MOHAMMAD NAZEERUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the Court of the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 7, 11 and 13(1)(d)(i) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00. PW-1 who is the de facto complainant and decoy witness is the proprietor of Anil Printing Press at Nizamabad and when quotations were called for, for printing 1500 identity cards to the Social Welfare Office of Nizamabad, he submitted his quotation and the same was accepted. He executed the work by supplying the said identity cards on 16-3-1989 and submitted a bill for Rs. 4,875.00. This bill was to be processed by the appellant-accused who was working as the Accountant in the said office. When PW-1 met the appellant-accused, he was asked to come on 5-4-1989 on the ground that audit was going on and again when he met on 5-4-1989, he was asked to come on 7-4-1989. On 7-4-1989, when PW-1 met the appellant-accused, the latter had asked the former to get 10% of the bill amount on 10-4-1989 and then take the cheque for the bill amount mentioned above. PW-1 did go to the appellant-accused on 10-4-1989, but not to pay the said amount voluntarily. Before that, he met the ACB official i.e. PW-6 and gave report, Ex. P-1. After complying all the formalities for laying the trap, the raid party along with PW-1 went to the office where the appellant-accused was working at Nizamabad on 10-4-1989 by 11.30 a.m. PW-7 is the DSP-ACB, Nizamabad. After 15 minutes, the appellant-accused had asked the PW-1 as to whether he had brought the said amount and when PW-1 answered in affirmative, the appellant-accused took him into the adjacent record room, demanded the said amount, upon which PW-1 gave him the said amount which was tainted and after counting the amount of Rs. 480.00, he kept the same in his shirt pocket and thereafter, on the pre-arranged signal being given, the raid party came inside and by that time, the cheque was handed-over by the appellant-accused to PW-1. Pre-arranged signal was given by PW-2. Both the hands of the appellant-accused were subjected to phenolpthalein test and it proved positive. Later, he was asked to take out the tainted notes kept in his pocket and he obeyed the same. Inner portion of his shirt pocket was also subjected to phenolpthalein test and the same also proved positive.

(2.) Scanning through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, leaves no doubt with regard to receipt of Rs. 480.00 by the appellant-accused. In fact, the appellant-accused himself admits the receipt of the same. But, his plea in defence is that he did not receive the same as illegal gratification, but collected the same at the instance of PW 4 who is his superior officer to meet the expenses of the audit party which was lodging in a hotel - Shanthi Lodge - at Nizamabad. A contention is raised that the amount which was received by the appellant-accused was only a contribution collected from PW-1 at the behest of PW-4 to meet the expenses spent on audit party and as such, it is not an illegal gratification. It is also pleaded that the said collection comes within the term 'legal remuneration' defined under explanation 'C' to S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of this, two aspects have to be considered; one is factual and the another is legal.

(3.) With regard to factual aspect, the important witness is PW-4 on whose evidence, the entire factual plea of the accused rests. PW-4 who is of the rank of District Treasury Officer was working as Accounts Officer in the office of the Social Welfare, Nizamabad and was superior in rank to the appellant-accused. When he was examined by the prosecution, there is no elicitation on behalf of the appellant with regard to the said amount of Rs. 480.00. In fact, no question was put in that regard. PW-4 was not at all confronted on that aspect on behalf of the appellant-accused. There was not even a suggestion that the amount of Rs. 480.00 was collected by the appellant-accused at the behest of PW-4 to meet the expenses mentioned above. As such, the factual aspect has to be answered in negative against the appellant-accused and his defence plea put forth in his S. 313, Cr.P.C. examination is only an after thought.