G HARINATHA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.O. 1 in C.C. No. 12 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1183 of 2003 assailing the orders of his conviction passed by the said Court in the said case by judgment dated 29-10-2003 finding him guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, whereas, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 2004 questioning acquittal of A.O. 2 in the said case for the same offences.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that there is a land dispute between P.W. 1 and one Gnaneswar. Both of them are residents of Guddimalkapur village, Hyderabad. The dispute pertains to the land covered in Survey Nos. 222/1 and 235/1 of the said village. P.W. 1, who owned the land (Acs.9.00) in both the survey numbers, has disposed of the same, by retaining 2500 square yards of land, wherein he constructed a house bearing door No. 1306-34; that Gnaneswar claimed that his land to an extent of 349 square yards was merged with 2500 square yards of land owned by P.W. 1. Therefore, Gnaneswar filed L.G.C. No. 196 of 1996 before the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. That the Special Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner - P.W. 5 to measure the said land and P.W. 5 after complying with the procedure, requested P.W. 1 and Gnaneswar to be preset on 18-01-1997 at the disputed land to facilitate him in measuring the land in dispute. P.W. 1 and Gnaneswar were present at the disputed land on that date. On 18-01-1997, A.Os. 1 and 2 along with P.W. 5 were present at the disputed land. However, it could not be possible to measure the land on that date and thereafter also, on several occasions, the land could not be measured. On 25-05-1997, A.Os. 1 and 2 again went to the land in dispute for surveying and demanded P.W. 1 to give Rs. 20,000/- as illegal gratification promising to safeguard his interest as against the interest of Gnaneswar stating that otherwise the survey would be done in favors of Gnaneswar declaring 340 square yards out of the disputed land as belonging to Gnaneswar. Thereafter, they disbursed from there. On 02-06-1997, when P.W. 1 again visited A.Os. 1 and 2 at their office and requested them to measure the land, they reiterated their earlier demand, for which, P.W. 1 expressed his inability but ultimately he agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards part payment of the bribe on 03-06-1997. On 03-06-1997, P.W. 1 conveniently approached the D.S.P., A.C.B., Hyderabad and preferred a complaint against the accused, basing on which, a case in Cr. No. 14/ACB-CR/97 was registered under Sections 7, 11, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. On the same day, after securing the presence of the mediators, P.W. 3 and another, and after observing legal formalities, arranged a trap at Hotel Annapurna at 7-25 P.M and successfully trapped A.Os. 1 and 2 when they demanded and accepted Rs. 5,000/- from P.W. 1 as illegal gratification for doing an official favours to him in measuring the land in dispute. The phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hand figures of A.O. 1 and it proved positive. The chair of A.O. 1 was also subjected to phenolphthalein test with cotton swab and it proved positive. The tainted amount of Rs. 5,000/- was recovered from the possession of A.O. 1 in the presence of the mediators under the cover of Ex. P-3 report. Thereafter, A.Os. 1 and 2 were arrested and later charge sheet was laid against them before the Court of the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE fit ACB Cases at Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 7, 11, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act in C.C. No. 12 of 1999.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-16 and M.Os. 1 to 9 on its behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused officers.