G VISHNUVARDHAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was an Assistant Public Prosecutor at the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar during 1995-96. P.W.I was complainant in C.C.202 of 1994 in the same Court. The appellant conducted that case. However the said Court through its order dated 24.10.1995 acquitted the accused therein. Another case being C.C.No.450 of 1995 also came to be tried on the basis of the complaint submitted by P.W.1. It was the case of P.W.I that he intended to carry the judgment in C.C.202 of 1994 in appeal and for the said purpose he approached the appellant to sign on an application form to obtain certified copies of the depositions in C.C.202 of 1994. P.W.1 alleged that the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.500/- not only to sign the application form for certified copies of depositions in C.C.202 of 1994 but also to effectively conduct the case in C.C.450 of 1995.

(2.) P.W.I approached the ACB Officials at Hyderabad who in turn arranged a trap on 6.2.1996. On the allegation that the trap was successfully laid against the appellant, the prosecution initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellant before the Court of Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in C.C.No.21 of 1996. The prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 7 and marked Exs.Pl to P.16 and MOs.1 to 9. For the defence DWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Dl to D7 were marked. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant herein guilty of offence under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The Trial Court also found him guilty of offence under Section 13(l)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Hence the appeal by the appellant.

(3.) Shri Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant. According to him, though in the charge the appellant is alleged to have demanded the amount of Rs.500/- from P.W.I on 29.1.1996, P.W.I did not depose the same in the evidence and as such the question of there being any demand does not arise. As regards the acceptance, learned Counsel submits that admittedly the amount was not recovered from the person of the appellant. According to him P.W.I had planted the amount in the almirah which was accessible to any one. It is also his case that the result of the wash of the hands of the appellant with the Sodium Carbonate solution was on account of the fact that P.W.1 who handled the tainted notes had also given the application form Ex.P2 with the same hands, thereby the application form also got tainted and it is how the hands of the appellant who took the same and signed had come in contact with the phenolphthalein powder. The pale colour which emerged in the wash of pocket of the petitioner was on account of the fact that he removed pen from his pocket with the same hand after handling the application form.