TARALA VIJAYA BABU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the accused under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is against the conviction recorded against him by the learned trial court. During the relevant period, he was a Work Inspector, Grade II in the office of Executive Director, A.P Housing Board Division Office, Visakhapatnam. On the prosecution initiated by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam Range, he was charged for the offences under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as Act, 1988). Sec. 7 is about a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Sec. 13 is about criminal misconduct by a public servant. Sec. 13(1)(d) provides that a public servant is said to commit an offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Sec. 13(2) provides the punishment for criminal misconduct. The learned Special Judge for ACB cases - Cum - III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam duly tried the case as per C.C.No.7 of 2004 and by a judgment dtd. 27/9/2008 found this appellant/ accused not guilty for the offence under Sec. 7. However, it found him guilty for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act, 1988. After affording an opportunity of due hearing to the appellant/accused, it convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. By the present appeal, the convict impugns the said judgment.

(2.) Sri D. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for appellant and Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, the learned standing counsel for ACB - Cum - Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/ State submitted their arguments. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of State.

(3.) Excepting the crime incident, all the other facts are not in dispute. The learned trial court gave a very detailed account of all the facts. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board constructed houses at Rathnagiri, HB Colony, Pothinamallayya Palem, Visakhapatnam District. One such house is MIG II-99 bearing Door No.15-149. It was allotted to PW.1. Ex.P5 sale deed dtd. 16/11/2002 was executed by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board in favour of PW.1 and this sale deed was registered on 18/11/2002. The sale consideration was Rs.77,879.00. The execution of registration of sale deed took place only after PW.1 paid the entire sale consideration. At the relevant time, the appellant/ accused was endowed with duties which include attending the registration and delivering the registered sale deeds to the allotees/ beneficiaries such as PW.1. It was in the context of these facts, the crime incident allegedly emerged.