MURALIKONDA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused-appellant herein, preferred this CriminalAppeal aggrieved of the conviction for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( for brevity 'the Act') and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and imposition of fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the former offence and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the latter offence passed in CC No.37 of 1992 on 12-7-1996 by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

(2.) The gravamen of the charge, in narrow compass, is that on 30-1-1991 the father of the complainant, Thakur Jogender Singh, approached the appellant who was incharge Executive Engineer, Sathnala Medium Irrigation Project, Adilabad District, with an application for issue of registered contract proceedings, as his father T. Ramchander Singh intended to take the irrigation contract, but the accused informed him that the proceedings will be issued in the month of June since the application was made at the fag-end of January, 1991. Thereafter, it is alleged that the complainant and his father made several visits to the appellant; that on 11-7-1991 the appellant is said to have demanded Rs.500/- as bribe and also did not heed to the request of the complainant to reduce the bribe amount; that since the complainant was not intending to pay the bribe, on 16-7-1991 he approached Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar at Gudihatnoor, who after due verification, registered a case in Cr. No.2/ACB/KNR/91 under Sections 7 and 11 of the Act on 16-7-1991. The intended bribe produced by the complainant was treated with phenolphthalein powder and was handed over to the complainant in the presence of PW3 and another with instructions to pay to the appellant on demand; that on 17-7-1991 the appellant is said to have demanded and accepted Rs.500/- bribe at his office and was caught red-handed. The sodium solution test conducted over the right and left fingers ofthe appellant proved positive and the tainted amount of Rs.500/- was recovered from the conscious physical possession of the appellant. After obtaining the sanction from the appropriate authority, the appellant was charged.

(3.) To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as may as 8 witnesses and marked Exs. P1 to P23 and MOs.1 to 8. The plea of the appellant-accused was that the complainant-PW1 gave the amount stating that it was given by DW2, B. Shanker, which was borrowed by him as loan, and on his behalf DWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.D1 to D4.