IMPORTANT POINT
1. No rule of universal application that whenever a part of the case relating to demand and acceptance is not acceptable, the whole case would fail even if the case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by the prosecution is established.
2. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by a learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases for offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’). The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The accused was working as Excise Inspector, Jogipet, Medak District and joined in Government service as L.D.C. on 27-12-1962 in the office of Excise Superintendent. Medak District. Later he was promoted as Excise Sub-Inspector on 2-11-1971 and as Excise Inspector on 9-7-1985. He worked as Excise Inspector at Jogipet, Medak District from 8-4-1987 to 15-7-1989. He held Additional charge of the post of Tekmal Excise Range. Thus, he is a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 2 (c)(i) of the Act. One Sri Goundla Joginath Goud, son of Yella Goud is a resident of Muslapur village. He and his father were running a toddy shop. On 12-6-1989 the accused searched the cattle shed of one Burra Narsimlu of Muslapur village, situated adjacent to their toddy shop and seized 1 kg. of Chloral Hydrate, On 13-6-1989 the accused called Joginath Goud to his office and demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- stating that he would drop action and threatened that if they do not pay the monthly mamools regularly, cases would be booked against them. Then the complainant pleaded that he has no connection with his father and/or nor with the said case and requested not to book a case against them. After some bargaining the amount of bribe was reduced to Rs.4,000/- and accused asked him to pay Rs,2,000/- immediately. Accordingly he paid Rs.2,000/- as part payment on the same day and the balance was to be paid on 19-6-1989. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the balance of Rs.2,000/- he approached the DSP, ACB, Nizamabad Range on 16-6-1989 and lodged a complaint on which the DSP, Nizamabad Range, registered it as a case in Crime No:5 ACB-NZB/89 Under Sections 7 & 11 and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act. The investigation disclosed that the accused drafted a panchanama for the proceedings conducted in the house of Sri Burra Narsimhulu and seized a plastic bag of 1 Kg of Chloral Hydrate on 12-6-1989 and registered it as a case in Cr. No:40/88-89 under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against Burra Narsimhulu and also against the father of the complainant. Further investigation disclosed that the accused after demand and part payment sent up a preliminary report on grave crime part-I showing that accused is not traceable and he showed official favour by not mentioning the name of the father of the earlier demand, the accused demanded and accepted the balance of Rs.2,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration on 19-6-1989 at about 3.40 p.m. from the complainant Joginath Goud at his residence at Jogipet. Medak District in the presence of G. Anjaiah Goud and the accused was caught red-handed by the ACB in the presence of the mediators at 3.50 p.m. on 19-6-1989. The fingers of both the hands of the accused yielded positive results when subjected to Sodium Carbonate test. The tainted amount was recovered from the cot in the presence of the mediators. Therefore, the Government accorded sanction for prosecution vide G.O. Ms. No:757, dated 29-8-1991 Revenue (Excise I) Department and accordingly the accused was held liable for punishment under the abovesaid sections of law.

Copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused. The accused was examined and charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act were framed, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and fil