T RAMESH REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-11-2002 in calendar Case No. 19 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum- V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the appellant/sole accused was convicted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(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 one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, under each count.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Criminal Appeal may be stated as follows: The appellant worked as Village Administrative Officer, Anantapur rural mandal. The complainant (P.W. 1) is the resident of Narasanayanikunta village. He got a bore well dug in his land in the year 1997 and applied for a loan to purchase a submersible electric motor for which he made Ex. P-1 application on 2-2-1997 to Mandal Development Officer, who asked him to obtain signature of the Village Development Officer. On that, P.W. 1 approached the appellant for obtaining his signature. But, the appellant went on postponing to sign on the application form. When P.W. 1 complained to P.W. 3, the latter told him that signature of the appellant was essential on the application form. On 25-4-1997, P.W. 1 went to the appellant and requested for his signature. On that, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,500/-, and at the request of P.W. 1, it was reduced to Rs. 1,000/-. As. P.W. 1 was not willing to pay the bribe, he went to the office of P.W. 6 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) at Anantapur and gave Ex. P-2 report, which was recorded by the Inspector of Police. P.W. 6 asked P.W. 1 to come to the office at 3.00 p.m. with money. Accordingly, P.W. 1 went to the office with money. Mean while, P.W. 6 arranged mediators, one of whom is examined as P.W. 2. Thereafter, necessary preparations were made to lay a trap. Ex. P-5 is the pre- trap proceedings. Then the trap party left the ACB Office in a jeep at 4.15 p.m. and reached Kamalanagar locality at 4.30 p.m. P.W. 6 asked P.W. 1 to go to the appellant's house and pay the bribe amount only on demand made by him and the other trap party members took vantage positions. P.W. 1 went to the house of the appellant, which was in the first floor, and knocked the door. The appellant's wife opened the door and told him that her husband was taking bath. P.W. 1 waited in the verandah. After some time, the appellant came out and asked P.W. 1 whether he brought the money, for which he nodded his head in affirmative. Then the appellant went in and came out with some papers and told P.W. 1 that he had some urgent work and was going away. Both of them came down and went to the place where the appellant parked his scooter. The appellant opened the dash board of the scooter and kept his papers in it. When P.W. 1 showed the cash, the appellant asked him to place it in the dash board. The appellant came out of the compound and proceeded on the road on his scooter. Meanwhile, P.W. 1 gave the pre-arranged signal and on that, the trap party which was witnessing the movements of P.W. 1, stopped the scooter of the appellant and took him to his house. P.W. 1 was asked to stay outside. After going into the house, P.W. 6 introduced himself and the mediators, and questioned the appellant whether he had demanded and accepted the bribe amount. The appellant replied in the negative. When Sodium Carbonate Solution test was conducted on the fingers of both hands of the appellant, colour of the solution remained unchanged. Then the trap party along with the appellant got down, and on the request of P.W. 6, the appellant opened the dash board of the scooter, which revealed wad of currency notes. Notes of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers of currency notes noted in Ex. P-5. When questioned, the appellant denied having demanded any bribe and accepting the same. Later, the appellant was arrested and released on bail on self security. On the next day, P.W. 6 examined the witnesses and got the statement of P.W. 1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise and Prohibition, Anantapur on 3-5-1997. Subsequently, the case was handed over to Inspector of Police, A.C.B. who obtained the sanction and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet on 24-12-1997.

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