R V SUBBA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the accused in C.C.No.26 of 1995 on the file of the Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 7, 11 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The appellant worked as a Mandal Deputy Surveyor in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallarevu, East Godavari District. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant. He retired as an Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The wife of the de facto complainant owned Ac.2.75 cents of land at Bapanapalli village and The sold away Ac. 1.50 cents to one Muggulla Ramarao of Yanam. The said Ramarao wanted to purchase another extent of Ac.0.50 cents from the wife of the de facto complainant and requested him to get the land measured through a Surveyor. On 2-5-1992 P.W.1 went to the Mandal Revenue Officer's office at Tallarevu and met the appellant at his office. P.W.1 requested the appellant to measure the land on payment of the required fee. The appellant stated that it takes several months if all the formalities are observed to measure the land and suggested that the land will be measured if he pays Rs.500.00 to him towards bribe. When the appellant suggested the date as 11-5-1992, P.W.1 insisted the appellant to measure the land on 4-5-1992 itself therefore the appellant demanded Rs.200.00 towards part payment of the bribe amount and when P.W. 1 paid the said amount, he accepted the same. On 4-5-1992 the appellant measured the land of the wife of P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.3 and P.W.6 P.W.1 requested the appellant to issue a certificate, but the appellant stated that the certificate will be issued only after receipt of the balance amount of Rs.300.00. P.W.1, who was not willing to pay the amount, sought for a week's time for arranging payment. He approached the Inspector, A.C.B., Kakinada and presented Ex.P-1 complaint. It was registered as a crime by the A.C.B. officials and a trap was arranged against the appellantthrough P.W.1. On 13-5-1992 at about9.00p.rn. the appellant accepted Rs.300.00 from the de facto complainant at his residence and paid the said amount to P.W.2. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both the hands of the appellant proved positive. The appellant had shown P.W.2 to whom he paid the amount. P.W.2 on questioning produced Rs.300.00 before the A.C.B. Officials stating that the appellant paid the said amount to him towards discharge of the debt due to him. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both hands of P.W.2 also proved positive and the said money was received by the A.C.B. Officials. After completion of the investigation, the A.C.B. Officials filed the charge-sheet.

(3.) The Special Judge after taking cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the appellant, framed two charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 and M.O.1 to M.O.10. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. The Special Judge after considering the evidence found the appellant guilty of the charges and accordingly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 , in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 , in default, to suffer simple imprisonment forthreemonths. The appellant, being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Judge through the Judgment dated 15-3-1997, preferred this appeal challenging the validity and legality.