G.VEEMA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal, under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the sole appellant against the judgment of his conviction and sentence, dated 25.08.2006, passed in C.C. No.17 of 2001 (arising out of Crime No.10/RCT-TCD/200 of ACB., Kadapa District, Tirupati Range) by Sri B.Sivanagi Reddy, learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Judge').

(2.) By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). For commission of offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month. For offences under Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that on 19.09.2000, complainant - S.Khader Mohiddin, filed a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range, disclosing therein that he was owner of two houses in Y.S. Nagar, Chinna Chowk Panchayat, Kadapa Town, and both his houses were vacant. The complainant in the complaint stated that he came to know that the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer was in search of a hostel building by vacating the hostel building at Prakash Nagar of BC Boys Hostel No.2. In the complaint, it was further disclosed that the complainant met the appellant, G.Veema Reddy, who was the District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa, on 23.08.2000, and submitted an application. After filing of his application, during the month of August ending, one Smt.D.L.K.Aruna, PW.2, visited his house and asked him for changes in his house and, accordingly, he made alterations in his house. Thereafter, she came to his house, visited and returned back. The complainant in his complaint also disclosed that PW.2 asked him to take order from the office of District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. On 15.09.2000, the complainant met the appellant G.Veema Reddy, the District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa, in his house, and requested him for taking his house on rent. Thereafter, the appellant demanded Rs.6,000/- as bribe for taking his house on rent. The complainant showed his inability to the appellant. However, he was advised to rethink once again and approach him. Again, on 18.09.2000, the complainant met G.Veema Reddy, appellant, in his house, and asked him about taking his house on rent. However, again, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- as bribe. On being requested and showing inability to pay the said bribe amount, the appellant reduced the same amount to Rs.4,000/- and stated that otherwise he will not take his house on rent. The complainant as per the complaint was asked by the appellant to hand over Rs.4,000/- on 20.09.2000 afternoon at his house. Since there was no way, he agreed to pay the bribe amount and returned back. In the complaint petition the complainant further stated that he was not having any intention to pay the bribe amount to the appellant, so he submitted an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range and requested to take necessary action against the appellant. After receipt of the complaint on 19.09.2000 an indiscrete enquiry was got conducted through V.G.Ramamurthy Rao, PW.8, and thereafter on 20.09.2000 FIR vide Crime No.10/RCT-TCD/2000, was registered for the offences under Sections 7 and 11 of the PC Act and thereafter Pre Trap Memorandum (Mediators Report No.I), marked as Ex.P-2, was prepared and trap was laid on the same day i.e., on 20.09.2000 after 03:30 P.M. in the house of the appellant and from his possession Rs.4,000/- tainted currency notes were recovered. The number of currency notes mentioned in the Pre Trap Memorandum were compared and tallied. After trap, the appellant voluntarily admitted that he had received the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant for taking his building on rental basis for hostel purpose. The appellant lead the Trap Party to his bedroom and opened the steel almirah with the help of key, again he opened the inner safe with the help of the key and also opened the inside secret locker and picked out rexine pursue which was containing the bribe amount. After completion of the Post Trap Memorandum, the case was investigated.