{"id":258711,"date":"2003-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003"},"modified":"2015-01-31T20:15:53","modified_gmt":"2015-01-31T14:45:53","slug":"state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, B.P.Singh<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  550 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Andhra Pradesh\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT.Venkateswara Rao\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/02\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nN.Santosh Hegde &amp; B.P.Singh\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE,J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tState of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment<br \/>\nof the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad made in<br \/>\nCriminal Appeal No.491 of 1989 whereby the High Court set<br \/>\naside the judgment and conviction recorded by the Principal<br \/>\nSpecial Judge for SPE &amp; ACB cases at Hyderabad against the<br \/>\nrespondent herein. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the<br \/>\nappeal are that the respondent who while working as<br \/>\nCommissioner, Sangareddy Municipality during the year 1986-<br \/>\n87 demanded and obtained an illegal gratification of Rs.400\/- to<br \/>\nshow an official favour to award the work order to PW-1 who<br \/>\nwas a successful tenderer in a municipality contract, thus<br \/>\ncommitted an offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) read<br \/>\nwith 5(2) of the <a href=\"\/doc\/1331755\/\" id=\"a_1\">Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1947 (the Act) as<br \/>\nalso an offence under <a href=\"\/doc\/48127346\/\" id=\"a_1\">section 161<\/a> IPC. In this regard, the<br \/>\nprosecution alleges that on 20.4.1987 when PW-1 met the<br \/>\nrespondent and requested him for the work order which he was<br \/>\nentitled to pursuant to the acceptance of his tender for doing a<br \/>\ncontract job for the Municipality, the respondent demanded a<br \/>\nbribe of Rs.500 to issue the work order. When PW-1 expressed<br \/>\nhis inability to pay such a huge amount respondent reduced the<br \/>\nsaid amount to Rs.400 and directed PW-1 to pay that amount<br \/>\nwithin 3 or 4 days. PW-1 being aggrieved by such an illegal<br \/>\ndemand of the respondent went to Nizamabad and contacted<br \/>\nPW-5 who was then working as Deputy Superintendent of<br \/>\nPolice, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad District and lodged<br \/>\na complaint Ex. P-9. Pursuant to the said complaint PW-5<br \/>\ndirected PW-1 to come back to him on 24.4.1987 at 9 a.m. at<br \/>\nShankarampet Guest House. Prosecution further alleges that<br \/>\nPW-5 after verifying the antecedents of PW-1 obtained<br \/>\nnecessary permission of competent authority for laying a trap.<br \/>\nHe also made necessary arrangements for requisitioning<br \/>\nofficers working in the office of the Superintending Engineer,<br \/>\nNizamabad to act as mediators. PW-4 was one such person who<br \/>\nwas chosen to be the mediator. Prosecution then alleges that on<br \/>\n24.4.1987 PW-5 accompanied by his staff and others including<br \/>\nPWs.1 and 2 came to Sangareddy at about 12 p.m. PW-5 by<br \/>\nthen had already instructed PWs.1 and 2 to carry the pre-<br \/>\nmarked currency notes totalling Rs.400 in value to be handed<br \/>\nover to the respondent. It is the further allegation of the<br \/>\nprosecution that on that day after reaching Sangareddy PWs.1<br \/>\nand 2 went to the office of the respondents and offered to pay<br \/>\nbribe but then respondent asked them to meet him at his<br \/>\nresidence during the lunch-break. Accordingly PWs.1 and 2<br \/>\nwent and informed PW-5 whereupon all of them proceeded at<br \/>\nabout 1 p.m. to the house of the respondent and PWs.1 and 2<br \/>\nwent inside the house when the respondent asked them as to the<br \/>\nmoney whereupon PW-1 paid pre-marked currency notes to the<br \/>\nrespondent who took them inside his bed-room and kept them<br \/>\nunder mattress. On PW-2 giving the necessary signal PW-5 and<br \/>\nother members of the raiding party entered the house of the<br \/>\nrespondent and asked him whether he had received any money<br \/>\nfrom PW-1. Prosecution alleges that the respondent admitted<br \/>\nhaving received the said amount and on being told by PW-5 he<br \/>\nbrought the said money from his bed-room and when his hands<br \/>\nwere tested for the presence of phenolphthalein powder with<br \/>\nwater, same proved positive. Prosecution further alleges that the<br \/>\nproceedings were drawn up which were attested by PW-4 and it<br \/>\nis based on the said investigation that the respondent was<br \/>\ncharged for offences as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\tWhile