Sentence can be reduced on ground of old age.

1) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.01.2006 in C.C.No.12 of 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B. cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for three months on two counts for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) &

(ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’), he preferred the instant Criminal Appeal.

2) The facts which led to file the appeal in nutshell are thus:

"1. The Accused Officer(A.O)– P.V.Rajaratnam worked as General Manager, District Industries Centre(for short “D.I.C”), Nalgonda till 21.08.1992 and is a public servant. PW.1-K. Srinivasulu established a silk twisting unit under the name and style M/s. S.K. Silk Industries at Puttapaka village in Narayanpur Mandal of Nalgonda District which was registered as S.S.I Unit with the D.I.C, Nalgonda. After installation of machinery, PW.1 approached A.O on 01.06.1992 at his office and submitted claim application for getting Government subsidy. It is alleged that the A.O demanded him bribe of Rs.3,000/- for getting the subsidy sanctioned in his favour and directed him to pay the bribe amount before 20.06.1992, so that he would get the subsidy sanctioned by the District Level Committee (for short “D.L.C”). PW.1, who was asked to submit his documents for processing his subsidy claim, submitted the required documents but the A.O without processing them reiterated his earlier demand of bribe and threatened that his application would not be considered and he would not inspect the unit of PW.1 unless he meets his demand.

2. Unwilling to pay bribe, PW.1 lodged Ex.P.1- complaint dated 29.07.1992 with PW.6–D.S.P, A.C.B, Hyderabad Range who registered it as a case in R.C.No.6/ACB-HR/92 under Sections 7 and 11 of P.C. Act and laid a trap against A.O on 31.07.1992 with the help of mediators PW.2 and LW.3- Peddabbulu by following due pre-trap proceedings.

3. As instructed by the Trap Laying Officer, on 31.07.1992 at about 11:35am, PW.1 approached the A.O in his office. A.O demanded and accepted the tainted bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- and kept it in the left side lower drawer of his table in his office. PW.1 came out and gave prearranged signal and thereby the T.L.O and other trap members rushed to the office room of A.O and caught him red-handed and recovered the tainted amount from his possession. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction from the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce (I.E) Department, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against A.O for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act.

4. On appearance of A.O, the trial Court framed charges for the two offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and as the A.O denied charges and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted.

5. The prosecution to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11, Exs.X.1 & X.2 and produced material objects M.Os.1 to 6. On behalf of A.O, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 was marked.

6. The defence plea as per the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and as per the written statement filed during the 313 Cr.P.C examination is thus. The A.O took the pleas that he never demanded bribe of Rs.3000/- from PW.1 for inspecting his unit. PW.1 deliberately mislead the ACB officials with the false complaint. The ACB officials acted hastily without making any verifications. The alleged demand was made on 01.06.1992. The complaint was filed on 29.07.1992 at about 4:30pm. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The application of PW.1 was lacking the 9 documents. The notice dated 22.06.1992 was issued to PW.1 to produce the documents. In pursuance of the said notice. PW.1 submitted his letter dated 29.06.1992. The said fact was deliberately suppressed by PW.1 before ACB offi