1) The accused/respondent was working as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C), Waltair Depot, Visakhapatnam. The Special Judge for A.C.B Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No.59 of 2009 (old C.C. No.8 of 1996) by the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2004 acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act).

2) P.W-1 was working as Deputy Superintendent (Mechanical) in the same Waltair Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C at Visakhapatnam during the relevant time. In September, 1993 there was inspection by Divisional Manager and Depot Manager of Waltair Depot and stopped P.W-1’s incentive on the ground that washing and cleaning of buses were not proper. Therefore, P.W-1 intended to put in an application to the higher authorities for release of incentive to him. The said application has to be routed through the accused who was his superior in the same department. It is alleged that on 27.09.1993 when the P.W-1 approached the accused along with his application, the accused did not oblige his request and demanded Rs.150/-as illegal gratification to send his application to higher authorities. Alleging so, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-4, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) Visakhapatnam range on 28.09.1993. Thereupon, P.W-4 arranged trap for the accused on 01.10.1993. Before proceeding for the trap, Ex.P-8 pre-trap proceedings were prepared in the presence of mediators including P.W-2. It is alleged that the trap was successful and M.O-5 tainted cash of Rs.150/- was seized from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P-10 post-trap proceedings. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After full fledged trial, the lower Court found the accused not guilty of the charges.

3) The lower Court recorded acquittal of the accused on two grounds viz., that no reliance can be placed on evidence of P.W-1 without any corroboration and that sanction for prosecution of the accused in this case was not in accordance with law. The lower Court also found favour with the defence version that the accused received tainted cash of Rs.150/- from P.W-1 towards his contribution for two functions and not as bribe amount. The accused was in-charge of union activities of the Corporation in that depot. It is pleaded by the accused that out of Rs.150/-, a sum of Rs.50/-was paid by P.W-1 towards contribution for felicitation function of Dr.M.V.Mysura Reddy who was the State President of their union and who became Minister in the Government of Andhra Pradesh and that balance of Rs.100/- was paid towards arrears of contribution payable by the accused for farewell function of Divisional Manager Sudhakar Rao which took place earlier.

4) P.W-1 speaks to the demand of Rs.150/-made by the accused on 27.09.1993 for forwarding his application to higher authorities for restoration of incentive to him. He also speaks to receipt of tainted cash of Rs.150/- by the accused from P.W-1 on 01.10.1993 during the trap after making demand for the said amount. In cross-examination, P.W-1 stated that he does not remember whether he paid Rs.50/- for the party of Dr.M.V.Mysura Reddy which was performed on 04.10.1993. The function of felicitating Dr.M.V.Mysura Reddy was scheduled to be held on 04.10.1993, which is four days subsequent to the date of trap. In so far as the farewell function of the Divisional Manager Sudhakar Rao is concerned, it was in June, 1993. It is pointed out from Ex.P-5 that P.W-1 did not make payment of contribution of Rs.100/- for the farewell function. Ex.P-5 is the list sent regarding collections of contributions from this depot. It shows that P.W-1 and another did not make their contributions of Rs.100/- each for the said function and that in spite of non-payment of the said contributions by two individuals, the Superintendent by name Rama Murthy who was in-charge of the said collection, sent t