IMPORTANT POINT
When findings of acquittal judgment were based on material on record and there was no perversity in conclusions arrived at by High Court, no interference was warranted.

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad made in Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 1989 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases at Hyderabad against the respondent herein. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the respondent who while working as Commissioner, Sangareddy Municipality during the year 1986-87 demanded and obtained an illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- to show an official favour to award the work order to PW-1 who was a successful tenderer in a municipality contract, thus committed an offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the Act) as also an offence under section 161 IPC. In this regard, the prosecution alleges that on 20.4.1987 when PW-1 met the respondent and requested him for the work order which he was entitled to pursuant to the acceptance of his tender for doing a contract job for the Municipality the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to issue the work order. When PW-1 expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount respondent reduced the said amount to Rs. 400 and directed PW-1 to pay that amount within 3 or 4 days. PW-1 being aggrieved by such an illegal demand of the respondent went to Nizamabad and contacted PW-5 who was then working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad District and lodged a complaint Ex. P-9. Pursuant to the said complaint PW-5 directed PW-1 to come back to him on 24.4.1987 at 9 a.m. at Shankarampet Guest House. Prosecution further alleges that PW-5 after verifying the antecedents of PW-1 obtained necessary permission of competent authority for laying a trap. He also made necessary arrangements for requisitioning officers working in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Nizamabad to act as mediators. PW-4 was one such person who was chosen to be the mediator. Prosecution then alleges that on 24.4.1987 PW-5 accompanied by his staff and others including PWs.1 and 2 came to Sangareddy at about 12 p.m. PW-5 by then had already instructed PWs.1 and 2 to carry the pre-marked currency notes totalling Rs. 400 in value to be handed over to the respondent. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that on that day after reaching Sangareddy PWs.1 and 2 went to the office of the respondents and offered to pay bribe but then respondent asked them to meet him at his residing during the lunch-break. Accordingly, PWs.1 and 2 went and informed PW-5 whereupon all of them proceeded at about 1 p.m. to the house of the respondent and PWs 1 and 2 went inside the house when the respondent asked them as to the money whereupon PW-1 paid pre-marked currency notes to the respondent who took them inside his bed-room and kept them under mattress. On PW-2 giving the necessary signal PW-5 and other members of the raiding party entered the house of the respondent and asked him whether he had received any money from PW-1. Prosecution alleges that the respondent admitted having received the said amount and on being told by PW-5 he brought the said money from his bed-room and when his hands were tested for the presence of phenolphthalein powder with water, same proved positive. Prosecution further alleges that the proceedings were drawn up which were attested by PW-4 and it is based on the said investigation that the respondent was charged for offences as stated above.

2. While the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 the respondent in his defence examined 9 witnesses to establish his innocence. It was the defence case that the stage of issuing work order had not been reached because the contract in question was yet to be accepted by the Municipal Council or the Collector who was in-charge of the Council then, hence question of demanding bribe did not arise at all. The defence had further pleaded that the respo