This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the Accused Officer (AO) aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.09.2010 in C.C.No.7 of 2005 passed by learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada convicting him 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 sentencing him to undergo R.I for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer SI for one month on first count and suffer R.I for one year and to a pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for three months on the second count with a direction that the substantive sentences of imprisonment under both counts shall run concurrently.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) AO Tadikalapudi Sesha Rama Sankhar Kumar worked as Panchayat Secretary in Thaduvai Gram Panchayat, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District during 2003. According to prosecution, Kodavati Venkateswara Rao complainant (PW1) who is having 17 acres of land at Thaduvai Village proposed to purchase a tractor by taking a loan from Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (P.A.C.S), Thaduvai. PW.1 approached AO about 15 days prior to presenting Ex.P.1 report to PW.10 and handed over pattadar pass books of his land and requested him to issue copies of 10(1) Adangal extracts. One day when PW.1 was returning from his lands, the AO demanded PW.1 to pay a bribe of Rs.500/- to issue Adangal extracts, then PW.1 informed the AO to give the certificates first and then he would see about the demanded bribe amount but AO did not heed to his request and informed that unless and until demanded bribe amount was paid, he would not issue copies of 10(1) Adangal extracts, without which PW.1 could not get the loan. Again on 16.10.2003, when PW.1 approached AO, he reiterated his earlier demand.

b) Unwilling to pay bribe, PW1 submitted Ex.P.1 complaint to DSP, ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru (PW10) on 17.10.2003 at 8:30 am, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.9/RCT-EWG/2003 on 18.10.2003 at 12:30 pm after conducting discreet enquiries and successfully laid a trap against AO on 18.10.2003. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against AO.

c) On appearance of AO, charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act were framed against him and trial was conducted.

d) During trial, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P19 and Ex.X.1 were marked and MOs.1 to 8 were exhibited on behalf of prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence.

e) The trial Court on appreciation of evidence held that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the AO, as stated supra.

Hence, the appeal by AO.

3. Heard arguments of Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for appellant/AO and Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Spl.P.P.) for ACB cases.

4. a) Challenging the judgment, learned counsel for appellant firstly argued that the trial Court misread the facts and evidence and erroneously convicted the A.O. Expatiating it, he argued that in a trap case the prosecution must by cogent evidence establish the two vital ingredients i.e. demand and acceptance of bribe by accused officer (A.O.) but in this case the prosecution miserably failed to prove those ingredients in as much as P.W.1, the complainant himself has not supported the prosecution case on these vital ingredients. Even according to P.W.1, he was misled by the information of Village Servant who stated as if the A.O. demanded the bribe and on his such information and without cross-checking the same with A.O., he believed as if the A.O. demanded bribe for issuing certified copies of 10 (1) adangal. From the evidence of P.W.1, the learned counsel argued, the A.O. never demanded bribe from P.W.1 for doing any official favour much less for issuing certified copies of 10(1) adangal. He submitted, P.W.1 was declared hostile by prosecution and cross-examined at length but no