LAWS(APH)-1994-9-2

T BATHAIAH Vs. STATE

Decided On September 16, 1994
T.BATHAIAH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellant herein was prosecuted for an offence punishable under S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The second charge against the accused-appellant for an offence punishable u/S. 13(1)(d) and S. 13(2) of the said Act. The accused-appellant was tried in C.C. No. 40 of 1992 in the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. On evidence, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the charges against the accused-appellant and therefore proceeded to convict him and sentence him to suffer imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to suffer S.I. for 20 days for the offence punishable under S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused-appellant was further convicted for an offence punishable under S. 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the said Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to suffer S.I. for 20 days. The substantive sentences were made to run concurrently.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal on various grounds as stated in the Memorandum of Appeal.

(3.) The prosecution story can briefly be narrated as follows : That the Prosecution witness No. 1 belongs to Backward Caste and resident of Yeturu village. The petitioner along with others had made an application to the Collector with a request to allot house site pattas. The said application is produced on record as Ex. P. 1. The demand was made by the petitioner to the Collector for allotment of land in S. No. 281/1 to the extent of Ac. 4-60 cents. The Collector informed P.W. 1 and other persons that the owner of the survey number 281/1 is a small farmer and as such the said land cannot be allotted to P.W. 1 and others. Thereafter, further correspondence had taken place and finally it was decided that the petitioner and others have to be allotted the land from different survey numbers from the same village.