N SUNKANNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.01.2006 delivered in C.C. No.5 of 1995 wherein the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, having considered the evidence both oral and documentary, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and it is further ordered that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant was the Deputy Tahsildar, Kurnool. He used to collect 'mamools' Rs.50/- per month from every Fair Price Shop Dealer. The Complainant (PW-1) was a Fair Price Shop dealer. The appellant-accused officer visited PW-1's shop and demanded 'mamool', and stated that if he did not pay, the appellant would get the licence cancelled. PW1 agreed to pay monthly 'mamool' with effect from April 1993. On 17.09.1993, when PW-1 met the accused and asked him to issue bills, the accused demanded Rs.300/- towards monthly mamools from April 1993. Even though PW-1 promised to pay mamools on 20.09.1993, in fact, he was not willing to pay it, as such, he approached PW7 - DSP, ACB and gave Ex.P1 - complaint. PW7 collected mediators, one of whom, was examined as PW-2, and conducted pre-trap proceedings - Ex.P3, and instructed the complainant to go to the appellant and pay the amount on demand. PW1 went to the appellant at 01:35 P.M. in Mandal Revenue Office and paid him Rs.300/- on demand. On giving pre-arranged signal, the trap party went to the appellant's Office, by which time, the appellant was coming out of his room after getting it locked by his Attendant, then PW7 - D.S.P. got it opened, and all of them went into the office. Phenolphthalein test was conducted on right hand fingers of the appellant, as a result, the sodium carbonate solution turned pink. Later, he asked the appellant to remove the tainted amount from his left pocket of his shirt. The inner side of the left side shirt pocket was also subjected to test and it proved positive. He collected the files from the table of the appellant and prepared post-trap proceedings under Ex.P-4. When the appellant was questioned, he had no explanation to offer. Thereafter, he was arrested and released on bail. Investigation was entrusted to PW8 - C.I.D, A.C.B., who, after completing the investigation, obtained sanction and filed charge sheet.

(2.) During the course of trial, the complainant was examined as PW-1, who did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Special Public Prosecutor got declared him as hostile subjecting him to cross examination, wherein the entire prosecution case was put to PW1 in the form of suggestions. However, PW1 denied the same. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused officer, PW1 admitted that the accused had sent Ex.D1 - Circular, dated 16.09.1993 with copies to him and other Fair Price Shop dealers informing them to contribute to the National Savings Certificates bonds, which contain his signatures and other Fair Price Shop dealers. He further deposed in the cross- examination that Ex.D1 does not bear the office seal of the Mandal Revenue Office, Kurnool or of the Deputy Tahsildar and on Ex.D1 - Circular, the date i.e. 16th is written with pen.

(3.) So far as the evidence of PW2 - Senior Assistant in the office of the District Manager, A.P. State Housing, Corporation, Kurnool, in regard to pre and post trap procedure, is concerned, he admitted to be one of the mediators thereto. However, he stated that on the fateful day, they reached Mandal Revenue Office at 01.30 P.M. While they were waiting outside, the complainant went inside the Office and came out by 01.14 P.M. giving pre-arranged signal to them, then they went to the office room of the accused and saw him getting the door of the office locked through the Attendant.