JUDGMENT :

This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, being represented by the District Inspector, Krishna, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, through the Standing Counsel-cum- Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, challenging the judgment, dated 20.01.2007 in C.C.No.16 of 2004, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the respondent herein i.e., Accused Officer (“AO” for short) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The State, being represented by the District Inspector, Krishna, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.5/ACB-RCT-VJA/2003 of ACB, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging in substance, as follows:

(i) Sri Pallapolu Venkata Nageswara Rao, S/o late Kotaiah, who was working as Assistant Manager, Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Vijayawada, is the AO as on 05.03.2003. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(ii) Sri Yaradesi Nageswara Rao S/o Tirupatiah (L.W.1- died), a resident of Kothagudem, Khammam District, is the absolute owner of a Car bearing Registration No.A.P.7/V/4817. It was given for hire to the Zonal Office of the AO from September, 2000 to March, 2002 on the name of Venkateswara Travels and Tours, Vijayawada. As per the agreement, bills were paid for the period from September, 2000 to December, 2000 @ Rs.11,750/- per month. Later the bills relating to the period from January, 2001 to March, 2002 were kept pending despite repeated requests of the complainant. At last the bills were prepared in the month of May, 2002 and proceedings were given, sanctioning an amount of Rs.1,48,652/- in favour of the complainant and a copy of the proceedings was also given to the complainant.

(iii) On 04.03.2003 the complainant (L.W.1) went to the office of the AO and enquired about his bill. Then the AO demanded him to pay Rs.6,000/- as bribe for doing an official favour of releasing the bills and further threatened that he would continue to keep the bills pending unless he was bribed. When the complainant expressed his inability, the AO directed him to pay at least Rs.2,000/- on 05.03.2003 at his office to receive the Demand Draft and to pay the remaining Rs.4,000/- after encashment of the D.D., for which the complainant reluctantly agreed and approached P.W.7-the Trap Laying Officer and presented a report, who, after observing the necessary formalities, registered a case and investigated into.

(iv) On 05.03.2003 the AO was successfully trapped by the Trap Laying Officer when he demanded and accepted the demand of Rs.2,000/- at his office from the complainant and when S.C. solution test was conducted to the inner linings of the right side pant pocket and both hands of the AO, it proved positive. The Trap Laying Officer seized the tainted amount, connected documents, and resultant solutions in the presence of the mediators and entrusted the Inspector to make further investigation, who examined the witnesses and submitted draft final report and after receipt of sanction order, filed charge sheet.

(v) The Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad passed sanction of prosecution orders vide his proceedings No.1139/APPCB/HO/Estt./E-1/2003-1684, dated 21.01.2004 to prosecute the AO. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and after appearance of the AO and after complying necessary formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Sections 7 and