M. ANWARULLAH Vs. STATE ACB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is questioning his conviction recorded under Ss. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) punishable under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively and also to pay fine of Rs.300.00 under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.36 of 2003 dtd. 24/7/2007 passed by Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Line Inspector in the office of A.A.E, A.P. Transco, Bodhan, demanded an amount of Rs.300.00 from the defacto complainant (not examined during trial since dead) for installation of new meter. Application was made by enclosing Form-A applications under Exs.P9 and P10 along with DDs Exs.P5 to P7. The defacto complainant allegedly met the appellant 10 to 12 times. However, the appellant insisted that Rs.300.00 has to be paid failing which work cannot be done. The said demand was made on 19/8/2002 at 2.30 p.m. A complaint was preferred by the complainant to the ACB DSP the same day.

(3.) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB secured the presence of two independent mediators, P.W.3 and another and pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of trap party on 20/8/2002 from 8.00 a.m and concluded at 9.00 a.m. The trapparty thereafter proceeded to the office of ADE (Operations) in Bodhan along with P.W.1, who is friend of the defacto complainant and also the author of Ex.P1. Both P.W.1 and the defacto complainant entered into the office and waited at office area since the appellant was not present. Appellant called the office and also talked to the defacto complainant and to come to a place where transformer installation was going on. The same was informed to trap party and all the trap party members went to the location. Ten minutes after the trap party went there, the appellant arrived at the place where transformer work was going on. Complainant wished the appellant and the appellant wished both defacto complainant and P.W.1 and asked whether he brought the money. The defacto complainant gave the said amount of Rs.300.00 from his shirt pocket and handed over to the appellant, who took the said amount and kept in his shirt pocket. Signal was relayed indicating acceptance of bribe and the DSP and other trap party confronted the appellant regarding the bribe. Having conducted post trap proceedings, mediators' report Ex.P3 was drafted in the ADE's office and also rough sketch was drawn which is Ex.P4.