Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2005 in C.C.No.4 of 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge for S.P.E & A.C.B cases, Nellore convicting and sentencing the Accused Officer for the offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C. Act”) (two counts), Sections 468, 471, 477A of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and under Section 81 of Indian Registration Act, 1908 (two counts), the instant appeal is preferred.

2) The facts and circumstances which led to file the present appeal can be stated thus:

a) Accused Officer (for short ‘A.O’) worked as Sub-Registrar, Ammanabrolu and Chirala in Prakasam District during the period from 18.06.1990 to 21.06.1993 and 16.07.1994 to 19.02.1996 respectively. During his stint in those two places, among other documents he registered two sale deeds which according to prosecution were grossly undervalued and thereby, Government Exchequer suffered loss. Hence, he was prosecuted for the offences of criminal misconduct and other allied offences.

b) In detail, while working as Sub-Registrar, Ammanabrolu, the A.O registered Ex.P.1 – sale deed (vide document No.456 of 1990) relating to Ac.1-56 cents (7550.4 sq. yards) of agricultural land in S.No.61/2B2 on 13.07.1990. The A.O levied stamp duty and registration fee by adopting market value of the land at Rs.15,000/- per acre, against its rate of Rs.26/- per sq.yd fixed under the market value guidelines and thus caused loss to State Exchequer a sum of Rs.20,021/-. It is further alleged that A.O tampered with the market value guidelines register by rounding off the figure of Rs.26/- per sq.yd and incorporating Rs.15,000/- per acre against the land covered by S.No.61/2B2.

c) Another misdeed attributed against A.O is that while working as Sub-Registrar, Chirala he registered Ex.P.4–sale deed dated 17.05.1995 vide document No.1339/1995 in respect of a vacant site at Naidupet, Chirala in an extent of 3038 sq.yards near Door No.17-9-12. The A.O levied stamp duty and registration fee by adopting market value of the site @ Rs.100/- per sq.yd against its book value of Rs.200/- per sq.yd. The value of the site is Rs.6,07,600/- (3038 sq.yds X 200). A.O ought to have levied stamp duty of Rs.66,860/- i.e., 11% on the site value and registration fee of Rs.3,290/- (1% on first Rs.50,000/- and half percent on the remaining value). However, he levied stamp duty of Rs.33,430/- and registration fee of Rs.1,770/- by considering the market value of the site as Rs.3,03,800/- (@ 100/- per sq.yd). He thus caused loss to State Exchequer a sum of Rs.34,950/-.

d) It is thus alleged that he committed the acts of criminal misconduct and caused monetary loss of Rs.54,971/- to the State. PW.7 registered a case in Crime No.21/ACB-NPK/98, investigated and filed charge-sheet against A.O.

e) The trial Court has framed charges against A.O under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act (two counts) and Sections 468, 471, 477A of I.P.C and under Section 81 of Indian Registration Act (two counts).

f) During trial PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked on behalf of prosecution. A.O did not adduce any evidence.

g) The A.O did not deny the factum of his registering the two disputed sale deeds. His defence was in the line of justifying his acts. Regarding Ex.P.1 – sale deed of Sub-Registrar Office, Ammanabrolu, his explanation is that the parties presented the sale deed mentioning the property as an agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-56 cents. They valued the property @ Rs.15,000/- per acre. Whereas in Ex.P.3- basic value register maintained by his office, the value is shown as Rs.26/- per sq.yd treating the Sy.No.61/2B2 as a house site. In view of the difference in the nature of property, he personally inspected the property on 10.07.1990 along with Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O) and Mandal Revenue Officer (M.R.O) and found it as an agricultural land as there were standing crops of Gingili and Jowar and obtained Ex.P.2