B SURESH BABU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-1-2003 in Calendar Case No. 19 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the appellant/sole accused was convicted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, under each count.

(2.) The brief facts as depicted by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution may be stated as follows: The appellant was working as Income Tax officer in Ward No. 4 of Guntur in the year 1999. His duties included, among other things, to conduct survey under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act. Having come to know that P.W. 2 was conducting various businesses and amassing wealth without filing income tax returns, the appellant went to M/s. Vijayalakshmi Printers, which was being run by P.W. 2, on 5-11-1999 and surveyed the premises with the assistance of Income Tax Inspectors. During survey, his assistants seized number of documents and books, and the same were taken to the office of the appellant. During the said survey, P.W. 1, who is husband of P.W. 2 and was then working as Lecturer in T.J.P.S. College, Guntur, was present. As the appellant had instructed P.W. 1 to meet him on 8-11-1999, he went to the appellant's office and requested the appellant to sort out the matter and return the books. The appellant is alleged to have told that the printing press had not maintained the accounts properly and they might have to pay income tax of about Rs. 50,000/-. Then, the appellant is alleged to have demanded Rs. 15,000/- to reduce the tax to Rs. 20,000/-. When P.W. 1 met the appellant on 15-11-1999, the latter demanded Rs. 5,000/- to be paid as part payment on the next day. As he did not want to pay the said amount, P.W. 1 approached P.W.4 C.B.I. Inspector, who was then camping at Guntur and gave Ex. P-4 complaint. P.W. 4 asked P.W. 1 to come on 16-11-1999 with money. Accordingly, P.W. 1 went to the Camp Office of P.W. 4. Mean while, P.W. 4 procured two mediators viz. P.W. 3 and another. P.W. 4 conducted pre-trap proceedings which were recorded in Ex. P-6. P.W. 3 was asked to accompany P.W. 1 to the office of appellant and follow the conversation and give signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief if the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 3 proceeded to the office of the appellant and other members of the trap party followed them, and reached the office at 10.40 a.m. P.Ws. 1 and 3 entered into the office and found the appellant in his seat. P.W. 1 introduced P.W. 3 as their part time Accountant. The appellant put some questions to P.W. 3 and the latter answered some. Then P.W. 1 told the appellant that he brought the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as demanded by him. Then the appellant told him that he would call the Inspector to his chambers. But, on enquiry he found that the Inspectors were not available. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 3, who were sitting on chairs to the right of the table, rose and started going out of the chambers. P.W. 3 went out of the chambers while P.W. 1 lagged behind. It is alleged that when the appellant asked P.W. 1 to give the amount, the latter dropped the amount in the table drawer opened by the appellant and immediately he rushed out of the chambers, climbed down the steps and gave the signal. Thereupon the trap party went up the stairs and entered the chambers of the appellant. When Sodium Carbonate solution test was conducted on the fingers of both hands of the appellant, it proved negative. When questioned, the appellant stated that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe. When he was further questioned as to where the money was, he replied that he did not know anything about it. When P.W. 4 asked P.W. 1, he showed the table drawer. P.W. 3 opened the drawer and removed the amount. When the appellant was questioned, he replied that he did not know how the currency notes came into the drawer. P.W. 4 did not take the finger prints on the table drawer. Post trap proceedings were drafted as in Ex. P-7. Then P.W.4 arrested the appellant and released him on bail. He also made search of the office and Ex. P-9 search list was prepared. Later on the directions of S.P., the case was handed over to P.W. 6, who conducted further investigation, obtained sanction and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.

(3.) The charges framed against the appellant are as follows: