S RAMA KRISHNA Vs. S RAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State preferred this Criminal Appeal questioning acquittal of the accused officer - respondent by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore in C.C. No.2 of 1999 vide judgment dated 17-12-2002 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act").

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the brother of the de facto complainant herein (PW.1) is accused in Crime No.81 of 1997 on the file of Gajulamandyam Police Station of Chittoor District and he was remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati on 13-02-1998. THE bail petition filed on behalf of the accused in Crime No.81 of 1997 was dismissed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati as the accused officer, who was happened to be the Additional Public Prosecutor of that Court at that time, opposed the bail petition. THEn, the de facto complainant approached the accused officer on the same day evening at the Court premises asking to help him and the accused officer alleged to have demanded him Rs.2,000/- as bribe. On expressing his inability to pay the same, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.1,000/- and again it was reduced to Rs.500/-. On 19-02-1998, second bail petition was filed and it came up for hearing on 23-02-1998 and adjourned to 26- 02-1998 due to absence of the advocate of the accused. On 25-02-1998, PW.1 preferred Ex.P.1 - complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Tirupati against the accused officer and basing on the same, a case in Crime No.1/RTC-TVT-98 was registered and on the same day, trap was laid successfully after complying with the legal formalities and recording Ex.P-4 - pre trap panchanama proceedings. THE phenolphthalein test conducted on the person of the accused officer yielded positive result and Ex.P-7 - post trap panchanama proceedings were recorded after the trap.

(3.) THE trial court after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also assessing the other material on record, found the accused officer not guilty of the offences charged with and accordingly acquitted him for the said offences. Assailing the same, the State preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the following grounds: