Y. VEERA RAGHAVAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the accused charge. sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Munagapake in Visakhapatnam District PW1 approached him to conduct postmortem examination on the dead body of a she buffalo. The said she buffalo was insured for Rs. 2,000/-, and the said policy was valid upto 24-3-1987. The accusation against the appellant is that he had demanded Rs. 200/- towards illegal gratification. from PW1 and that the latter had pleaded paucity of founds, but the appellant insisted PW1 to pay the same and ultimately the amount was struck at Rs. 150/- has then informed the anti-corruption authorities and they laid a trap on 14-10-86 at 5 p. m. and the amount of Rs. 150/- paid by PW 1 to the appellant was recovered from the custody of the appellant. The appellant's hands were tainted with phenolphthalein which was applied on the notes of the anticorruption authorities. While the case of the prosecution was that Rs. 150/- was accepted by the appellant towards illegal gratification and that he was not entitled to charge the same and thus, rendered himself for punishment for the offences charged with, the stand of the appellant was otherwise. His stand was one of denial and explanation offered is that Rs 150/- was obtained by him towards his fees for conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of she buffalo belonging to PW1. The court-below found favour with the contention advanced on behalf of the prosecution and recorded conviction, both under Section 161 IPC as also under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/, and in default to suffer SI for one week on each of the counts. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In so far as the demand of Rs. 150/- by the appellant from PW1 and PW 1 informing the same to anticorruption authorities and the latter laying a trap and then recovering the said amount from the person of the appellant is concerned, there is sufficient proof adduced by the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the same and the finding of fact with regard to demand of Rs. 150/- by the appellant from PW 1 and the latter paying the same to the former is affirmed. But the explanation offered by the appellant that the amount of Rs. 150/- demanded by him and paid by PW1 was not towards illegal gratification but was towards his fee for conducting post-mortem examination, is worth consideration.

(2.) THE important point which arises for consideration is as to whether the plea taken by the appellant is sustainable ?

(3.) MR . C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has brought to my notice Government Memo No. 96438/69-1, GAD (Services-C) dated 6-1-1959 which permits private practice provided the same does not interfere with the legitimate duties of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and subject to other restrictions, as may be imposed from time to time. No restrictions imposed in this regard are brought to my notice on behalf of the prosecution. The relevant rule permitting private practice reads thus :