L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Criminal Appeals arise out of common judgment in C. C. No. 16 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, dated 29-2-2000. The trial Court convicted a-1 of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act (for short the act ) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months. A-2 had turned as an approver and was examined as p. W. 21. He was granted pardon. A-3 and a-4 were acquitted of the offences under section 12 of the Act read with Section 34 IPC alleged against them. A-1 preferred Crl. A. No. 272 of 2000 assailing the conviction and sentence against him, whereas Crl. A. No. 807 of 2000 is filed by the State against the acquittal of A-3 and A-4.

( 2 ) THE brief facts as presented before the trial court may be stated as under:- a-1 functioned as the III Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, from May 1995 to 4-9-1996. One of the cases being tried by him was S. C. No. 186 of 1989. P. W. 1 herein figured as Accused No. 1 in that case and was being tried for offences under Sees. 120-B and 303 IPC, 3 (3) and 4 (3) of TADA Act and section 27 of the Indian Arms Act read with sections 5 and 6 of TADA Act, along with several other accused. P. W. 21 was a constable in decoity wing of CCS of Police Control room, Hyderabad, who was entrusted with the work of attending that Court.

( 3 ) P. W. 21 is alleged to have been called by A-1 some time in June 1996 to his chambers where two other persons were present. He was asked to secure a driving license for one of them. P. W. 21 complied with the instructions and afterwards A-1 asked him to come to his residential flat at padma Rao Nagar, at Hyderabad. Their A-1 informed him that there is a case pertaining to one Sardarji (P. W. 1) where the chances of acquittal and conviction are equal, P. W. 21 said that the case relates to the murder of a team of CCS and does not concern his wing. Still A-1 asked him to contact P. W. 1 duly giving his descriptive particulars and to tell him that if he pays an amount of rs. 6,00,000/-, through another person, the work will be done.

( 4 ) SINCE P. W. 21 was afraid of approaching p. W. 1, after obtaining permission of A-1, he approached P. W. 2, who was another accused in S. C. No. 186/89, P. W. 2, who was another accused in S. C. No. 186/89. P. W. 2, in turn, had directed him to approach P. W. 1 on the ground that the latter was looking after the case. P. W. 21 met P. W. 1 and conveyed the message of A-1. P. W. 1 expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount. On the same day, p. W. 1 approached the ACB officials. However, since the Director of ACB was busy and did not give any appointment to him, he went to the Court. Subsequently, p. W. 21 approached P. W. 1 stating that at least an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- together with 50,000/- to be shared equally by himself (P. W. 21) and another mediator be paid.

( 5 ) P. W. 1 kept himself in touch with the officials of the ACB. Since the ACB officials informed him that they cannot proceed in the matter against A-1, who is a Judicial officer, without the permission of the High court. P. W. 1 met the Chief Justice of High court on 3-9-1996 and submitted a complaint (Ex. P-1 ). P. W. 1 wanted to know from p. W. 21 the modalities of payment. P. W. 21 has informed P. W. 1 that on 4-9-1996, on which date the case was posted, A-1 will utter a code word, viz. , "petitions will be posted to 6-9-1996 in the Court and hearing the same both of them should go to hanamkonda, Warangal district, to the residence of A-1, where his wife A-3 and his son A-4 are residing at the first floor and pay the amount there.

( 6 ) AFTER meeting with the Chief Justice once again in the morning of 4-9-1996. P. W. 1 proceeded to the office of the Director of ACB and submitted a complaint (Ex. P-2), F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document