P VENKATESWARLU NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2000 in C.C.No.10 of 1996 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year under each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under each count. The sentences imposed under both the counts were directed to be run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, according to the evidence let in during the course of trial, is that the appellant-accused was working as Sub Reg strar in the office of the Sub Registrar of Assurance, Sathupally, Khammam District in the year 1995. One Borra Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter called as 'complainant') was a resident of Sathupally and he was eking out his livelihood by vending eatables on a pushcart. He owned an extent of Ac.6.00 of land in Sy.No.156 situate in Patwarigudem village and he intended to execute a Will deed bequeathing the same property in favour of his second wife as his first wife died and he had no children. 10 days prior to 20.03.1995 the complainant approached the appellant for the purpose ot registering the Will deed and it was alleged that the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.1000/- as gratification and on bargain the demand has come down to Rs.500/-. Be that as it may, as the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the appellant, he approached P.W.8-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Warangal on 20.3.1995 and lodged a complaint. P.W.8 recorded his statement, which was marked as Ex.PlO. P.W.8 registered a case in Cr.No.1/ACB-WKH/95 against the appellant-accused under Sections 7 and 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, issued Ex.P11 F.I.R and took up investigation. Thereafter, P.W.8 requested the complainant to come to Neeladri Guest house at Penuballi on 21.03.1995 with necessary amount. Accordingly the complainant along with his friend-P.W.1 went to Neeladri Guest house at Penuballi on a motorcycle at about 1 P.M. and P.W.8 introduced the complainant to P.W.7-mediator and another and Ex.P5-pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of P.W.7 and another. Thereafter, the complainant was instructed to give the money only when the appellant-accused demanded. The trap party consisting of P.W.8, two mediators, two inspectors and two constables left the Guest house in a jeep while the complainant and P.W.1 went on the motorcycle. The raid party stopped the jeep at a little distance from the office of the appellant at Sattupally. The complainant and P.W.1 went to a hut situate within the premises of the appellant's office, where the complainant collected the Will document prepared by P.W.5-Document writer and stamps necessary for registration from P.W.4-Stamp vendor. It is further stated that before handing over the Will document to the complainant attestation was obtained from P.Ws.1 and 2. Later the complainant, P.Ws.1 and 2 went into the office of the appellant where they found the appellant was busy writing something. After some time, the complainant gave the Will deed and after examining the Will deed the appellant obtained the signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also that of P.W.3 who was present there on the document. When the complainant enquired about the registration fee of the document, the appellant-accused said it was Rs.81/- and the complainant took out Rs.81/- from his inner pocket of banian and gave it to the appellant, who placed the amount in the open table drawer. Thereafter, the appellant prepared a receipt Ex.P6 and handed it over to the complainant. Subsequently it was alleged that the appellant demanded the bribe amount of Rs.500/- and that the complainant took out the tqinted amount from his shirt pocket and gave it to the appellant-accused, who kept the amount in the table drawer. Then P.W.1 came out of the office and gave pre-arranged signal, pursuant to which the trap party entered into the office and P.W.8-Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B asked the appellant-accused whether he had received the bribe amount from the complainant for which the appellant- accused denieci. Then phenolphthalein test was performed on both hand fingers of the appellant-accused and the test on right hand fingers proved positive. Even when the mediators asked the appellant-accused, he denied having taken any bribe amount. On the instructions of P.W.8, mediators searched the right side drawer of the office table of the appellant-cccused and found three batches of currency notes in it, out of which one bundle containing five hundred rupees and hundred rupee denominations were tallied with the numbers noted by the mediators. The other cash of Rs.9,000/- was given account according to the records. An amount of Rs.9.50 paise found in the drawer was the amount left by the customers due to non-availability of change. Again on being questioned, the appellant-accused reiterated the denial and stated that he did not know who kept the amount in the table drawer. Post trap panchanama Ex.P9 was prepared and the appellant-accused was arrested and released on bail. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of police filed charge sheet, however, during the pendency of trial he died.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. The trial Court on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal.