V.VENKATESH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

(2.) A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner/accused officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act, 1949).

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2010, the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant, who is the Managing Director of Sri Lakshmi Sai and Apollo Multi Speciality Dental Hospitals, Guntur, Vijayawada and Ibrahim Patnam of Krishna District, lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range-1, Hyderabad, stating that on 19.01.2005, he purchased apartments at Door No.13-6-437/A/49, Ground Floor, First and Second Floors, situated at Indira Nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad, for Rs.64,53,976/- from one Faheem Sultana W/o. Mohammed Ahmed Mohiuddin Siddique and her son Yethessham Mohiuddin. Though the building construction was completed by 2006, the said apartments were not registered in his name. As the said persons giving evasive answers, he approached the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Dr.Y.S.Raja Sekhar Reddy and gave complaint against them. The said complaint was endorsed to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and basing on the same, a case in Crime No.250 of 2008 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, came to be registered on 07.11.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. Later, the 3rd respondent/ de facto complainant approached the D.C.P., D.D., Central Crime Station, Hyderabad and also the concerned Inspector of West Zone Team by name Ranjan Ratan Kumar, several times for arrest of the accused in the above crime. Though the accused were called to the police station, twice, they were left free without arrest, since they promised that they would pay back the said investment. As nothing is being done, in the month of September, 2009, the 3rd respondent/ de facto complainant approached the petitioner/ accused officer and requested him to effect arrest of the accused at an early date, but the petitioner/accused officer has procrastinate the matter. On 05.03.2010, when the 3rd respondent/ de facto complainant approached the petitioner/accused officer, he demanded the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- for taking action against the accused. On 06.03.2010, the petitioner/accused officer again demanded the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- for arresting the accused. As the 3rd respondent/ de facto complainant was not willing to pay the said bribe amount, he lodged the above complaint. On receipt of the above complaint, the D.S.P., A.C.B, City Range-1, Hyderabad, made an endorsement on 08.03.2010 and instructed the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant to come to A.C.B. Office on 09.03.2010 morning along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-, which he intended to pay as bribe amount to the petitioner/accused officer. After completion of all formalities, and after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., City Range-1, Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.5/ACB-CR1/2010 against the petitioner/accused officer for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 09.03.2010. During the course of trap on 09.03.2010, when the 3rd respondent/ de facto complainant met the petitioner/accused officer, he demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from him with his right hand and kept the same in the left side pant with his left hand. Both hand fingers as well as the inner flap of left side wearing pant pocket and kerchief yielded positive results when subjected to Phenolphthalein test. The tainted bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- along with relevant documents were seized under cover of Mediators Report-II. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range-1, Hyderabad, arrested the petitioner/accused officer on 10.03.2010 at 2.00 A.M. and produced them before the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Hyderabad on 10.03.2010 for remand and accordingly he was remanded to judicial custody. Later, he was enlarged on bail. On 12.04.2010, the 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, recorded the statement of LW.1 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. During the course of further investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the competent authority to remove the petitioner/accused officer from his service, accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner/accused officer; vide G.O.Ms.No.105, dated 29.04.2013 of Home (SC.A) Department. The investigation revealed that the petitioner/accused officer, while working as Inspector of Police, West Zone Team, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, on 09.03.2010, demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe from the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant for showing official favour for arresting accused in Crime No.250 of 2008 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. Basing on the above allegations, a charge sheet came to be filed and the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, has taken cognizance of the same as C.C.No.11 of 2013. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the above C.C.