T SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 11 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC').

(2.) Appellants T. Shankar Prasad (in Crl. A. No. 909/1997) and Ghaiz Basha (in Crl. A. No. 910/97) (also described as A1 and A2) were working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and junior Assistant respectively in the office of the Commercial Tax Department of Kanigiri, Prakasam District. Way bills were issued to the traders by the department for their day to day transactions and taxable goods to be transported were required to be covered by the way bills issued by the department. Complainant (PW-1) was a dealer in grocery articles and under the relevant sales tax statutes, a registered dealer. He applied for way bills. On 25-4-1992 he requested the accused T. Shankar Prasad to get the way bills duly stamped and signed by him. The officer demanded Rs. 400/- as bribe in the presence of other accused. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount, the demand of the bribe was reduced to Rs. 300/-. Complainant agreed to pay the amount within two to three days. Since he was not interested to pay the bribe, he reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau officials on 28-4-1992. The case was registered by the officials on the said date and mediators were secured and trap was arranged. Since on that day accused T. Shankar Prasad was not available in the office, the trap could not be laid. On the next date again the mediators and the members of the trap party arranged the trap and accordingly the complainant approached the accused T. Shankar Prasad who directed him to pay the amount to other accused Ghaiz Basha. When the latter received the bribe amount from the complainant the trap party caught hold of both the officers and the amount was recovered from the possession of second accused and the sodium carbonate solution test conducted proved positive. After furnishing documents to the accused persons and hearing on the question of framing charges, charges were framed. The accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Eight witnesses were examined and several documents were marked. The complainant was examined as PW-1, PW-2 was the Assistant Audit Officer who deposed about the whole scenario before the search was conducted. The significance of the test by the chemicals and their reactions was explained to him. Currency notes were applied with phenolphthalein powder. The powder was not visible on the currency notes. The DSP who was monitoring the trap instructed PW-1 not to touch the cash and only pay to the accused on demand. He was asked to give signal after bribe amount was accepted, by waving a handkerchief. PW-4 was an Assistant Director of Veterinary Hospital who acted as a mediator. He also described in detail about the trap operations. PW-5 was a Senior Assistant in the Commercial Tax office who deposed about part of the transaction relating to issuance of way bills forms with reference to the official records. PW-7 was DSP who monitored the operations. PW-8 was the Inspector who had received the complaint from PW-1. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). They denied about the demand and acceptance of bribe and took the stand that false case had been foisted due to enmity. One witness was examined on behalf of the accused T. Shankar Prasad. Said witness deposed about the registration of a relative of the complainant and his business activities.

(3.) Stand of the accused T. Shankar Prasad was that no money was recovered from his possession. The other accused Ghaiz Basha took the plea that there was no material to show that he had demanded any bribe. He further stated that he had accepted the amount to be deposited as advance tax and when he was about to write the challan, the Anti Corruption Bureau officials caught hold of him and implicated him falsely.