K.CHANDRASHEKAR RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment passed by the I Addl. Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.C. No.35 of 2009 dtd. 23/7/2013 wherein the Appellant No.1 " Accused Officer No.1 was convicted under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short 'PC Act') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Sec. 7 of the PC Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act 1988 and directed both the sentences to run concurrently and the Appellant No.2 " Accused Officer No.2 was convicted for the offence under Sec. 12 of the PC Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that Accused Officer No.1 (AO1) was working as an Accountant in the Office of the Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, Serilingampally and AO2 was working as a Junior Assistant in Outsourcing Pool in the same office. The father of the complainant was allotted the work of providing modern lighting system with tubular poles at white fields, Lotus Apartments at Serilingampally Circle. On 15/10/2008 an agreement was executed between the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, West Zone, GHMC and the father of the complainant wherein the amount of estimate was shown as Rs.4,60,000.00and the amount of contract was shown as Rs.4,15,000.00. The complainant was looking after the official work on behalf of his father. As per the agreement, the work was executed and completed by the complainant and quality control inspection report was issued by Executive Engineer, Quality Control (Electrical), GHMC. After statutory deductions, the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.3,75,000.00 approximately from GHMC, West Zone, Serilingampally. When the complainant contacted AO1 on 1/11/2008 for cheque details, he did not respond properly. The complainant understood that AO1 was expecting bribe and contacted a TV9 reporter, who helped him in arranging a sting operation. The TV9 reporter provided the complainant with a spy camera attached to his shirt button. With that on 3/11/2008, the complainant contacted AO1 at his office. AO1 demanded bribe of Rs.6,000.00 or 1.5% of the cheque amount to complete all formalities and for getting the signatures of the concerned officers on cheque and issuing the same to the complainant. On the request of the complainant, AO1 reduced the bribe amount from Rs.6,000.00 to 4,000/-. The complainant recorded the conversation that took place between him and AO.1. He approached the DSP, ACB, City Range-1, Hyderabad on 4/11/2008 at 3:00 PM and lodged a complaint and enclosed the CD to the complaint. The DSP after verification, registered a case vide Cr.No.30/ACB/CR.1/2008 under Sec. 7 of PC Act on 6/11/2008. He secured the services of two official witnesses to act as mediators and laid a trap on 6/11/2008 after observing all legal formalities. On 6/11/2008, the complainant approached AO1 to collect the cheque. AO1 enquired whether he brought the demanded bribe amount. On his affirmative reply, AO1 called AO2 and asked him to give the cheque after receiving the bribe amount from him. Accordingly, AO.2 took the complainant to his seat. The complainant gave the bribe amount of Rs.4000.00 to AO2. AO2 took the bribe amount with his right hand, counted with both hands and kept the same in his right side back pocket of his wearing pant. AO2 obtained signature of the complainant in the cheque issue register and gave the cheque for Rs.3,74,091.00. After receiving the cheque, the complainant gave a pre-arranged signal to the trap party. The trap party along with the mediators rushed into the room. When they tested AO1 by treating his fingers in sodium carbonate solution, the test yielded negative. When the attention of AO1 was drawn to the video recording, AO1 stated that he directed AO2 to receive the bribe amount and to give the cheque to the complainant. The tainted bribe amount was recovered from the possession of AO2. The chemical test conducted on his both hand fingers yielded positive. The inner portion of the wearing pant pocket of AO2 when subjected to sodium carbonate test, the same also yielded positive result. AO1 and AO2 were arrested and produced before the Special Court on 7/11/2008. They were enlarged on bail on 14/12/2008. The statement of the complainant was got recorded by the II MM, Secunderabad under Sec. 164 CrPC on 29/11/2008. Further investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police, ACB, CR-1, Hyderabad. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents. After obtaining sanction from the Government to prosecute AO1, the Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range filed charge sheet against AO1 and AO2. AO2 was removed from service being an outsourcing employee.

(3.) The case was taken on file by the I Addl. Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act against AO1 and under Sec. 12 of PC Act against AO2. On appearance of AO1 and AO2 before the Court, copies of charge sheet and all the annexures thereto were furnished to them in compliance with Sec. 207 CrPC. As AO1 and AO2 pleaded not guilty, charges were framed against them.