JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(3) and (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the State, being represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Eluru Range, Eluru questioning the judgment in Calendar Case No.20 of 2000, dated 29.11.2005, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short, 'the Special Judge'), where under the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act').

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

3. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru filed the charge sheet in Crime No.9/ACB-RC(T)-EWG/99 of ACB, Eluru Range alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows:

The Accused Officer (AO), Kadiyam Jaya Raju, worked as Assistant Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Panchayat Raj Department, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District from 01.02.1999 to 09.06.1999. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. LW.1 - Sri Vendra Rajendra Babu, farmer, has an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of agricultural dry land. A sum of Rs.40,000/- was sanctioned to LW.1 by B.C. Corporation towards execution of Dug-cum-Borewell. Accordingly, a cheque was issued. LW.1 was advised to start the work by the by the Accused Officer. He completed the work of drilling in the month of April, 1999 and approached the AO, who demanded 10% of the cheque amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e., Rs.4,000/- as illegal gratification to do official favour of recording the works executed by him in the Measurements Book and to recommend the final bill. When the de-facto complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount, AO refused to do the official favour in recording the measurements in the M-book and to recommend for the final bill. Ultimately, AO gave first payment of Rs.20,500/- with a condition to pay the demanded bribe amount in the final bill. The de-facto complainant completed the second stage of work in May, 1999 for which AO had to recommend the final bill. Then, AO demanded Rs.4,000/- bribe for recording measurements in M-book. LW.1 approached the AO on 07.06.1999 with a request to complete his work. Having demanded Rs.4,000/-, he finally reduced the bribe amount to Rs.3,500/-. Though LW.1 was not having any intention to pay the bribe amount but as there was no other go, he approached LW.6 – T. Bapa Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Eluru Range on 08.06.1999 and presented a report which was registered by him and a trap was laid against the AO. AO was successfully trapped in his office on 10.06.1999 at about 08:45 a.m. when he demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.3,500/- from LW.1. The sodium Carbonate Solution test was conducted on the right hand fingers of AO, which proved positive. The tainted amount was recovered from the right side pant pocket of AO and the inner linings of the pant of AO were also subjected to the chemical test which gave positive result. Accordingly, post trap proceedings were recorded. The Government of Andhra Pradesh being the competent authority removed the AO, accorded sanction to prosecute the AO vide G.O.Ms.No.76, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 03.03.2000. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. On appearance of the AO before the Court below and after completing the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the learned Special Judge examined him under Section 239 Cr.P.C and for which he denied the allegations as such the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act were framed and explained to the AO in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosec