K V SUSEELA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment in C.C.No.13/1992 convicting the accused under Sections 7,13(2), r/w 13 (i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the P.C.Act') and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 13(2) r/w 13(l)(d) of the P.C. Act respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused-officer who was working as Head Clerk in Senior Divisional Personnel Office, South Central Railway, Vijayawada demanded in allegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from G. Mariamma, Saffaiwala of Nellore Railway Station for processing the decategorisation work and for influencing the Committee members to get the said work done and asked the said Mariamma to pay that amount in instalments. When the said Mariamma represented her inability to pay that amount and that the accused accepted and received an amount of Rs.1,000/- from the said Mariamma in the month of July, 1991 towards first instalment and she pressed the said Mariamma on 12-11-1991, for the payment of the second instalment on 14-11-1991 and she was caught red handed when she demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.1,000/- on 14-11-91 at about 11.30 a.m. in the ladies cabin of the Railway Canteen, Vijayawada Railway Station from the said Mariamma by abusing her official position and the amount was recovered from her by the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation and thus she committed the offences punishable under Sections-420 IPC and Section-7 and Sec.13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The accused denied the charge.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws.l to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-23. On behalf of the defence Exs.D-1 to D-14 were marked and M.Os.l to 5 were also marked. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Judge held that there were as many as four demands by the accused-officer and the accused accepted twice the amount on two different occasions. But only one amount was recovered at the time of trap. He also found, as regards the first second and third demands P.W.l's evidence was corroborated by the circumstantial evidence. According to the learned Judge, the circumstantial evidence is after she paid Rs.1,000/- pursuant to the first demand the accused- officer wrote a letter to P.W.I asking him to attend for the screening test on 25-10-1991. As regards the 4th demand in addition to the evidence of P.W.I, he relied on the evidence of P.W.2. Regarding acceptance of money and recovery he relied on the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 and P.W.5 the Investigating Officer respectively. In the light of the above, the learned Judge convicted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.