P.BALAAH A1 Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-A1 and another person, A2, were prosecuted by the ACB on the allegation of demanding and accepting a bribe. After trial, the learned Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, acquitted A2 and convicted A1 for the offences under Sec. 7 and Ss. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.33 of 2004, dtd. 30/7/2010. Aggrieved by the said conviction, A1 filed the present appeal.

(2.) Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.

(3.) Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was running a medical and general stores, namely "Sri Sai Medical and General Stores" at Mallapur, after obtaining a drug licence from the office of Assistant Drug Controller, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. His cousin brother, Srisailam, (not examined) also wanted to establish a medical and general stores at Parvathnagar, Borabanda. Since the said Srisailam was not aware of the procedure, P.W.1 accompanied Srisailam for submitting an application in the office of the Drug Inspector. The application was filed on 5/2/2002 and on 25/2/2002, the Drug Inspector inspected the shop premises. The concerned file was then forwarded to the Superintendent, office of the Assistant Drug Controller, Ranga Reddy District, at Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad. On 1/3/2002, P.W.1 and Srisailam met the appellant, who was working as the Superintendent in the said office. P.W.1 enquired about the passing of file and the appellant demanded Rs.2,000.00 as bribe for processing the file. P.W.1 and Srisailam requested the appellant to issue the licence and further told him that they cannot pay the bribe amount. However, the appellant insisted that the amount has to be paid. On 7/3/2002, P.W.1 contacted the appellant on phone and the appellant allegedly informed that the licence was ready and asked P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount. On the very same day, P.W.1 went to the ACB office and lodged a complaint Ex.P1, with the DSP, ACB.