RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE SPE CASES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried in C.C.No. 35 of 1977 on the file of the Special Judge for Special Police Establishment Cases, Hyderabad for an offence under Sec, 420 I.P.C. and for an offence under Sec. 5 (i) (d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act under two different counts. He was convicted thereof and sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment for one year under each of the charges framed against him. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made two main submissions. His first submission is that even assuming the appellant received money from P.Ws. 1,2 and 9 for securing some jobs to P.Ws. 2 and 9, the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. have not been made out and therefore the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 420 I.P.C. under the two counts cannot stand. His second submission is that the appellant at the relevant time was working as a Superintendent (Accounts) in the office of the Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, and he never abused his position as a public servant in collecting monies from P.Ws. 1, 2 and 9 for securing jobs to P.Ws, 2 and 9 in other offices and he cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec. 5 (i) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) The following facts become material, The appellant was working as Superintendent (Accounts) in the office of the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Port Trust, Visakhapatnam from 9-2-1972, N. Venkata Rao (P.W. 7) and the appellant have know each other since some time prior to 1972. P.W. 7 has been working at Vijayawada as a Clerk in the South Central Railway. J. Hanumantha Rao (P.W, 5) while working as a Head Master at Valluripalem was residing as a tenant in the bouse of P.W.1, a resident of Vallurupalem P.W. 2, the son of P.W. 1 appeared for the Intermediate Examination in 1971 but failed in that examination. Madala Gandhi (P.W. 6) of Vijayawada is the brother-in-law of P.W. 5. P.Ws.6 and 7 happened to visit P.W. 5 shortly prior to November 1972 and P.W, 1 requested them to secure a job for P.W. 2 P.Ws. 6 and 7 informed P.W. 1 about their intimacy with the appellant and that they would try through the appellant to secure a job for P.W. 2. P.Ws. 6 and 7 subsequently sent word to P.W. 1 that the appellant came to Vijayawada and asked them to bring the money. P.W. 1 visited Vijayawada in the company of P.W. 5, and met the appellant and P.W. 7 in Kashmir Hotel where P.W. 1 paid Rs. 2000/- to the appellant in November, 1972. Subsequently after receiving a letter for getting the name of P.W. 2 registered in the Employment Exchange, P.W, 2 got his name Registered in the Employment Exchange Office at Vijayawada under Ex. P. 3 and subsequently the employment registration was got transferred to Visakhapatnam Employment Exchange giving the address of P.W. 2 care of the appellant at Visakhapatnam. Subsequently P.W. 7 sent word to P.W. 1 through P.W. 6 that a further amount of Rs. 2500/- has to be paid and P.W. 2 and P.W, 5 took that amount of Rs. 2500/- and paid the same to the appellant in the house of Basavayya, the father of P.W. 6, The appellant and P.W. 7 went on assuring P.W. 1 that P.W. 2 would get some appointment. When P.W. 2 did not get any appointment, they began to demand the return of Rs. 4500/-. The appellant returned Rs. 300/- once and Rs. 400/- once, and agreed to return the balance in monthly instalments of Rs. 500/-. Ultimately the appellant executed Ex. D. 3 pronote for Rs. 6000/- on 5-3-1975 in favour of Achanta Venkateshwar Rao, the cousin of P.W. 1 and it is common ground that the appellant had since repaid that amount. Ex. P. 1 dated 18-9-1975 is a letter addressed by the appellant to P.W. 1 wherein the appellant was pleading for time to settle the matters and Ex. P. 1, in the context, has reference to the discharge of Ex.D. 3 pronote dated 5-3-1975.