D.SEETHAMAHALAKSHMI Vs. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/Accused officer(AO) is convicted for the offence under Sec. 7 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,500.00, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') and further convicted for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,500.00, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months vide judgment in Calendar Case No.16 of 2002 dtd. 12/1/2007 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

(2.) P.W.1 filed a complaint before the ACB stating that he was running a Fair Price Shop at Kapra. Every month the allotted quota of rice, sugar, kerosene and oil will be sold and entries would made in the sales register. For allotment of next month quota coupons of sales and sales register have to be shown to the checking inspector. The Checking Inspector, who is the AO was causing inconvenience in registering the sales certificate and sales register. P.W.1 was asked to pay Rs.500.00every month for certifying the sales register and demanded total of Rs.1,500.00 to be paid for the past three months. The said demand was made on 3/4/2001 and again on 6/4/2001. P.W.1 went to the office at Uppal and asked for April month's sales register, then the Accused Officer replied that if Rs.1,500.00 is paid, she would certify the sales register, otherwise she will not certify the said register. Aggrieved by the said demand, complaint was filed before the ACB on 7/4/2001 under Ex.P1.

(3.) The DSP P.W.8 arranged a trap on 9/4/2007 afternoon. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the DSP office on the said day. Pre-trap proceedings Ex.P10 was prepared in the presence of independent mediators and after concluding Ex.P10 at 3.40 p.m, the trap party proceeded to the office of the accused officer at Uppal. PW1 entered into office, came out and relayed the prearranged signal as instructed by DSP. On receiving signal from P.W.1, the trap party entered into room of the accused officer and conducted test on her hands and both the hands of the accused officer turned positive. Then the DSP asked the accused officer to produce the amount, for which accused officer refused stating that she had not received any amount. The DSP asked to rinse her hands in sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour, which is the proof of accepting the tainted currency. But the accused officer was adamant and argued that she has not received any amount. The DSP called Rangaiah (PW.4), who was the Head of the office and at his instance, the accused officer took the trap party into the adjacent record room and the tainted amount was found on the trunk box, from where the amount was recovered by DSP.