Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Orsu Yellamanda Raju vs The State Of Ap on 20 August, 2025
APHC010140262021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2432/2021
Between:
1. SRI ORSU YELLAMANDA RAJU, S/O LATE MALAKONDAIAH
AGE 45 YEARS, MANDAL SURVEYOR,
SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,
R/O FLAT NO. 103, 1ST FLOOR, DHRUVA APARTMENT,
SANTHAPETA, CHAVALIVARI STREET. ONGOLE.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR FOR ACB, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, AT AMARAVATHI.
2. THE STATE DEPUTY SUPTD OF POLICE, ANIT CORRUPTION
BUREAU, PRAKASM DISTRICT, ONGOLE.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of
BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of
Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High CourtTo Quash the
Proceedings in CC No. 19 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Special Judge
For WE and ACB Cases Nellore, pending Departmental Enquiry in
RC No.A2/880/2016 against the petitioner herein and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying
that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further
proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/ accused in CC
//2//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
No. 19 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Special Judge For SPE and ACB
Cases Nellore, pending disposal of main criminal petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VIJAYA KUMAR SATA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. S SYAM SUNDAR (SC FOR ACB AND SPL PP)
The Court made the following:
//3//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2432 of 2021
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is seeking quash of CC.No.19 of 2019 on the file
of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The
petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 and is facing trial for
alleged offence under Section 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Sri.B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was entrusted to
conduct survey with respect to land in Survey No.298/2, 299 and
300 at Maddaluru Village of Santanuthalapadu Village,
Prakasam District. The petitioner was required to conduct survey
and fix boundaries of the subject lands.
3. It is alleged that the complainant approached the petitioner on
several occasions for conducting survey. It is also alleged that
the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.21,000/- for conducting
survey and on 05.01.2014 accused No.2 visited and surveyed
the lands in-part. The accused No.2 was paid an amount of
Rs.5,000/- by LW.5.
//4//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
4. It is also alleged that the petitioner supervised the survey on
09.10.2015 and asked LW.1 to meet the petitioner at his private
office at Shanthapeta on 10.01.2015. It is also alleged that
LWs.1 and 5 met the petitioner at his private office and that
accused No.2 was also present at that time. Accused No.2
returned Rs.1,000/- rupee note as the same was not
exchangeable. It is also alleged that petitioner demanded the
remaining bribe amount of Rs.17,000/-. On account of inability to
meet the demand for bribe, LWs.1 and 5 approached the ACB
officials.
5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that a trap was laid
and the case was registered vide Crime No.1/RCT/OGL/2015 of
ACB, Prakasam District against the petitioner and another. The
learned senior counsel further submits that the accused No.2 is a
private surveyor and the accused No.1 was transferred on
02.01.2015 and he was relieved from the office of Tahsildar,
S.N.Padu and directed to attend survey work in Capital Region,
Vijayawada for a period of three months. It is also submitted that
the petitioner was relieved from duty vide proceedings dated
08.01.2015.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner was no longer working in the
office of Tahsildar, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal as a Surveyor as
//5//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
on the date of trap i.e., 12.01.2015. In such circumstances, there
could not have been an occasion for the petitioner to demand
and accept bribe for conducting a survey and issuing a report for
the survey conducted by him.
7. It is submitted that no amount was recovered from the petitioner
and that the Sodium carbonate Test was conducted on petitioner
did not change colour, whereas, when the accused No.2 rinsed
his fingers in a glass tumbler containing sodium carbonate, the
solution turned pink. This would go to show that the money was
recovered from the possession of accused No.2 and not from the
petitioner.
8. The learned senior counsel further submits that there was no
demand for bribe and acceptance of the bribe amount by the
petitioner. It is submitted that the accused No.2 was a private
surveyor and he was entitled to charge amount for the survey
conducted by him. The License issued by the Commissioner,
Department of Survey, Settlements and Land Records,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 17.07.2012 to the
accused No.2 was valid and subsisting as on the date of survey.
9. The learned senior counsel further submits that there is no
independent witness to establish the demand and acceptance. It
is submitted that to charge the petitioner for offences under the
//6//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, it is essential for the prosecution to
prove the demand for bribe by the charged officer and the
acceptance of bribe in exchange of an official favour. In the
present case there is no evidence of demand and an amount of
Rs.5,000/- was paid to accused No.2 and the return of Rs.1,000/-
rupee note by the accused No.2 to LW.1 and subsequent
payment of Rs.17,000/- to accused No.2 would only go to show
that prima facie there was no demand for bribe by the petitioner.
It is also submitted that the accused No.2 being a private
surveyor was entitled to collect the survey fee as fixed by him.
10. It is submitted that even as per the charge sheet amount was
paid to accused No.2 and that no amount was recovered from
the possession of petitioner. It is also submitted that the
mediators were supposed to accompany LW.1 and that they
were standing outside when the trap was conducted. LWs.2 and
3 who worked as mediators had stood outside the place where
the trap proceedings were conducted. As such, the allegations
against the petitioner cannot sustain the scrutiny of trial.
