JUDGMENT :

This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, being represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry, challenging the judgment, dated 18.04.2007 in C.C.No.67 of 2000, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer (“A.O” for short) therein 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 i.e., Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, filed a charge sheet against the A.O in Crime No.3/RC-RJY/1999 of A.C.B., Rajahmundry Range, alleging in substance is as follows :

(i) The defacto-complainant by name Garapati Venakteswara Rao (L.W.1) is resident of Peravaram Village, Atreyepuram Mandal, East Godavari District, who is an agriculturist. He got three Phase electricity connection to his residential house. On 21.02.1999 in the evening at 5-00 P.M. A.O, who was working as Assistant Lineman in A.P. Transco, Peravaram, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, removed the fuses on the pole pertaining to the said electricity connection to the house of the defacto-complainant (L.W.1). Then the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) met the A.O and questioned him as to why it was disconnected, A.O intimated to him that wiring is not good. The defacto-complainant (L.W.1) requested him to restore the electricity connection, for which A.O demanded bribe of Rs.500/-. The defacto-complainant (L.W.1) expressed his inability to pay the same, but the A.O reiterated his demand. Hence, he agreed to pay the bribe amount, though he was not willing. Then, he approached L.W.9-M. Subba Rao, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Rajahmundry on 25.02.1999 and lodged a written report, which was registered as a case in Crime No.3/RC-RJY/1999, under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The D.S.P. arranged mediators to trap the A.O.

(ii) On 25.02.1999 at 5-15 P.M. trap party along with mediators went to the office of Additional Assistant Engineer, A.P. Transco, Peravaram and successfully trapped the A.O when he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.500/- from the defacto-complainant (L.W.1). The chemical test that was conducted on the hands of A.O proved to be positive. L.W.9 seized the tainted amount of Rs.500/- in the presence of mediators. A.O was arrested and released on bail by L.W.9. Investigating Officer obtained sanction order to prosecute the A.O. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, took the case on file and on appearance of A.O and after compliance of 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. In order to establish the guilt against the A.O, the prosecution before the trial Court, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 6. The prosecution did not examine the defacto-complainant (L.W.1), as he was expired by the time when the case was taken up for trial. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, A.O 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 stated that he has defence witnesses.

6. The Accused Officer filed a written statement contending in substance that he never disconnected the electricity service connection of the house of the defacto-complainant (L.W.1). The defacto-complainant (L.W.1) has three electricity service connections. One is to the house, another is to the Poultry farm and