THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 1907 of 2008 Order: This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein was working as Excise Constable, Prohibition and Excise Station, Palamaner, Chittoor District. The complainant Pathikonda Naga Manjunatha (hereinafter referred as ‘the complainant’) was running Manjunadha Wine Shop at Gangavaram after obtaining necessary licence. The licence was valid up to 30th June 2006. The Wine Shop was not running on profits. It is alleged that one G.S. Azimuddin, the then Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Palamaner, Chittoor District was demanding illegal gratification and threatening the complainant that if bribe amount is not paid cases will be booked against him and his shop will be seized. On 16.06.2006 the said Prohibition and Excise Inspector made a phone call to the complainant and directed him to attend before the Excise Station, Palamaner. When the complainant appeared before the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, the said Inspector demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe, but when the complainant pleaded his inability to pay such huge amount and informed that he sustained loss in his business, the said Prohibition and Excise Inspector is alleged to have again threatened the complainant and ultimately the complainant agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards bribe and he was directed to handover the said amount on or before 23.06.2006. As the complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached DSP, ACB, Tirupati and gave a report. The DSP, ACB, Tirupati registered a case in Crime No.8/RCT-TCT/2006, after making preliminary enquiry. A trap was arranged and the complainant, mediators and the trap party proceeded to the Prohibition and Excise Station, Palamaner. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector was available in the office. When the complainant approached him and after ascertaining whether the complainant brought the demanded bribe amount, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector pressed the calling bell and called the petitioner herein and as per the instructions of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector the complainant handed over the money to the petitioner herein and he received the said amount, counted with his both hands and kept the same in his back side left pant pocket. Then the petitioner went to another room and kept the currency notes in the shirt pocket of one M. Penchal Babu, private typist, working in the said office stating that he will collect the amount after sometime. However, in the meanwhile, the complainant came out of the excise station and gave pre-arranged signal. The DSP, ACB, having received the signal rushed to the Excise Station along with trap party and when both hand fingers of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector were subjected to sodium carbonate test in two glass tumblers, the result was negative. However, when both hand fingers of the petitioner herein were subjected to sodium carbonate test, it yielded positive result. Then the petitioner herein voluntarily stated that as per the instructions of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, he received the money from the complainant and kept the same in the shirt pocket of private typist as he wanted to go out. The inner linings of the left side rear pocket of the pant of the petitioner was subjected to chemical test and after seizing the amount from the private typist and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly it is the Prohibition and Excise Inspector who demanded the bribe amount and that the petitioner never demanded any bribe amount and that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was in the company of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector when demand was made and in the absence of any demand no offence is made out. Admittedly, the petitioner had no knowledge when he was directed to receive the amount by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector that it pertains to the bribe amount demanded by the said Inspector and in the absence of any knowledge that the amount pertains to the bribe amount no offence has been made out. A reading of the charge sheet itself clearly goes to show that the petitioner never demanded any bribe amount and there is nothing on record to show that he had any knowledge that the amount received by him relate to the bribe amount demanded by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector. Admittedly, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector is the superior officer. The petitioner had to oblige the directions of the said Prohibition and Excise Inspector. The admitted case of the prosecution is that the Prohibition and Excise Inspector pressed the calling bell and called the petitioner and directed the petitioner to receive the amount from the complainant and further directed the complainant to handover the money to the petitioner herein. In the above circumstances, merely because the petitioner obliged the orders of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector and received the money from the complainant as per the directions of the said Prohibition and Excise Inspector and in the absence of any knowledge it is clear that no offence has been made out. Admittedly, no charge sheet has been filed against the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, who has demanded the bribe amount. It is not clear under what circumstances he is not made as accused in the charge sheet. Though the learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the case of the prosecution, I do not find any force in his contention, since it appears that the allegations made in the charge sheet, even if they are accepted at their face value and are accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence and in such circumstances it manifestly appears that continuing criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court and in the interest of justice the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 28.04.2010 Nsr