( 1 ) THE State filed these two criminal appeals against the judgment of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada made in CC. No. 65 of 1992 dated 15-5-1995.

( 2 ) CRI. A. No. 557 of 1995 is filed against the said judge in acquitting the respondent P. Venugop2al. S. I. of Police. Uppada Kothapalli, Pithapuram Mandal. East Godavari District (for short the AO ) of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d} (ii) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 (for short the Act )

( 3 ) CRL. A. No. 558 of 1995 is filed against the said judgment in rejecting the application of the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 340 Cr. P. C. to take necessary steps to prosecute the respondent herein {pw-1) for committing the offence of perjury

( 4 ) THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau Rajahmundry filed a charge-sheet alleging that one Pasupuleti Vankata Lakshmi (PW-1) W/o Arjuna Rao resident of Uppada Kothapalli in Pithapuram Mandal Presented a report in Uppada Kothapalli Police Station on 11 - 11 - 1991 with a specific allegation of theft of 6,100 bricks from the premises of her house. In that regard, she indicated the name of K. Tatamma @ Thata Rao as the person responsible for commission of theft. The AO was working as SI of Police, Uppada Kothapalli Police Station. The AO sent for Tatamma; and on interrogation, Tatamma admitted the commission of offence; and the AO, without registering the case, made an attempt to compromise the matter between the culprit Tatamma and PW-1. But, the said compromise was not fructified. In an effort to adjust the matter, the AO called PW-3, the husband of PW- 1, and gave Rs. 200. 00 as part payment towards the adjusted amount and wanted him to go and give the same to his wife (PW-1 ). But, PW-1 insisted for the payment of Rs. 2,000. 00 towards the value of 6,100 bricks and refused to accept Rs. 200/ -. She did not agree for the compromise of taking Rs. 1,100. 00 from the culprit Tatamma as suggested by the AO. As the compromise proposal was not accepted by PW-1, the husband of PW l (PW-3) was asked to return the amount to PW-4, Penke Musalayya, who is said to have been the mediator for the said compromise. The AO was requested to do justice by getting her Rs. 2,000. 00 which was the cost the bricks.

( 5 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that the AO demanded Rs. 300. 00 from PW- 1 for the recovery of money of property from Tatamma and on pleasing her inability to give Rs. 300. 00 he reduced the demand from Rs. 300. 00 to Rs. 200. 00 But, PW-1 declined to give the said amount and she made a statement to PW-9 II (D S P, ACB, Rajahmundry) on 27-11-1991; and the same was reduced to writing, which is marked as Ex. P-15. On the said report, PW-9 registered a case in Cr. No. 4/rc. Rjy/91 and issued FIR under Ex. P.-16. The AO was successfully trapped in his residence on 28-11-1991 at about 2. 30 P. M. , when he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 200. 00 from PW-1. The chemical test was positive and the tainted money was recovered from the money-purse of the AO placed on the Television (for short "the TV ). The explanation given by the AO was not acceptable. After getting the sanction to prosecute the AO was not acceptable. After getting the sanction to prosecute the AO (Ex. P-20 ). The charge-sheet was filed to punish the AO for the commission of the offences under Sections 7,11 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d)of the Act.

( 6 ) AFTER furnishing all the documents to the AO, he was examined under Section 239 Cr. P. C. He denied the allegations as false. The following two charges are framed against the AO:-"firstly :-That you on 28-11-91 at about 2-30 P. M. at your residence bearing door No. 3-2-56 in Mangarayapeta at Saibaba Temple Street, Pithapuram, being a public servant namely Sub-Inspector of Police of Uppada Kothapalli Police Station, demanded and accepted Rs. 200. 00 from Smt. Pasupuleti Venkata Lakshmi for yourself as illegal gratific