ADDALA SUBRAHMANAYAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.13 of 1999 against the judgment dated 28.11.2005 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for A.C.B.Cases, Visakhapatnam, whereby and where under the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, SI for one month for the charge under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced to undergo SI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default, SI for one month for the charge under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the criminal appeal are as follows:

(3.) On 03.03.1998 at about 3.00 p.m. P.W.2 approached the Deputy Superintendent of ACB and submitted a written complaint Ex.P8 to him. On the strength of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.6/RC-WLR/98 was registered and the investigation was commenced. In the course of investigation, a trap was laid on 04.03.1998 against the appellant. On the said date, it was alleged that when P.W.2 approached the appellant, he ascertained from him whether he had brought the bribe amount and received the same from him and kept it in the table drawer at his office and thereafter on receiving the prearranged signal relayed by P.W.2, the raiding party trapped the appellant. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both hands of the appellant, yielded positive result and the amount of Rs.1500/- was recovered from the table drawer of the appellant in his office when he produced the same by picking out from the table drawer. The defence version is that on the date of trap when P.W.2 came to the seat of the appellant, 3 or 4 persons including D.Ws.1 and 3 were present, P.W.2 kept the money and papers on the table of the appellant, thereafter the members of the raiding party came in. According to the appellant, the ACB by making use of P.W.2 got him falsely involved in this case.