1) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-11-2005 in C.C.No.17 of 1995 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the Accused Officer (A.O) was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’) and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo SI for a period of three months on two counts.

2) The factual matrix of the case, which led to file the instant appeal, is thus:

a) The A.O—Vittalaiah worked as Head Assistant in Mandal Revenue Office, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from 01-05-1993 to 05-07-1994.

b) PW1–Ravula Yellaiah is the resident of Rayapale village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He got Form ‘D’ certificate on 16-04-1993 in his favour to an extent of Ac.2.00 covered by Sy.No.263 of Kalsa Ibrahimpatnam Village, Ranga Reddy district. While so, his name was not shown as cultivator in pahani for the year 1992-93. Therefore, he submitted a representation in the month of December, 1993 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and also to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Ibrahimpatnam to enter his name in the pahani. He also contacted the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), Kalsa Ibrahimpatnam of Ranga Reddy district for rectification of error in the pahani, but of no avail. Then PW1 contacted the A.O and explained his problem. Again in the month of June, 1994 he met the AO with regard to rectification of error. At that time A.O demanded Rs.500/- from PW1 as bribe to influence V.A.O and M.R.O to get his name entered in the pahani for the year 1992-93. Again on 29-06-1994, PW1 met the A.O in his office and submitted a representation for inclusion of his name in Jamabandi record in respect of Ac.2.00 of Kalsa Ibrahimpatnam village. Then the A.O reiterated his earlier demand for which PW1 kept silent. On 01-07-1994 when PW1 contacted A.O with regard to his representation, A.O reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.500/- as bribe and directed PW1 to pay the same within four or five days. As PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), ACB, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad on 02-07-1994 and submitted Ex.P.1-complaint. Basing on Ex.P.1—complaint, the DSP registered a case in Cr.No.6/ACB-HR/94 for the offences under Sections 7 and 11 of PC Act against AO. On 05-07-1994 DSP arranged for trap and the A.O was successfully trapped on the same day at 2:15 pm in his office and the test on right hand of the A.O yielded positive result. The tainted amount of Rs.500/- (MO3) was recovered at the instance of A.O from his table drawer. After obtaining sanction order, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet.

c) On appearance of A.O, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act were framed. The A.O denied charges and claimed to be tried.

d) During trial, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P20 and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked on behalf of prosecution. On behalf of AO, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

e) A perusal of the judgment would show that the trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 held that the A.O demanded bribe for doing an official favour i.e., for implementation of D Form Patta and inclusion of PW1’s name in Jamabandi record in respect of land Ac.2.00 of Kalsa Ibrahimpatnam village. In this process, trial Court referred two main arguments advanced on behalf of A.O i.e. (1) that no official favour was pending with A.O and that his duty was only to maintain the attendance register and supervise the works of other staff members and it was not his duty to effect rectification in pahani register and (2) that the A.O never demanded and accepted the bribe and on the other hand, PWs.1 and 2 stealthily entered to his room and implanted amount in his drawer during his abs