K.MANMOHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is questioning the correctness of the conviction by the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2006 dtd. 3/3/2011.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, who was working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre (PHC), Burgula village, Mahabubnagar District. At the relevant time, the appellant was the District Medical and Health Officer (DM and HO). For attending 31 gram panchayats, P.W.1 was allotted vehicle by the department which was on hire. The hire charges of the vehicle was Rs.9,000.00 excluding petrol charges. The maximum limit for petrol was Rs.3,000.00 per month. As there was no budget during the year 2004, the hire charges and petrol charges were not allotted from April, 2004 to December, 2004. The appellant allegedly made phone call to P.W.1 stating that budget was released for the said period and asked P.W.1 to claim the said amount subject to paying bribe of Rs.1,000.00per month from the petrol charges totaling Rs.6,000.00. P.W.1 expressed her inability to pay the bribe amount for which the appellant threatened that he would withdraw the vehicle. Though several times, P.W.1 made a request to give time for payment, the appellant insisted that the amount should be paid immediately. On 27/1/2005, the appellant rang up the residence of P.W.1 and when the mother of P.W.1 answered the phone, the appellant threatened that the bribe amount should be paid on or before 31/1/2005.

(3.) According to the prosecution case, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB and lodged Ex.P1 complaint dtd. 29/1/2005 regarding harassment of the appellant for bribe amount. The trap was arranged on 31/1/2005. P.W.1 went to the office of the DSP along with bribe amount. There, in the presence of trap party members which included independent mediators, proceedings were conducted. The said pre-trap proceedings were drafted as Ex.P4. P.W.1 informed the DSP that the appellant was in the habit of taking bribes in a cover and accordingly, DSP provided a brown envelope to P.W.1. The said cover was also smeared with phenolphthalein powder along with currency notes kept in it. P.W.1, then informed that the appellant would be available in his house, accordingly, the trap party proceeded to the house of the appellant. Around 3.30 p.m, the trap party reached the residence of the appellant. P.W.1 entered into the house and the appellant was sitting in the first room. The appellant then demanded for the bribe amount and accordingly, cover was handed over to the appellant. P.W.1 came out and gave signal to the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe.