M ADINARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. No. 19 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.02.2004 passed by the said court whereby, the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently, filed this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant-accused being the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad had demanded Rs. 10,000/- from P.W.1-complainant on 20.8.1993 in his office at A.C. Guards, Hyderabad, as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing the official favour for recommending and forwarding the file pertaining to the final layout plan submitted by P.W.1 to the higher officials; that subsequently he had reduced the amount from Rs. 10,000/- towards illegal gratification to Rs. 1,000/- at the request of PW.1; that on P.W.1 lodging a complaint, the A.C.B. officials registered a case against the appellant-accused after obtaining the necessary permission from the Director General, A.C.B. Cases; that Deputy Superintendent of Police, (P.W.8) has registered a case in Rc. No. 10/ACB-CR/93 and issued Ex.P.11-FIR and that a requisition was sent to the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj for sending two officers to assist as mediators to the trap. Accordingly, P.W2 and one Ashok Reddy, AEE were deputed to act as mediators; that at about 4.30 P.M. on the same day after verifying the complaint (Ex.P.1) being preferred by P.W.1, pre-trap proceedings were initiated and after preparing the first mediators' report, they reached the office of the appellant-accused at 5.50 P.M. P.W.1 entered the office of the appellant-accused at 6.50 P.M., and he came out of the office of the appellant-accused and gave the signal and on his signal, the trap party rushed into the office room of the appellant-accused. The phenolphthalein test conducted on right hand fingers of the appellant-accused was proved positive. Thereafter the alleged bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-, i.e., Rs. 100/- denomination of currency notes 10 in number amounting to Rs. 1,000/- was recovered from his shirt pocket. Accordingly, second mediators' report-Ex.P.4 was drafted and after completion of the investigation of the case, charge sheet was filed against the appellant-accused.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the appellant-accused has pleaded not guilty for the said charges.