The prosecution must establish the pendency of official favor, demand and acceptance of the bribe, and the facilitation of the offense by accomplices to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, challenging the judgment, dated 30.11.2006 in C.C.No.22 of 2002, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (“Special Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer No.1 (A.O.1) not guilty of the charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and further found Accused Nos.2 and 3 (A.2 and A.3) not guilty of the charges under Sections 12 and 15 of the P.C. Act and accordingly, acquitted A.O.1, A.2 and A.3 under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and further made an order to prosecute P.W.5 for perjury.

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, A.C.B., Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.22/ACB-VJA/00, alleging in substance as follows :

(i) A.O.1 was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Vijayawada as on 30.10.2000 and also on the date of trap i.e., 03.11.2000, as such, he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

(ii) A.2 worked as R.T.A. Agent, Vijayawada and A.3 as the Assistant of A.2 and they are private person.

(iii) One Abdul Khader S/o Shaik Dastagiri, resident of Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada (P.W.5) was eking out his livelihood by running a Tractor bearing No.APL/8171-8172 and due to financial difficulties, he could not maintain the tractor and stopped plying it from 1999 onwards and hence submitted an affidavit along with C-book to A.O.1 on 12.10.2000 for tax exemption for the stoppage period.

(iv) The M.V.I. inspected the tractor on 28.10.2000 and gave a favourable report on 30.10.2000 and P.W.5 submitted the report to A.O.1 and requested him to process the file for getting tax exemption for the stoppage period of his Tractor. On that A.O.1 demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for doing the said official favour as gratification, for which P.W.5 expressed his inability to pay the demanded bribe amount and on that A.O.1 informed him that he would not put up his file, unless he was bribed.

(v) Again on 03.11.2000 P.W.5 approached the office of A.O.1 in the morning and when enquired, A.O.1 reiterated his demand of bribe, for which P.W.5 expressed his inability. Then A.O.1 instructed him to pay the said bribe on the same day evening and take his C-book and as P.W.5 was unwilling to pay the demanded bribe amount to A.O.1, he proceeded to the office of P.W.7- the Dy.S.P., A.C.B., Vijayawada, and presented Ex.P.13-report and the Dy.S.P. after observing necessary formalities, registered a case.

(vi) On 03.11.2000 at about 4-55 p.m., P.W.5 along with P.W.1 approached the office of A.O.1 and requested him to process the above said file. Then A.O.1 reiterated his earlier demand and directed P.W.5 to give the same to his agent A.2 and as per the instructions of A.2, A.2’s Agent A.3 accepted the bribe amount from P.W.5 and thereby the accused were successfully trapped and on enquiry by the Dy.S.P. A.3 produced the tainted amount from his front shirt pocket and when S.C. solution test was conducted to both hand fingers of A.3, it proved positive, so also the inner linings of the shirt pocket and thereafter the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- and other relevant record were seized.

(vii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has accorded sanction to prosecute A.O.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.158, dated 11.09.2002.

Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and after appearance of the A.O.1, A.2 and A.3 and after following the procedure under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 against A.O.1 and furthe