K. SHANTHAMMA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act. The order of conviction has been confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Telangana.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Secunderabad. PW1 Shri R.Seetharamulu @ Sharma is the complainant. PW1 was working at the relevant time as a supervisor in Farmers' Service Co-operative Society (for short 'the said Society'). He was doing the work of filing returns of commercial tax of the said Society. Though the assessment of the said Society for the year 1997-98 was completed, till February 2000, the returns of the said Society for the year 1996-97 remained pending for assessment. The appellant issued a notice dtd. 14/2/2000 calling upon the said Society to produce cash book, general ledger, and purchase and sales statements for the year 1996-97. In February 2000, on the instructions of the Managing Director of the said Society, PW1 attended the office of the appellant along with the concerned record. After PW1 showed the documents to the appellant, she called PW4 Ahmed Moinuddin, ACTO, and directed him to verify the records. The case of PW1 is that on 24/2/2000, when he met the appellant, she demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000.00 for issuing an assessment order. Though he showed unwillingness to pay the amount, for consecutive three days, the appellant reiterated the demand. On 29/2/2000, PW1 requested the appellant to issue final assessment order. At that time, the appellant informed PW1 that unless the bribe as demanded is paid, she will not issue final assessment order. On 23/3/2000, PW1 again approached the appellant when she scaled down her demand to Rs.2,000.00.

(3.) On 27/3/2000, PW1, along with the Managing Director of the said Society, visited the office of the AntiCorruption Bureau (ACB) at Hyderabad. PW1 filed a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB. Accordingly, a trap was laid. The allegation of the prosecution is that when PW1 tendered the tainted currency notes of Rs.2,000.00 to the appellant in her office, instead of taking the amount directly, she took out a diary from her table drawer and opened the same. She asked the appellant to keep the currency notes in the diary. Accordingly, PW1 kept the notes in the said diary. After closing the diary, the appellant kept the same in her table drawer. She locked the table drawer and kept the key in her handbag. After that, she called ACTO along with the record. The appellant signed on the last page of the ledger and cash book by putting the date as 26/2/2000. Thereafter, the appellant directed the attender to affix an official rubber stamp below her signature.