V SURESH Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, in this criminal appeal, has been challenging the judgment dated 01.09.2003 in C.C.No.7 of 2000, passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB - cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Judge'), whereby and whereunder, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ('the Act', for brevity) and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant herein will be hereinafter referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case, in brief, are as follows:- The accused was working as Mandal Deputy Surveyor in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'MRO'), Raptadu Mandal, Ananthapur District during the period 06.07.1997 to 04.02.1999 and as such he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. P.W.1 - Yerri Swamy is resident of Kottapalli Village, Raptadu Mandal, Ananthapur District. He and his elder brother - Ramakrishna partitioned the joint family property about eleven years prior to 08.01.2002. But however, boundaries to their lands were not fixed. Therefore, P.W.1 submitted an application to MRO requesting him to survey the lands and fix the boundaries in Survey No.88/1, 89/2B of G.Kothapalli village and Survey No.396/A of Bukkacharla Village. He had remitted the requisite amount in the bank and enclosed the bank challans along with his application. As the MRO was not present in the office, P.W.3 - G.Narsimhulu, who was working as Superintendent of the MRO office during the relevant period, received the application of P.W.1 and told P.W.1 that he would send the Surveyor. On 13.01.1999 at about 04:00 P.M., P.W.1 again went to the MRO office and at that time, the accused was present in the office. According to P.W.1, when he asked the accused for survey of their lands, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000/- for conducting survey. When P.W.1 expressed difficulty in paying the demanded bribe amount, the accused reduced the same to Rs.3,000/- and directed P.W.1 to pay Rs.1,000/- as advance on 18.01.1999. Then, on 17.01.1999, P.W.1 lodged a complaint with P.W.6 - A.Satyanarayana, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ananthapur. After receiving Ex.P.1 - complaint from P.W.1 and after ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint, P.W.6 registered a case in Crime No.1/ACB-ATP/99 and issued Ex.P.11 - FIR.

(3.) On 18.01.1999, P.W.1 came to the office of P.W.6 along with Rs.1,000/-, the proposed bribe amount as directed by P.W.6. P.W.6 secured the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.2 and one N.Rameshwar Rao and after introducing P.W.1 to the mediators and vice-versa, pre-trap proceedings were held. The significance of the Phenolphthalein test was explained and demonstrated. The currency note numbers were noted by the mediators and Phenolphthalein Powder was applied to those notes. Then the tainted currency notes were kept in the upper shirt pocket of P.W.1. P.W.1 was directed not to touch the tainted currency notes and to pay the same to the accused only on his demand. What all transpired during the pre-trap proceedings was noted in Ex.P.5 - First Mediator's Report. Then, the entire trap party, along with P.W.1 and the mediators, proceeded to Raptadu in a jeep and reached the vicinity of the MRO office, Raptadu Mandal at about 11.15 A.M.