the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of<br \/>\nPWs.1 to 5 the respondent in his defence examined 9 witnesses<br \/>\nto establish his innocence. It was the defence case that the stage<br \/>\nof issuing work order had not been reached because the contract<br \/>\nin question was yet to be accepted by the Municipal Council or<br \/>\nthe Collector who was in-charge of the Council then, hence<br \/>\nquestion of demanding bribe did not arise at all. The defence<br \/>\nhad further pleaded that the respondent was being falsely<br \/>\nimplicated because he was opposing a cartel of contractors in<br \/>\nSangareddy who were using unfair means to obtain contracts<br \/>\nand also because of the enmity he had with PW-3 who was an<br \/>\nEngineer in the said municipality and was supporting the said<br \/>\ncartel. It is the further case of the defence that  at the instance of<br \/>\nPW-3 a trap on false allegations was laid. The defence in<br \/>\nsupport of its case also examined the Collector of the District to<br \/>\nshow that the contract was not ready to be executed. Defence<br \/>\nalso examined an attendant of respondent&#8217;s office to show that<br \/>\nPWs.1 and 2 did not come to the office of the respondent on the<br \/>\nmorning of 24.4.1987. It further examined witnesses to show<br \/>\nthat PW-2 was inimically disposed towards the respondent<br \/>\nbecause of a prior criminal complaint lodged by the respondent<br \/>\nagainst his relative. In his statement recorded under <a href=\"\/doc\/767287\/\" id=\"a_2\">section 313<\/a><br \/>\nCr.P.C. the respondent had pleaded that because of the enmity<br \/>\nthe contractors and PWs.1, 2 and 3 had with him, a false case of<br \/>\ntrap was set up on 24.4.1987. He also stated that in fact PWs.1<br \/>\nand 2 had come to his house when he was not in the house on<br \/>\nthe pretext of making a telephone call and had entered the bed-<br \/>\nroom and had stealthily kept the tainted money under the<br \/>\nmattress and after the respondent came home for lunch, PW-1<br \/>\ncame and shook hand with him for a favour which the<br \/>\nrespondent had supposedly shown to him. That is how his<br \/>\nfingers came in contact with the phenolphthalein powder.<br \/>\nThe trial court after considering the material on record<br \/>\ncame to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its<br \/>\ncase and rejecting the defence case found the respondent guilty<br \/>\nof an offence punishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/48127346\/\" id=\"a_3\">section 161<\/a> IPC and <a href=\"\/doc\/1229833\/\" id=\"a_4\">section<br \/>\n5(1)(d)<\/a> read with <a href=\"\/doc\/1420677\/\" id=\"a_5\">section 5(2)<\/a> of the Act and awarded the<br \/>\nsentence of one year RI on each of the counts but directed the<br \/>\nsentences to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">In appeal the High Court of Andhra Pradesh took a<br \/>\ncontrary view and came to the conclusion that the prosecution<br \/>\nhas failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt its case against<br \/>\nthe respondent hence allowed the appeal. In that process the<br \/>\ncourt came to the conclusion that there was evidence to support<br \/>\nthe defence case regarding the existence of a cartel of<br \/>\ncontractors which used to corner tenders by unethical means<br \/>\nand the same was opposed to by the respondent, hence the<br \/>\ncontractors in Sangareddy had a good reason to falsely<br \/>\nimplicate the respondent. It  also came to the conclusion<br \/>\nagreeing with the trial court, that the Municipal Engineer PW-3<br \/>\nhad enmity with the accused and had all the reason to join<br \/>\nhands with the said contractors hence his evidence cannot be<br \/>\nrelied. The High Court also came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\noccasion for demanding bribe as on 14.4.1987 or 24.4.1987 did<br \/>\nnot arise because though there was only one tender for the<br \/>\nworks advertised by the Municipality, the same had not yet<br \/>\nbeen accepted and the agreement having not being executed, the<br \/>\nstage for awarding the work order had not reached, therefore,<br \/>\nthere could not have been a demand for any bribe. The High<br \/>\nCourt also noticed the fact that if really the respondent had<br \/>\ndemanded a bribe from PW-1 he would not have accepted that<br \/>\nin the presence of PW-2 because admittedly PW-2 had some<br \/>\nenmity with the respondent because of a criminal complaint<br \/>\nlodged by him against a close relative of PW-2. Thus High<br \/>\nCourt noticing the improbabilities in accepting the bribe gave<br \/>\nthe benefit of doubt and allowed the appeal of the respondent,<br \/>\nsetting aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial<br \/>\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">In this appeal, Ms. K Amareshwari, learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the appellant-State contended that the<br \/>\nHigh Court has seriously erred in rejecting the prosecution case<br \/>\nespecially that of PW-5 the officer who conducted the raid and<br \/>\nPW-4 an official of the Department of Engineering who had no<br \/>\nenmity with the accused whose evidence established beyond<br \/>\nreasonable doubt that the amount in question was paid to the<br \/>\nrespondent on 24.4.1987. She also contended that even if the<br \/>\nevidence of PWs.2 and 3 are to be ignored evidence of PWs.1,<br \/>\n4 and 5 are sufficient to base a conviction on the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having<br \/>\nperused the records, we are unable to accept the argument<br \/>\naddressed on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant. We<br \/>\nthink the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the contract for which PW-1 had offered his bid was only<br \/>\nunder consideration and was not finally accepted therefore, the<br \/>\nquestion of the respondent agreeing to give the work order on<br \/>\npayment of bribe did not arise. The High Court was also<br \/>\njustified in coming to the conclusion that on 24.4.1987 between<br \/>\n11 a.m. and 1 p.m. respondent was not in his office hence the<br \/>\nprosecution case that PWs.1 and 2 approached him in his office<br \/>\non that day to pay the bribe cannot be accepted. The High Court<br \/>\nwas also justified in coming to the conclusion that no<br \/>\nreasonable man would have agreed to accept the bribe in the<br \/>\npresence of PW-2 who admittedly had a grievance against the<br \/>\nrespondent. These findings, in our opinion, are based on<br \/>\nmaterial on record and there is no perversity involved in the<br \/>\nconclusions arrived at by the High Court in regard to these<br \/>\nfindings. Though learned counsel for the appellant is justified in<br \/>\ncontending that PWs.4 and 5 are independent witnesses hence<br \/>\ntheir evidence ought not to have been rejected by the High<br \/>\nCourt, in our opinion the fact that they are independent<br \/>\nwitnesses ipso facto does not establish the prosecution case that<br \/>\nthe respondent demanded or received a sum of Rs.400 in the<br \/>\nform of tainted currency notes on the said date. Their evidence<br \/>\nonly establishes the fact that when they entered the house,<br \/>\nRs.400 was recovered from under the mattress in the bed-room<br \/>\nof the respondent and on testing the respondent&#8217;s hand tested<br \/>\npositive for having handled the tainted money. This evidence<br \/>\neven if it is accepted as true would not lead to an irresistible<br \/>\nconclusion that this money was received by the respondent as<br \/>\nbribe money because of the explanation given by the<br \/>\nrespondent wherein it is stated that the money in question was<br \/>\nkept in advance by PWs.1 and 2 before his arrival in the house<br \/>\nand he was asked to bring that money by PWs.4 and 5 when<br \/>\nthey came to his house which he did. Because of his handling<br \/>\nthe currency, he came in contact with the phenolphthalein<br \/>\npowder. Bearing in mind the findings of the High Court in<br \/>\nregard to the genesis of this bribery demand we think the<br \/>\nexplanation given by the respondent by way of defence and<br \/>\nsupported by evidence cannot be rejected as improbable or far-<br \/>\nfetched.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal.<br \/>\nThe appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, B.P.Singh CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 550 of 1997 PETITIONER: State of Andhra Pradesh RESPONDENT: T.Venkateswara Rao DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/02\/2003 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde &amp; B.P.Singh JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-31T14:45:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-31T14:45:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1865,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003\",\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-31T14:45:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-31T14:45:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-31T14:45:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003"},"wordCount":1865,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003","name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-31T14:45:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-t-venkateswara-rao-on-4-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T.Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258711","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}