The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the official favor pending with the accused and the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, dated 16.11.2007, in Calendar Case No. 3 of 2004, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’).

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, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 6/RCT-TCD/2003 of ACB, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’).

(i) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows: L. Narayana, Accused Officer (AO), worked as Mandal Surveyor in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa Mandal, Kadapa District and he is a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. D. Nagapattabi Reddy – LW.1 is a native of Patha Kadapa Village. D. Jayalakshumma – LW.4 is the mother of LW.1. LW.4 is having Ac.2.72 cents of land in Survey No. 539 of Ukkayapalli village. The Government acquired some land to lay by-pass road in the said survey number. Therefore, LW.1, to know the boundaries of the remaining extent and its measurements, gave a requisition in the name of his mother with challan No. 10418 for Rs.100/- to MRO, Kadapa on 13.12.2002 for conducting survey of the land. The MRO endorsed the same to the AO. AO conducted survey on 25.02.2003. LW.1 approached the AO and requested him to supply survey report and sketch. AO instructed LW.1 to pay challan of Rs.100/- and apply for copy of the survey report and sketch. On 06.03.2003, LW.1 submitted a representation along with challan No. 43291 for Rs.100/- to the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa to get the survey report and sketch of the land. On 07.03.2003, LW.1 approached the AO and requested him to supply copy of the survey report and sketch of their land. AO demanded LW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to do an official favour. On 10.03.2003 also when he approached AO with a request to furnish survey report and sketch, AO reiterated his earlier demand. When LW.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, AO reduced it to Rs.3,000/- and asked him to pay the same on 17.03.2003 evening at his office. LW.1 accepted to pay the bribe as he has no other go and approached the DSP, ACB, Tirupathi Range who was camping at Kadapa on 17.03.2003 and gave a report, which was registered as a case in Cr.No. 6/RCT-TCD/2003.

(ii) Pre-trap proceedings took place in the office room of Inspector of Police, ACB, Kadapa on 17.03.2003 from 05:00 p.m. to 06.30 p.m. in the presence of P. Rasheed Khan (LW.2) and B. Somasekhar (LW.3), two mediators. On 17.03.2003 at 06:40 p.m., the DSP, ACB, Tirupati along with LW.1 and mediators – LW.2 and LW.3 proceeded to the office of AO. AO could be successfully trapped when he demanded LW.1 to pay the bribe amount and accepted the same. The bribe amount was recovered from the possession of AO. The chemical test conducted to the both hands of AO yielded positive result. The entire proceedings were drafted in the office of MRO, Kadapa on 17.03.2003.

(iii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded sanction to prosecute the AO in a competent Court of law vide G.O.Ms.No. 1063 of Revenue (Vigilance-IV), Department, A.P., Hyderabad dated 23.10.2003. Hence the charge-sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law. After appearance of the accused and on complying Section 207 Cr.P.C. the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the AO 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 accused, the