M. SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant - sole accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad vide Judgment dtd. 6/10/2007 in CC No.33 of 2002, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short 'the Act') and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant - Accused Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') was working as a Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre (PHC), Nizamsagar, Nizamabad District at the time of registration of the case and the complainant worked on deputation in the same PHC as Multi Purpose Health Assistant (Female). Her original place of posting was Narva Sub-Centre, falling under PHC, Nizamsagar. Since there was vacancy of the said post in PHC, Nizamsagar, she was deputed to work as per the orders of the District Medical and Health Officer, Nizamabad District dtd. 1/7/2000. While she was thus working on deputation in PHC, Nizamsagar under the control of the AO, it was alleged that the complainant requested the AO for giving regular posting to Nizamsagar and the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.8,000.00 as bribe for giving regular posting to Nizamsagar. Accordingly, she paid Rs.8,000.00 to the AO, but the AO issued orders of posting to one Kum.Farhana as MPHA (F), Nizamsagar. Then the complainant requested the AO to return the amount of Rs.8,000.00. The AO got angry and directed her to report at Narva or opt for voluntary retirement. At the instance of the AO, she applied for voluntary retirement. Later, she changed her mind and requested the AO not to forward the application to DM and HO, Nizamabad. Then, the AO demanded Rs.5,000.00 from her as bribe. Unwilling to pay the demanded bribe amount to the AO, she filed a petition before the DSP, ACB, on 2/7/2001 against the AO. The DSP, ACB, Nizamabad registered a case in Crime No.5/ACB-NZB/2001 under Sec. 7 of the Act against the AO on 3/7/2001 and during the course of investigation, secured the services of one Sri Ashok Purohit - the Assistant Director, Agriculture, Office of the JDA Nizamabad and Sri Khaleemullah - Sub-Registrar, Nizamabad District, as mediators and after observing necessary formalities laid the trap on 3/7/2001 against the AO. The phenolphthalein test conducted over both the hands of AO yielded positive result and the tainted amount was seized from the possession of the AO, who produced the same by taking out from his left side pant pocket. The portion of the left side pant pocket also got subjected to the chemical test and it also yielded positive result. The Investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of the employees working at PHC, Nizamsagar and got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. After obtaining sanction orders from the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health, Medial and Family Welfare Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh, being competent authority to remove the AO from service, the Investigating Officer i.e. the Inspector of Police of ACB, Nizamabad Range, filed charge sheet against the AO for the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had taken cognizance of the above offences and after supplying copies of the documents to the AO and on hearing both sides, framed the charges as follows:

(3.) The AO pleaded not guilty. The prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and MOs.1 to 8 on its behalf. The AO got examined DWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.D1, a portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 on his behalf. A document was marked as Ex.X-1 by the Court. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the material objects produced by both the parties, the learned Principal Special Judge found the appellant - AO guilty for the above charges and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.