K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana

FACTS

• The Special Court convicted K. Shanthamma, a Commercial Tax Officer at Secunderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

• The High Court of Telangana confirmed the order of conviction. The appellant was working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Farmers' Service Co-operative Society (FSC) and was filing returns for the Society. However, the returns for 1996-97 remained pending for assessment until February 2000.

• The appellant issued a notice to the Society to produce cash book, general ledger, and purchase and sales statements for the year.

• Petitioner witness (PW1) demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/- for issuing an assessment order, which the appellant reiterated for three days.

• PW1 requested the appellant to issue a final assessment order, but the appellant informed her that she would not issue the order unless the bribe was paid.

• On March 23, 2000, PW1 and the Managing Director of the Society visited the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) office in Hyderabad and filed a complaint.

• A trap was laid, and a wad of currency notes was found, tallied with the serial numbers in pre-trap proceedings. The Special Court found that the demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe were proved by the prosecution.

ISSUES

• The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof?

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court ruled that the impugned judgments must be set aside, allowing the appeal.

• The appellant's conviction for offenses punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act is set aside, and she was acquitted of the charges.

OBSERVATION

• It was observed that this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established.

COMMENTARIES

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the amount was recovered from the table drawer and once demand is not proved, which is sine qua non proof, an offence under Section 7 of the Act is not proved, the prosecution fails.

  • (Referenced: P. Lakshmana Chary Versus The State LNIND 2022 TS 2012)

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to attract an offence of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must prove the factum of demand beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a failure to prove demand, the prosecution case fails.

  • (Referenced: G. Raja Sekhar Rao and Another Versus Stae of A.P. LNIND 2024 TS 511)