These two criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment in C.C.No.13 of 1994 dated 18.02.2005 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada, preferred by Accused Officer No.2 and Accused Officer No.1, respectively. Therefore, both the appeals are clubbed and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. At the relevant time, Accused Officer No.1 (appellant in Crl.A.No.627 of 2005) was working as Mandal Surveyor in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Narasaraopet and Accused Officer No.2 (appellant in Crl.A.No.488 of 2005) was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector in the said office. Both the Accused Officers were tried for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for brevity ‘the Act’) r/w 34 IPC, based on grounds of bribe and trap. They were found guilty and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months on each count. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

3. Accused Officer No.1 died during the pendency of appeal on 14.7.2007 and the appeal is pursued by his legal representatives.

4. Along with Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2, one Bezaam Venkateswara Prasannam was also charge sheeted as Accused Officer No.3. He died before the commencement of trial on 8.02.2000. Therefore the case proceeded only against Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2.

5. The accused-officers were charged for common intention taking the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code though the allegation was in relation to a single transaction.

6. A contention is raised as to whether accused-officers who are charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried and convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC; and if so, whether the conviction directed by the trial Court taking the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is violative.

7. To resolve the said controversy, a traverse on the relevant provisions, purpose and purport of the Act and the scope of Section 34 IPC is necessary.

8. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a special Act enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. The Act is intended to be a self-contained enactment.

9. Section 3 empowers the Central Government or the State Government to appoint Special Judges to try the following offences, viz., -

(a) any offence punishable under this Act; and

(b) Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a).

10. Section 4 of the Act enables the Special Judge to try any offence other than those mentioned in Section 3 of the Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or any other law. It also enables the learned Judge to hold the trial under the Act on day-today basis notwithstanding the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

11. Under Section 5 of the Act, the Special Judge is authorised to take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and he shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code for the trial of warrant cases. The Judge is also authorised to tender pardon to an accused with a view to obtaining his evidence with full and true disclosure of the circumstances relating to the offence.

12. Under Sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, a Special Judge is placed on par with a Court of Sessions A Special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under the Act, is authorised to exercise all powers and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.

13. Section 6 of the Act empowers a Special Judge to try an offence committed by a public servant in relation to contravention of any special order referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or an order referred to in clause (a) of sub-sect