11. The learned senior counsel places reliance on B.Jayaraj Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be drawn under
1 (2014) 13 SCC 55
//7//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
Section 7 of PC Act and not the offences under Section 13(d)(1)
and (2) of PC Act and such presumption can be drawn only on
proof of acceptance of the illegal gratification. When there is
proof of acceptance of illegal gratification presumption under
Section 20 of PC Act cannot subsist. C.Sukumaran Vs. State of
Kerala2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the case on the
ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of
illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance of money by the
charged officer. Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani Vs. State of
Gujarat and another3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent
judgment also considered the issue relating to absence of
allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe, presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be fastened in absence of
the acquisition of demand for a bribe in exchange of an official
favour and acceptance of the said bribe.
12. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent filed
counter and submits that the petitioner had filed CRLP.No.5647
of 2015, whereby the petitioner challenged the registration of
crime against him and this Court dismissed the criminal petition
by holding that the factum of the petitioner being relieved from
the office of Tahsildar, S.N.Padu Mandal to CRDA, Vijayawada
2 (2015) 11 SCC 314
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441
//8//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
could not have been within the knowledge of the complainant
and that there is every possibility for the petitioner to demand
and accept bribe on 12.01.2015. That apart, the mediator report
would also show that the survey file was produced by the
petitioner from his private office. It is also submitted that the
petitioner had engaged the service of the accused No.2 for
conducting survey and had portrayed the accused No.2 as a
private surveyor for conducting survey. It is submitted that it was
the duty of the petitioner to conduct survey, however, a third
party has been introduced by the petitioner. The complainant
had approached the petitioner to conduct a survey and to furnish
a report, which is acceptable in any revenue office. The survey
conducted by a private surveyor cannot be relied upon for any
purposes and the complainant had approached the petitioner for
survey of his property. The complainant did not approach the
private surveyor for conducting survey of his property. As such,
introduction of a private surveyor by the petitioner for conducting
survey is only for facilitating the petitioner for demanding the
illegal gratification.
13. It is submitted that the trap proceedings were successfully
completed and that the matter would have to be relegated for
trial as all the grounds as raised by the petitioner for seeking
//9//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
quash of the case would have to be raised before the trial Court
during the trial. The grounds raised by the petitioner seeking
quash cannot be considered when there is ample evidence
which is staring that the conduct of the petitioner and the issues
are triable before the trial court and the petitioner can have the
opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses before
the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial.
14. It is also submitted that the judgments relied upon by the
petitioner are also not relevant at this stage as all the cases were
after the trial was completed except for the judgment of
Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani Vs. State of Gujarat and
another, whereby the issue dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
pertaining to dismissal of a discharge petition.
15. The learned standing counsel further submits that the date on
which the petitioner was transferred and the date on which the
trap was conducted is completely different. The petitioner had
resorted to making an illegal demand in exchange of an official
favour inspite of his transfer from the said office would itself
disclose the fraudulent intentions of the petitioner. The petitioner
was aware that he could no longer conduct a survey and issue a
survey report as on the date of survey. However, with an eye on
//10//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
the bribe amount had engaged the services of a private surveyor
and got conducted the survey.
16. The learned standing counsel for the respondent places reliance
on Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi
Vs. Duncans Agro Industries LTD., Calcutta4, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that it is essential to determine whether any
prima facie case is made out or not for quashing a criminal
complaint at the threshold before evidences are lead in support
of the complaint. Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (GOVT.OF NCT OF
DELHI) and another5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
quashing of a complaint by accepting the contention of the
respondent that the investigating officer had no jurisdiction to
investigate the matters on the ground that no part of the offence
was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police
station at Delhi was not proper as the same would have to be
determined only after a trial. Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs. K.M.Sharan6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the
allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet would constitute a
prima facie case, the Court should not quash the cases at the
threshold.
4 (1996) 5 SCC 591
5 (1999) 8 SCC 728
6 (2008) 4 SCC 471
//11//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
17. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. Perused
the material on record.
18. The petitioner was working as a Surveyor at the office of
Tahsildar, S.N.Padu Mandal and as per the proceedings dated
02.01.2015 he was relieved from his duty from the office of
Tahsildar, S.N.Padu Mandal and was required to report to
Commissioner, CRDA, Vijayawada. Further proceedings dated
08.01.2015 confirmed the same.
19. If this Court is to go-by the submission of the learned senior
counsel regarding the inability of the petitioner to conduct a
survey and issue report even after his transfer is concerned, the
same is a question of fact as to whether the petitioner relieved
and joined duty at the new place of posting and whether the
petitioner was on duty at his new place of posting is a matter to
be ascertained during trial.
20. The further contention of the petitioner that there was no demand
or acceptance by the petitioner is concerned, listed witnesses
speak about the demand though no amount was recovered from
the petitioner’s possession and the sodium carbonate solution
did not turned pink when the petitioner rinsed his fingers in the
//12//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
said solution, the same is also a question of fact, which has to be
determined before the trial Court.
21. The findings of this Court in criminal petition No.5647 of 2015
with regard to the mediators report – II regarding production of
the survey file by the petitioner from his private office would
indicate that there is some correlation between the petitioner and
the survey file as to why the same was pending in his private
office if he is relieved on 08.01.2015.
22. On the facts of this case, there are several questions of fact
which would have to be determined before the trial Court. This
case does not fall within the ambit of consideration for quashing.
The petitioner can raise all the grounds as raised in the quash
petition before the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial.
23. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 20.08.2025
KGM
//13//
CRLP.No.2432 of 2021
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2432 of 2021
Dated 20.08.2025
KGM