MUDUNURI BAPIRAJU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-3-2003 in Calendar Case N.24 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for A.C.B. Cases, Visakhapatnam, 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 simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- 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: P.W. 1 is the defacto-complainant. P.W. 2 is the then Principal/Assistant. Apprentice Advisor, Government Related Institutional Classes Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'R.I.C.'), Kakinada. P.W.3 is the pre and post mediator. P.W. 4 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau ('A.C.B.') and P.W. 5 is the Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Rajamundry Range. P.W. 1, who did not get any opportunity for doing apprenticeship in any company even after competing ITI course of 2 years, approached R.I.C, Kakinada on 17-2-1998, met the appellant, who was working as Junior Assistant in the office, on the same day at about 12.30 noon and showed his certificates. After going though his certificates, the appellant demanded P.W. 1 to pay Rs. 500/- as bribe for recommending his name as an apprentice in any company. P.W. 1 expressed his inability to pay the amount and he further stated that in case his name was recommended for apprenticeship he would pay the bribe amount subsequently. The appellant did not agree therefore and stated that unless the said amount was paid he would not recommend the name of P.W. 1 for apprenticeship in any company. Thereupon, P.W. 1 reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe amount within 2 or 3 days. Then P.W. 1 went to the office of A.C.B. at about 2.00 p.m. and gave Ex.P-1 report against the appellant. After receiving Ex. P-1, P. W. 4 asked P.W. 1 to come to his office on the next day morning along with certificates and proposed bribe amount. On the basis of Ex. P-1, P.W. 4 registered a case in Cr.No.2/RC/RJY/98 and issued Ex. P-10 FIR. On 18-2-1998, at about 10.30 a.m. P.W. 1 met P.W. 4 in A.C.B. Office as per P.W. 4's earlier instructions. P.W. 4 secured the presence of mediators P.W. 3 and another. Thereafter Ex. P-4 pretrap mediators report was prepared. At about 12.00 noon all of them started from A.C.B. Office and reached Engineering College campus at 1.30 p.m. and the trap party took vantage position. Then P.W. 1 entered R.I.C, The appellant and some other office staff members were present there. On seeing P.W. 1, the appellant asked P.W. 1 whether he brought the demanded amount. Then, P.W. 1 replied in affirmative way and took out the wad of Rs. 500/- currency notes and gave to the appellant with his right hand and the appellant received it with his left hand and kept the same in his left side shirt upper pocket. P.W. 1 then submitted copies of his certificates to the appellant and the appellant told P.W. 1 that he would be sent as an Apprentice to A.P. Paper Mills, Rajahmundry. Then P.W. 1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. On seeing the signal, P.W. 4 and his staff rushed into the office of the appellant. The hand fingers of the appellant were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test under M.Os. 3 and 4. The test conducted on right hand fingers gave negative result and the test conducted on left hand fingers gave positive result for the test. Then P.W. 4 seized the tainted amount of Rs. 500/- and the shirt of the appellant. The inner lining of left side upper shirt pocket of the shirt of the appellant, when subjected to sodium carbonate solution test, gave positive result under. Thereafter, Ex. P-8 post trap panchanama was prepared in the presence of mediators P.W. 3 and another. P.W. 4 examined and recorded the statements of P.W. 1, 2 and others. Thereafter P.W. 4 handed over the case file to P.W. 5 Inspector for further investigation, who obtained Ex. P-9 sanction orders and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet.

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