Point of law: The essential ingredients to be established to indict a person of an offence under Section 5(I)(d) of the Act are that he should have been a public servant, that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.12 of 2002, the sole accused filed the present Criminal Appeal. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. By its judgment dated 19.8.2006, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused officer under both the counts and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months under each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

2. The substance of the charge against the against the accused officer is that on 05.02.2001 at 10.30 AM the accused is said to have demanded an amount of Rs.2,500/- as bribe from one Avutu Brahmanandareddy of Tumuluru Village for issuance of a certificate of license in his favour and pursuant there to, accepted the same on 20.02.2001. The said amount was recovered from a diary, kept on the table of the accused officer.

3. The facts in issue are as under :

There was one fertilizer shop in the name of the father of P.W.1 at Tumuluru village. P.W.1 intended to obtain fertilizer license in his name and accordingly submitted an application to Agricultural Officer of Kollipara Mandal on 27.12.2000. Along with the application, he enclosed a challan for Rs.1,250/-, xerox copies of rent agreement and Form-O. Ex.P1 is the said application. Ex.P2 is the challan and Ex.P3 is the proforma of Form-A application. While Ex.P4 is the Form-O submitted by the neighbouring businessmen, Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of registered sale deeds. The Agricultural Officer at Kollipara Mandal is said to have recommended the application of P.W.1 and forwarded the same to the accused officer at Tenali for issuance of license to carry on fertilizer business. On 29.01.2001, the accused officer returned the application on the ground that certain required papers were not enclosed. P.W.1 claims to have complied with the objections raised by the accused officer and re-submitted his application on the same day, i.e., on 29.01.2001. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of the said application. A week thereafter, P.W.1 met the Agricultural Officer, Kollipara and enquired about his recommendation and for issuance of fertilizer license, to which he replied that he did not receive any recommendation from the accused officer. Two days thereafter, he again met the Agricultural Officer at Kollipara, but to no avail. Thereafter, he went to the office of the accused officer, Tenali on 10.02.2001, but could not meet him as he was on tour. Subsequently thereafter, he met the accused officer, who demanded bribe of Rs.2,500/-for issuance of fertilizer licence. Though P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount, the accused officer is said to have reiterated his demand. As P.W.1 was reluctant to pay the bribe amount, he came down to Vijayawada and presented a report-Ex.P7, which is in his handwriting, to P.W.12, the Dy.S.P., A.C.B. on 19.02.2001. On receipt of the same, P.W.12 endorsed the same to P.W.13 to cause discrete enquiries about the accused officer and P.W.1 and to submit his report. Pursuant thereto, P.W.13 caused discrete enquiry and submitted a report by the next day morning.

4. After obtaining oral permission from higher authorities to lay a trap, P.W.12 sent a requisition to C.T.O., Benz Circle, to spare the services of two officers to act as mediators. He registered a case under crime No.4 of 2001 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and submitted the original F.I.R. to the Court. Ex.P25 is the original F.I.R. On the next day, i.e., on 20.02.2001, the mediators -P.W.7 and one V.Narendra Kumar attended the office of P.W.12, where they were introduced to P.W.1, who came there along with the proposed bribe amount. The mediators were asked to verify the contents of F.I.R. and also about the genuineness of the report given by P.W.1. T