M.VIDYASAGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the conviction by the Special Court for the offence under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C.No.22 of 2007 dtd. 29/3/2011, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/defacto complainant was a sub-contractor of electrical works. He took up the said contract work of fixing electrical transformer and electrical meters to the building 'Aditya Homes' at Nizamapet, Kukatpally. The said work was completed in the month of February, 2006. After completing the work, he met the appellant, who was Additional Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL. After inspecting the work, the appellant intimated to the ADE. However, after inspection, the transformer was not charged (not given electric connection). P.W.1 went around the office of P.W.3/ADE, who informed P.W.1 that he had already instructed the appellant to charge the transformer. However, when P.W.1 met the appellant, demand for Rs.15,000.00 was made for charging the transformer. Again on 14/3/2006, P.W.1 met the appellant and the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.8,000.00. Since connection was not given to the transformer and the appellant insisted for payment of bribe, P.W.1 approached, P.W.6, who is DSP, ACB and filed complaint. The DSP arranged to trap the appellant on 16/3/2006.

(3.) On 16/3/2006, the trap party members including P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and others gathered in the office of the DSP and the formalities before proceeding to lay trap were concluded. The said proceedings were drafted as Ex.P5, pre-trap proceedings. Thereafter, the entire trap party went to the office of the appellant. P.W.1 and another constable namely Sudershan Reddy (not examined) went inside the office around 12.45 p.m. Around 1.20 p.m, both P.W.1 and the said Sudershan Reddy, constable relayed the signal to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe. The DSP went inside and questioned regarding bribe amount. Sodium carbonate solution test was also conducted on the hands of the appellant to know whether the phenolphthalein smeared bribe amount was handled by the appellant. The test on both the hands proved positive. The amount was produced by the appellant from the right side table drawer. All the other formalities were concluded in the post-trap proceedings and proceedings are drafted which is Ex.P8.