D. SURESH RAJ Vs. STATE ACB, CITY RANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/ A1 was convicted for the offence under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with under Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.34 of 2003 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad dtd. 25/10/2007. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

(2.) P.W.1 is the complainant. He approached the ACB and filed complaint Ex.P1 that the appellant who was the Traffic Inspector went to the shops of P.W.1, PW2, PW3 and others and asked to meet them in the police station. Since they failed to meet him in the police station, the appellant went to the shop and picked up 10 pairs of shoes from each of their shops on 16/10/2001. When P.W.1 and others had asked the appellant to return the shoes, the appellant demanded Rs.500.00 as monthly mamool, failing which, he would see to that the shops are removed. On 19/10/2001, P.W.1 and others approached the appellant having collected Rs.3,000.00 amongst themselves. However, the appellant did not agree for Rs.3,000.00 and demanded Rs.6,000.00 to be paid for two months immediately.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, Ex.P1 complaint was lodged on 22/10/2001, in the morning. The trap was arranged on the same day. Around 3.00 p.m, P.W.1 took amount of Rs.6,000.00 to the DSP office. The members of the trap party were present in the office. Accordingly, Ex.P2 mediators report (pre trap proceedings) was drafted by P.W.4. After concluding pre-trap proceedings, the trap party proceeded to Putlibowli police station. Other trap party members stayed outside the police station while PW1 and other vendors went into the police station at 4.45 pm. Only P.W.1 met the appellant, came outside and relayed signal at 5.15 pm indicating acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The DSP and other Inspectors went into the police station. While entering into the police Station, P.W.1 informed the DSP that the amount was demanded and accepted by appellant and handed over amount to another person in the room. The DSP questioned the appellant and was asked to rinse his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution. The solution turned pink indicating handling of bribe amount by the appellant.