYSIS:
24. PW-5 in his evidence categorically admitted that he
presented the application for sanction of G.P.F on 11.04.2001.
The application under Ex. P6 also would show that Principal signed
on the application on 11.04.2001. Therefore, when application
disclose that it was received in the college on 11.04.2001, question
of presenting the same on 06.04.2001 or earlier is not believable.
25. As already discussed above, admittedly, PW-5 did not meet
the accused officer personally on 11.04.2001. It is the case of the
prosecution that he spoke to the accused over telephone. PW-5
said he does not know the telephone number. It is the case of the
accused that no such telephone facility is available at his
residence. The prosecution did not collect any evidence from the
telephone authorities to show that telephone facility is available in
the house of the accused at the relevant point in time. Nothing is
on record corroborating the statement of PW-5 to show that he
spoke to the accused on 11.04.2001 over telephone and the
accused made demand for bribe.
26. The FIR and the evidence of PW-7 would disclose that PW-1
presented a report to PW-7 at 7:00 a.m., on 12.04.2001. PW-5 in
the evidence, admit that a bill was presented to Treasury on
14
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
12.04.2001. It would show that no bill was pending with the
accused, by the time, PW-5 presented a report to PW-7 on
12.04.2001 at 7 a.m. The evidence of PW-5 would disclose that
bills were presented in the Treasury on 12.04.2001 during office
hours. They were passed immediately, amount due under the bills
also paid to PW-5, Sharoff obtained signature of PW-5 in the
treasury register for payment of the amount, in the morning itself.
Therefore, question of pending official favour with PW-1 at 4:10
p.m. on 12.04.2001 will not arise. Hence, in those circumstances,
the evidence of PW-1 that the accused demanded him to pay the
bribe amount at 4:10 p.m. in the evening is unbelievable.
27. Therefore, in the light of above facts and circumstances,
there is no other evidence on record to believe the case of the
prosecution regarding demand made on 06.04.2001, 11.04.2001
and 12.04.2001. In the absence of evidence to establish the
demand which is sine qua non to prove the case of obtainment,
convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 is not sustainable in
law. Therefore, the judgment of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases at Vijayawada is liable to be set-aside.
15
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
CONCLUSION:
28. In the light of foregoing discussion, the Criminal Appeal shall
be allowed, setting aside the judgment of the learned Special
Court.
RESULT:
29. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The order of
conviction recorded by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at
Vijayawada is set aside. The appellant/Accused is acquitted for the
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C.
Act, 1988. The fine amount if any, paid by the appellant/accused
shall be refunded to him, in accordance with law. This judgment be
certified to the Trial Court, as per Section 405 of Cr.P.C.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
16.03.2026
Pmk
16
BVLNC,J
Crl.A.No.1325 of 2006
158
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1325 of 2006
Date: 16.03.2026
Pmk