BUDDHA MAHALAKSHMI NAIDU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment in C.C. No. 16/1993, dated 30.10.1996, on the file of the Special Jude for S.P.E. & A.C.B. Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and 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 Prevention of Corruption Act, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year 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(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the same Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on 23.1.1993 at about 9.00 a.m., P.W.1, an Advocate, approached the accused-appe llant for payment of land revenue, that he paid an amount of revenue of Rs.105.6 0 Ps., that after paying the land revenue P.W.1 requested the accused to issue a copy of 10(1) Adangal for which the accused demanded an amount of Rs.100/- as b ribe, that again on 25.1.1993 P.W.1 met the accused in the morning and requested him to supply a copy of 10(1) Adangal, that again the accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- as bribe and asked him to approach on 27.1.1993 with the proposed brib e amount of Rs.100/- and take the Adangal copy, that on 26.1.1993, P.W.1 approached the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau and appraised him of the demand made by the accused, that P.W.1 gave a complaint in writing to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, that the Dy. Superintendent of Police summoned two mediators at 9.00 a.m., and gave a Rs.100/- note to P.W.1 to be paid to the accused as bribe, that the note was tainted with Phenolphthalein powder, that then all the mediators, P.W.1 and the police went to the accused, that as per the prior arrangement, after giving the Rs.100/- note to the accused P.W.1 gave a signal to the riding party, that then the riding party entered into the office of the accused and found the Rs.100/- note in his possession, that they prepared Sodium Carbonate solution in two different glasses and asked the accused to rinse his both hands and fingers separately in the solution, that the colourless solution turned into light pink, that when the police asked the accused about the receipt of Rs.100/-, he denied to have demanded and accepted any amount from P.W.1, that then the police seized the Rs.100/- note from the pocket of the accused, and that thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On behalf of the Prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12, besides M.Os. 1 to 10, were marked. On behalf of the accused-appellant, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. The lower Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and that the accused received the amount of Rs.100/- towards illegal gratification for furnishing 10(1) Adangal copy, and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred the present appeal, questioning the legality and correctness thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the fact that P.W.1 met the accused on 23.1.1993 for payment of the land revenue was not mentioned in Ex.P1 and thus P.W.1 suppressed that fact, that as the accused was Village Administrative Officer, he was not competent to issue copy of the 10(1) Adangal, that P.W.1 is not a trustworthy witness, that immediately after the trap the accused gave a proper explanation for being in possession of the Rs.100/- note, that P.W.1 did not explain his stay at the time of the trap for about 45 minutes, and that the sanction procedure was defective. He, therefore, prays to set aside the judgment under appeal.On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that the accused was found in possession of M.O.1 which was given by P.W.1 as bribe to get copy of 10(1) Adangal, that there was no reason for P.W.1 to foist false case against the accused, that the circumstances would clearly go to show that the accused received the amount as bribe, but not as a part of the land revenue, and that the Court of Appeal is debarred from reversing the judgment of conviction on account any error or irregularity in the procedure of sanction for the prosecution of the accused. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

(3.) The short point that falls for consideration is whether the accused received the amount towards illegal gratification for issuing copy of 10(1) Adangal as contended by the Prosecution, or he received the amount towards a part payment of the land revenue? It is a fact that P.W. 1 did not mention in Ex.P1 that he had approached the accused on 23.1.1993 at about 9.00 a.m., and paid land revenue of Rs.105.60 Ps. and that he paid Rs.10/- to the accused towards "Mamool" for receiving the land revenue. An F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia to contain every minute detail. Non-mentioning by P.W. 1 of the purpose of his visit to the house of the accused on 23.1.1993 in Ex.P1 cannot be taken as a sole ground to disbelieve his evidence.