P. BHUPATI RAO Vs. STATE ACB, CITY RANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is arrayed as Accused Officer No.2 was convicted for the offence under Ss. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) punishable under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, in default, to pay fine of Rs.500.00 under each count, vide judgment in C.C.No.41 of 2002 dtd. 23/1/2008 passed by Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that Accused Officer No.1 (AO1) who died before commencement of trial was working as Assistant Sec. Officer and the appellant/Accused Officer No.2(AO2) was working as Assistant Secretary in Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat. P.W.1 who was a Junior Assistant of K.M.G.H.School approached the Accused Officer No.1 and requested to process his representation pertaining to regularization of his services and to call for the remarks from the Director, Municipal Administration. The Accused Officer No.1 allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.1,000.00 to be paid by 12/8/1999 and informed that out of the said amount, part of the amount has to be paid to this appellant. The said written complaint/Ex.P1 was given to P.W.7/DSP on 12/8/1999 at 9.30 a.m. P.W.7 asked P.W.1 to come within two hours along with the proposed bribe amount. Having caused discrete enquiries, complaint was registered. The independent mediators P.W.2 and another were called to be part of the trap party. The 1st mediator's report was drafted in the office of ACB in the presence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and others. During the course of pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P5, the independent mediators enquired about the correctness of complaint from P.W.1. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared to the bribe amount by a constable. The relevancy of sodium carbonate solution test was also explained. After concluding the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party went to the office of Municipal Administration Sec. of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat.

(3.) P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office. AO1 was not available in his seat. A.O.1 came to his seat after 20 minutes. AO1 asked whether P.W.1 brought the amount. He took out a file and shown a note containing his signature. At that time, note file not containing signature of this appellant/AO-2. AO1 informed P.W.1 that the appellant did not sign as he had not received the bribe. From AO1's room, both went to appellant's chamber. AO1 and P.W.1 sat on chairs in front of the appellant. The amount of Rs.1,000.00 was handed over to AO1 by PW1. AO1 kept Rs.500.00 in his shirt pocket and gave remaining amount of Rs.500.00 to appellant. The appellant kept the amount in right side pant pocket and informed that he would look into the file. Thereafter, P.W.1 came out and gave pre-arranged signal. The trap party entered into the office and conducted test on hands of AO1 and the appellant. Both the hands of AO1 and the appellant turned positive indicating that both of them handled the bribe amount. The post-trap proceedings were conducted and concluded after seizure of tainted currency of Rs.500.00 each from AO1 and appellant. File EXP9 of PW1 and other relevant documents were also seized. Further investigation was handed over by trap laying officer to the inspector.