S.K. HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal is preferred by Accused Officer (AO) aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.03.2006 in C.C. No.28 of 2001 passed by learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, convicting him for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C Act) and sentencing him to suffer RI for one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default to suffer SI for three months on first count and also sentencing him to suffer RI for two years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default to suffer SI for six months on second count with a direction that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus:

(3.) SUPPORTING the judgment of trial Court, learned Spl.P.P argued that the AO being the Supervisor in DCCB, Armoor, Nizamabad District, initially demanded a bribe of Rs.2000/ - from PW.1 and later reduced it to Rs.1,400/ - for doing an official favour of issuing the two cheques for Rs.34,500/ - being the loan amount sanctioned by DCCB to enable PW.1 to purchase bore -well and pump -set from PW.5 the dealer of submersible pump -sets. He further submitted that on the complaint lodged by PW.1, AO was successfully trapped by the PW8the DSP, ACB. Of course during trial PW1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He submitted that the trial Court nevertheless, following the precedential law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, has drawn the presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act against the AO basing on the other available evidence on record. The trial Court found that the spontaneous explanation offered by AO to the effect that the amount of Rs.1,400/ - paid by PW.1 to him was towards the share amount of a member in Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS) and it was not illegal gratification was unbelievable since the AO had no right to collect the membership fee/share capital amount from PW.1 which was the duty of PW.3 alone and further the share amount being Rs.3,450/ - i.e, 10% of the loan amount and whereas the amount he received from PW.1 being Rs.1,400/ -, there was no match between both the amounts. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him and there was no illegality or irregularity in it. Learned Spl.P.P argued that the observations of the trial Court would show that the AO was not competent to collect the membership fee which was the duty of PW.3 and also that the amount which he received did not in any way match with the actual membership fee which is Rs.3,450/ -. In his spontaneous explanation the AO did not try to explain the reason for difference between the two amounts and he tried to explain the same only during the trial through DW.1 which is unbelievable. He thus submitted that the judgment was perfectly right and there is no need to interfere with the same. He prayed to dismiss the appeal.