RAMAGONI PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner/A.O.1, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., questioning the order, dated 13.11.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 2017 in C.C.No.61 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy trial of the Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein and whereunder the application for discharge filed by the revision petitioner/A.O.1 in C.C.No.61 of 2015, was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner/A.O.1 was working as Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Mahabubabad and was Full Additional Charge of the District Social Welfare Officer, Warangal from 20.04.2012 to 30.11.2012 and by virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of Public Servant, as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. One Md.Muneeruddin/de facto complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the de facto complainant"), is a resident of H.No.24-6-138, Fathimanagar, Kazipet, Warangal District and he was appointed as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II on 19.03.1984 and since then he has been working as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II and completed 29 years of service. Though, he completed 29 years of service, he did not get promotion as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I even after his repeated requests in writing. Hence, he approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and obtained interim orders vide O.A.No.6404 of 2012, dated 16.08.2012, wherein the Tribunal has given interim relief by taking into consideration of his seniority, in case he comes within the zone of the consideration of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I. On that, he met the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Warangal, with a request to consider his case for promotion of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I as per the orders of the Tribunal and also submitted a copy of the representation. Thereafter, he repeatedly approached the revision petitioner/A.O.1 for his promotion in the month of September and in the last week of October, 2012, but the revision petitioner/A.O.1 demanded him Rs.25,000/- as bribe to forward his promotion file along with 10 others. As the revision petitioner/A.O.1 demanded money, the de facto complainant approached the Additional Joint Collector, Social Welfare, Warangal on 15.11.2012 and submitted a written request along with order of the Tribunal, for consideration of his promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I at an early date as he is going to retire from Government Service on 30.11.2012. The Additional Joint Collector, Social Welfare, Warangal, ordered the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, on 17.11.2012, to put up the file and the same was handed over to the de facto complainant after making entries in the concerned register and on the same day, the de facto complainant went to the office of the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Warangal and as the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Warangal, was not available in the office, he approached the revision petitioner/A.O.1, who is Full Additional Charge of District Social Welfare Officer. After going through the order of the Additional Joint Collector, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 again demanded bribe amount of Rs.25,000/-. As the retirement of the de facto complainant is due on 30.11.2012 and he was in a helpless condition, he unwillingly agreed to pay the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/-. On that, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 asked the de facto complainant to meet one Katuku Bhavani Prasad-A.O.2 and then endorsed his representation to B6/A2 as "please put up immediately". As asked by the revision petitioner/A.O.1, the de facto complainant met A.O.2 at his residence at Bhavaninagar, Hanamkonda, where, he demanded him to pay Rs.25,000/- as bribe on behalf of the revision petitioner/A.O.1 for processing the file and to issue orders. In addition to that, A.O.2 demanded the de facto complainant to pay Rs.2,000/- as bribe for his mediation with the revision petitioner/A.O.1. The de facto complainant requested A.O.2 to reduce the bribe amount demanded by the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and on that, A.O.2 asked him to meet the revision petitioner/A.O.1 at his office immediately saying that he can request the revision petitioner/A.O.1 to finalize the demanded bribe.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for A.C.B. Cases.