B. VIDYASAGAR Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/Accused Officer (A.O.) against the judgment dated 31.01.2006 in C.C. No. 23 of 1995 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad convicting him for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C. Act) and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo S.I. for three months on two counts.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case, which led to file the instant appeal, can be stated thus:

(3.) IMPUGNING the judgment, learned counsel for appellant firstly argued that in a case of this nature, the prosecution must by cogent evidence establish all the vital ingredients such as the initial demand, acceptance of part payment of bribe and later, acceptance of the balance amount at the time of trap and the trap incidents, because all of them would constitute into one integrated story and one ingredient depends upon the other. Therefore, in such a case, sans the other vital ingredients, there will no be use in prosecution establishing only bare ingredients relating to trap and acceptance of the amount and chemical test etc. Mere proving of trap incident dehors the other vital ingredients will not lead success to the prosecution. On this aspect, he relied upon, 1980 (2) ALT Vol. XLII Kursheed Khan vs. State of A.P., wherein it was held thus: