Y VEERA RAGHAVAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

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 Munagapaka in Visakhapatnam District. P.W.I approached him to conduct post-mortem 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 P.W.1 and that the latter had pleaded paucity of funds, but the appellant insisted P.W.1 to pay the same and ultimately the amount was struck at Rs.150/-. P.W.I has then informed the anti-corruption authorities and they laid a trap on 14-10-1986 at 5 p .m. and the amount of Rs. 150/- paid by P. W. 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 anti-corruption 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 liable for punishment for the offences charged with, the stand of the appellant was otherwise. His stand was one of a denial and explanation offered is that Rs.150/- was obtained by him towards his fees for conducting postmortem examination on the dead body of she-buffalo belonging to P.W.1. Thecourt 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 P.W.I and P.W.I 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 P.W.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 P.W.1 was not towards illegal gratification but was towards his fees for conduction 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.) To sustain the plea, at the outset, it is necessary that the job done by the appellant was not in his usual course of discharge of his official duties. If he was working as a Veternary Assistant Surgeon in a particular hospital and P.W.I had brought the she-buffalo to the said hospital for treatment and after its death, post-mortem was to be conducted by the appellant, then definitely it is a case of the appellant performing his duties as the Veternary Assistant Surgeon and he is precluded from receiving any amount over and above his salary and emoluments. But the facts in this case show otherwise. It is not the case of the prosecution that the she-buffalo was taken by P.W.I to veterinary hospital where the appellant was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and that it was treated by him in that capacity and that he had conducted post-mortem in that capacity as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. In fact, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.I has requested the appellant to go over to his house where site-buffalo was found and to conduct post-mortem examination. The same was at a different village than the one stayed by the appellant. The appellant did post-mortem not in the discharge of his official duties, but in private capacity. Then the further question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant was entitled to do private practice.