JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, being represented by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, through the Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, challenging the judgment, dated 04.04.2007 in C.C. No. 3 of 2003, 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). But, at the same time, he made an order to prosecute PW-1 for perjury with a direction to lodge a complaint against him before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

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, represented by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 11/ACB-CR/2000, alleging in substance, as follows:

(i) The AO worked as Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Krishna Central Division, Vijayawada, from May, 1999 to 25.07.2000 i.e. as on the alleged date of trap and as such, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(ii) Sri K. Venkat Rao S/o Kesava Chandra Chowdary, resident of Vijayawada (PW-1) was a Civil Contractor, who executed K.E.B. canal contract work pertaining to Irrigation Department, Krishna, Central Division by 1999 July. On 24.07.2000 at 7-00 a.m. when PW-1 approached the AO for payment of the final bill pertaining to filling of scours in front of Prakasam Barrage for the vents 1 to 50, the AO demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as bribe and PW-1 pleaded his inability. On that the AO threatened him that he will not record the work in “M” book and settle the bill, unless he was bribed. After repeated requests by PW-1, the AO informed PW-1 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as bribe on 25.07.2000 to him either at his residence or at his Office and another Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid as and when the bill amount was given. On that as PW-1 was not willing to pay the demanded bribe amount, he proceeded to the Dy. S.P. ACB, City Range-I, Hyderabad, and presented Ex.P.8, who after observing necessary formalities, registered as a case and investigated into.

(iii) On 25.07.2000 the AO was successfully trapped in his residential office, when he further demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- from PW-1 in the presence of mediators and the tainted amount was recovered from his physical possession and when the S.C. solution test was conducted to both the hand fingers and inner linings of the pant pocket and handkerchief, it proved positive and thereafter the case was investigated into and charge-sheet was filed.

(iv) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued prosecution sanction order vide G.O.Ms. No. 85, Irrigation and CAD (Services-VI-I) Department, dated 08.05.2002 to prosecute the AO. Hence, the charge-sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge for SPE/ACB Cases, Vijayawada, took the case on file under the above provisions and after complying the necessary formalities Section 207 of Cr.P.C. framed charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.O. and explained the same to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.21 were marked and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, AO was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and got filed a written statement contending in substance as follows:

(a) He never demanded or accepted any ille