L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment in C. C. No. 8 of 1995 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7,11,13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ). The trial court through its judgment dt. 6. 12. 1996 held the accused guilty of the said offences. Accordingly, it convicted and sentenced him to undergo R. I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo S. I for two months for the offence under Section 7 and to undergo R. I for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- in default to undergo S. I for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentence of imprisonment was directed to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE accused was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Cuddapah during the year 1994. Pw. 1 held certain landed property within the limits of Cuddapah mandal. He intended to get himself registered as a contractor with the Public Works Department and for that purpose; the property valuation certificate was necessary. He submitted an application (Ex:p. 1) on 1. 3. 1994 to the Mandal Revenue Officer (Pw. 3 ). Pw. 3 put his initial on Ex:p. 1 and handed over the same to Pw. 1 himself and asked him to give it to the accused. The accused in turn asked him to give Ex:p. 1 to the Village Administrative Officer (Pw. 4) and to bring cultivation accounts relating to his lands. Pw. 4 recorded the statements of Pw. 1 and his grand-mother and copies of Adangals as well as the extracts of revenue records being Exs:p. 1 to P. 4 were given to Pw. 1. He in turn handed over the same to the accused on 2. 3. 1994. It is stated that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- for issuance of the property valuation certificate. Pw. 1 expressed his inability to pay the amount and on the next day i. e. on 3. 3. 1994 in the evening Pw. 1 met the accused at the office of Pw. 3. There also, the demand was said to have been repeated but the amount was reduced to Rs. 600/ -. Pw. 1 was not willing to pay the said amount and reported the matter to A. C. B. on 5. 3. 1994 at 6. 35 a. . m. The A. C. B. arranged a trap duly following the procedure prescribed therefore. On 5. 3. 1994, Pw. 1 along with trap party reached the office of Pw. 3 at about 12. 30 p. m. While the A. C. B. officials and other witnesses have taken vantage positions and Pw. 1 went inside the office of Pw. 3. The accused was sitting in the chair meant for the Deputy Tahsildar. It is stated that on seeing Pw. 1, the accused verified as to whether the demanded amount was brought. When Pw. 1 answered in positive, he took the amount and kept in his pocket of the pant. Thereafter, he issued the property valuation certificate marked as Ex:p. 8. On noticing the signal given by Pw. 1, the A. C. B. team headed by Pw. 8 entered the office and checked the accused. They treated the hands of the accused with sodium carbonate solution, which yielded pink colour.

( 3 ) THEY claimed to have recovered the amount of Rs. 600/- in the denomination of Rs. 50/- each from the pant pocket of the accused. The number of the notes tallied with those in the panchanama. The right side pocket of the pant was treated with sodium carbonate solution, which also yielded pink colour. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 9 and got

( 4 ) MARKED Exs:p. 1 to P. 19 and M. Os. 1 to 9. Pw. 1 is the complainant, Pw. 2 is a mediator to the proceedings undertaken by the A. C. B. , Pw. 3 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pw. 4 is the Village Administrative Officer, Pw. 5 is the Superintendent in the office of Pw. 3, Pw. 6 is a Section Officer in the Revenue Department in the A. P. Secretariat, Pw. 7 is a witness examined for the purpose of showing the entries as to the dispatch of various proceed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document