( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 20-2-1996 made in CC No. 42 of 1992 on the file of the special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, vijayawada in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months under each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts to the case are that the appellant herein Kalukuri Lingaiah (hereinafter referred to as the AO ), while functioning as ASI in Arundalpet Police station, Guntur District, demanded a sum of rs. 1,000/- from the complainant Muchipalli venkata Ramana Rao (PW1) as bribe on 14-9-1988 night at Arundalpet Police Station for not taking action against him on the complaint given against him by his wife smt. M Vasantha Rumari (PW4 ). On 15-9-1988, the AO repeated his earlier demand at the shop of PW1 at Guntur at 10. 00 AM and at the house of PW1 at guntur at 9. 30 PM. Again on 16-9-1988, the repeated the said demand at the shop of pw1 at 6. 30 AM and at his house at 9. 00 pm. Again on 19-9-1988 at 5. 30 PM, he repeated the demand at the shop of PW1. On 21-9-1998 at about 2. 30 PM, the AO demanded and accepted the bribe amount of rs. 1,000/- from PW1 at the place opposite to the Arundalpet Police Station, through nutalapati Adinarayana, Tea-cart boy (PW5 ). Tims, it is alleged that the AO committed offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act

( 3 ) IN support of the prosecution case, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. Pl to P11 and MOs. 1 to 7 were marked. On behalf of defence, none was examined and no documents were marked.

( 4 ) PW1 deposed that he married PW4 on 3-7-1988 in Malleswara Swamy Temple at Pedavakadam. Thereafter, he set up a separate family along with his wife (PW4) in Guntur. After some time, his father on coming to know of his marriage, requested him to come along with his wife to his father s house. But, his wife resisted for the same. He convinced her and took her to his father s house. Thereupon, differences arose between him and his wife. All of a sudden, without informing him, his wife left the house and was not seen for 3 days. On 14-9-1988, she gave a complaint against him at Arundalpet Police Station alleging that he was demanding dowry. On the same day, the AO came to his shop at about 1. 00 PM, took him to the police station and put him in the police lock-up. Though he was protesting that he had not committed any offence, the accused, while abusing him in filthy language, put him in the lock-up. After putting him in the police lock-up, the AO asked his wife to go away and come again in the evening.

( 5 ) IN the evening his wife again came to the police station and requested the AO to take him out of the lock-up representing that she wanted to make an enquiry against her petition by calling her husband and that she never wanted her husband to be put in the lock-up. His father also came in the evening to the police station on 14-9-1988 and requested the AO to leave him stating that he never demanded any dowry and that the marriage between him and his wife is an inter-caste marriage. The AO also abused his father; so, his father also left the police station. Thereupon, the AO also left the police station. At about 9. 00 PM on the night of 14-9-1988, one B. Badrinath (PW3), who is the opposite shop owner, came to the police station and requested the Station writer Sri K. James to take him out of the lock-up. Accordingly, the said James took him out of the lock-up room. At that time, the AO came there and talked to the said james in an angry mood as to why he took him out of the lock-up room. But, the said james represented some thing to the AO and adjusted. Thereupon, the AO pre