1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25-10-2004 in C.C. No.20 of 1994 passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum - IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad convicting the appellant – accused officer for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and further sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the conviction and sentence recorded against him (appellant) is contrary to the evidence and material on record and the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and erroneously held that the appellant is guilty of the said offences.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant, who was a Mandal Revenue Officer (Public Servant) of Bheemadevarapalli of Karimnagar District had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.300/- from PW.1, the defendant facto complainant, on 21-09-1993 at about 4-55 p.m. in his office for showing official favour for issuing ‘lavoni patta’ in favour of the second son of PW.1 for an extent of Acs.2-00 in Survey No.609/1 of Kothapalli village of Bheemadevarapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District.

3. That two months prior to 20-09-1993, on coming to know that lavoni pattas were being allotted by the Government, PW.1 approached the appellant and requested him to allot Acs.2-00 of land that was being cultivated by his son Komarelli and upon that the appellant promised to do so. That on 18-09-1993, having coming to know that the pattas were ready, PW.1 approached the appellant and enquired about the lavoni patta in favour of his second son, whereupon, the appellant informed him that they were ready but he demanded Rs.300/- as bribe for allotting the same and asked him (PW.1) to visit him in his office on 21-09-1993 and pay Rs.300/-.

4. That with an intention to avoid payment of bribe, PW.1 approached LW.10, the DSP ACB (P.L. Raju), and lodged Ex.P-1 before him. As per the directions of the DSP ACB, PW.6, the Inspector of police, ACB, made preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to the LW.10, the DSP ACB (P.L. Raju), who in turn obtained permission from the higher authorities. Thereafter, basing on Ex.P-1 lodged by PW.1, a case in Crime No.6/ACB, KMNR/93 for the offences under Sections 7, 11 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) (i) of the PC Act was registered on 21-09-1993.

5. That Ex.P-1 pre-trap - first mediators report proceedings were prepared in the presence of PW.3 and LW.3 (R.Sripal Reddy), who acted as mediators. LW.10, the DSP ACB (P.L. Raju), PW.6, another inspector Salman Rao were also present. After verifying the contents of Ex.P-1, the trap party arranged to trap the appellant and currency notes containing phenolphthalein powder were put in the pocket of PW.1. PW.2 accompanied PW.1 to the office of the appellant to watch the transaction. After PW.1 reached the office, the appellant enquired PW.1 whether he had brought bribe amount and on that PW.1 handed over the tainted bribe amount to the appellant and he received the same with his right hand and put the same in his right side pant pocket. That in response to the pre-arranged signal from PW.1, the trap party entered the office of the appellant and subjected both hands of the appellant to Sodium Carbonate solution test and found that the right hand fingers of the appellant turned pink (positive). Thereafter, on being asked by LW.10, the DSP ACB (P.L.Raju)regarding bribe amount, the appellant removed the tainted bribe amount