YELLINEDI SAGARESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.No. 16 of 2002 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for A.C.B. Cases, Visakhapatnam filed this appeal assailing the impugned orders of the said Court in the said case whereby he was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of X 2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of X 3,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of the Act and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the charge sheet, is as under: That the appellant/accused was working as Chief Executive Officer at Zilla Parishad, Vizianagaram, that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the wife and husband. THE husband (P.W. 3) was working as Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad High School, Nandabalaga village of Vizianagaram district. P.W. 2, wife of P.W. 3, was being harassed by the mother and widowed sister of P.W.3; that P.W. 2 along with her father-P.W. 1, approached the appellant/accused and presented an application - Ex.P-1 on 11-12-2000 seeking transfer of her husband; that the appellant/accused informed them that he would consider their request at an appropriate time and that on 03-03-2001, P.W. 2 along with her father-P.W. 1, again approached the appellant/accused with the same request. However, the appellant/accused officer assured them that he would transfer P.W. 3 to some nearer place on deputation in due course as there was a ban on transfer and obtained another application-Ex.P-9 therefor. However, the appellant/accused demanded X 5,000/- as illegal gratification for doing such an official favour. When the father of P.W. 2 expressed his inability, the appellant/accused reduced the amount to Rs. 3,000/- insisting payment on 4-4-2001 at his residence; that P.W. 1 submitted Ex. P-2- complaint before P.W. 8-Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Vizianagaram and that on the following day i.e., on 4-4-2001, at about 9.35 a.m., a trap was laid successfully, after pre and post trap proceedings under Exs. P-5 and P-7.

(3.) THE trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material on record, had found the appellant/accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him therefor as has already been stated in para No.1, supra. However, so far as the third charge under Section 34(a) read with' 14(2) of A.P.Excise Act is concerned,' since the trial Court was not competent to try the said offence in view of there being a special Court for trial of excise offences in the District, it did not consider the same and the trial Court has left the matter to the prosecution to initiate proceedings therefor against the appellant/accused before the proper Court, if so advised.