L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the sole accused in C. C. No. 6 of 1995 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The trial Court through its judgment dated 13-9-1996 found the appellant guilty of the offence under S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. It has also found him guilty of the offence under S. 13 (1) (d) read with S. 13 (2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE case of prosecution is that the appellant was employed as Agricultural Officer and was posted in Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor district. PW-1 is the dealer in fertilizers in Baireddipalli village having obtained necessary licence under the relevant provisions. On 26-1-1994, the appellant went to the shop of PW-1 and verified as to whether the Stock Register and Bill books (Exs. P-1 and P-2) were maintained properly. On the allegation that they were not maintained properly, he had taken away Exs. P-1 and P-2 without issuing any receipt for the same. PW-1 went to the house of the appellant at Palamaner four or five times and requested him to return Exs. P-1 and P-2. the appellant informed PW-1 that unless an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is paid, Exs. P-1 and P-2 will not be returned. Again PW-1 went to the house of the appellant in the afternoon of 22-2-1994. The appellant had insisted that at least an amount of Rs1,500/- be paid for returning the seized Exs. P-1 and P-2 failing which a case will be registered against PW-1 and prosecuted for violations.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, PW-1 returned. He approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACB) at Tirupathi, on 25-2-1994 and informed about what transpired between him and the appellant. After following necessary formalities, a trap was arranged to take place on 26-1-1994. An amount of Rs. 1500/- with tainted notes was arranged and a person by name M. Gangadhar was to accompany PW-1 to witness the payment of the amount to the appellant. The ACB team proceeded to the spot as planned. PW-1 and the said Gangadhar went to the house of the appellant at about 5 p. m. The accused was not there and when asked, the inmates of the house informed that he will come back shortly. They waited outside the house. At 7. 30 p. m. , the appellant came to his house. On noticing PW-1, he called him inside and took him into the bedroom. When the appellant enquired about the amount, PW-1 expressed his willingness to pay; thereupon the appellant had given him an envelope of invitation card and asked him to put the amount into the same. PW-1 complied with the same and gave the cover to the appellant. After receiving it, he kept it in the sill of the window in the bedroom.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, PW-1 came out and gave a pre-arranged signal. The panch witness PW-2 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police PW-6 along with other staff went to the house of the appellant. They arranged for washing of the hands of the appellant with sodium carbonate solution. The washing of both hands yielded neutral result. Thereafter, PW-6 has called for PW-1. He explained whatever had transpired between him and the appellant. As per the revelation of PW-1, PW-6 recovered the envelope comprising the tainted amount. The appellant was immediately arrested and proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Act.

( 5 ) CHARGES were framed against the appellant under S. 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and MOs 1 to 10. For the defence, DW-1 was examined and Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked. PW-1 is the de facto complainant, PW-2 is the panch witness for the proceedings undertaken by ACB, PW-3 is another dealer in fertilizers at the same village, PW-4 is the Assistant Director of Agriculture, wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document