G MANOHAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application is filed by the Appellant in Crl.A.No.414 of 2007 requesting the Court for suspension of the conviction passed by the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore in C.C.No.28 of 2002, dated 30-03- 2007.

(2.) The petitioner worked as a Mandal Engineering Officer in the office of the MPDO, Kodur, Kadapa District. A Civil Contractor, by name L. Rajamohan Reddy, who was examined as PW-1, was undertaking some works under the supervision of the petitioner. PW-1 completed the work and part payment was made towards the amount due to him and he requested the petitioner to record the works in 'M' book and prepare the bills for final payment. The petitioner demanded Rs.10,000/- towards the illegal gratification for recording the works in 'M' book. On 30-10-2001, PW-1 again approached the petitioner, but he again reiterated his demand. When PW-1 expressed his inability to pay the amount, the petitioner reduced the amount to Rs.5,000/-. On a further request of PW-1, the amount was finally reduced to Rs.4,000/- and the petitioner told PW-1 to pay the amount on 07-11-2001. As there was no other go, PW-1 accepted to pay the bribe. Later, he approached the DSP, ACB, Tirupati and presented a complaint on 06-11- 2001. On 07-11-2001, the trap was laid and the amount was recovered from the petitioner after conducting phenolphthalein test and on preparing the mediators report. The Police, after completing the investigation, laid the charge sheet and after full pledged trial, the learned Judge found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and convicted him and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial Court, dated 30-03- 2007, the petitioner preferred the above Appeal and also filed the present Application for suspension of the conviction passed by the lower court.

(3.) The learned counsel Mr. Gangaiah Naidu contended that PW-1 borrowed an amount of Rs.4,000/- from the petitioner as he happends to belong to the same locality and when he repaid the amount, the police laid the trap and he was falsely implicated. He further submitted that PW-1, who gave the complaint to the police, turned hostile regarding the payment of the money. He further submitted that the amount recovered from the petitioner is only the debt amount and not the bribe; that the trap was not laid on the date mentioned in the complaint; that subsequently, it was laid without a fresh complaint, therefore, the prosecution cannot be maintained; that the sanction order was issued by the Director General, ACB mechanically without application of mind; that there is no valid sanction order to prosecute the petitioner; that the case is foisted by the police against the petitioner; that he did not do any official favour to the petitioner and that if the conviction is not suspended, the petitioner would be out of employment and he would suffer hardship in the event of the Court coming to a conclusion that he did not commit the offence.