P. LAKSHMANA CHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is convicted under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, one year and one year respectively vide judgment in CC No.23 of 2006, dtd. 31/10/2007 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

(2.) The appellant/accused officer was working as Junior Assistant in the A.P.Housing Board. P.W.1 was allotted a house in LIG category under Hire Purchase and paid an amount of Rs.30,000.00 and also fulfilled the requisite formalities. The appellant allegedly asked for bribe of Rs.300.00 for giving the possession letter. P.W.1 was asked to come on 28/3/2000, 29/3/2000 and also on the date of complaint i.e., on 30/3/2000. On all the three days, the appellant allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.300.00, failing which allotment letter will not be given. Aggrieved by the said demand, complaint was lodged on 30/3/2000 with the DSP, P.W.8. P.W.8, after conducting preliminary enquiry, arranged a trap on the same day.

(3.) The trap party with the independent mediators, P.W.2 and another person, DSP- P.Ws.8 and IO-PW10, formed trap party. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted under Ex.P9 by concluding all formalities, which concluded at 2.30 p.m. The trap party proceeded to Kukatpally Housing Board Office at 3.30 p.m. Both the complainant, P.W.1 and the accompanying witness namely P.Ganapathy Reddy (not examined during trial) went inside the office of the appellant. Five minutes after they entered the office, the said Ganapathy Reddy, accompanying witness came out of the office and stood at the gate. At 4.25 p.m, complainant came out of the office and gave pre-arranged signal. Thereafter, the trap-party entered inside and the DSP got the hands of the appellant tested, which turned positive for sodium carbonate solution test. When questioned, the appellant pulled out the right side drawer of his table, in which tainted currency of Rs.300.00 was found. Accordingly, the concerned file was seized and thereafter, investigation was handed over to P.W.10, who after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. Initially charges under sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of P.C.Act were framed. However charge under sec. 13(1)(a) R/W 13(2) was framed after evidence of witnesses commenced.