The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborative evidence to prove charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the significance of the accused's explanation, and the standard of proof required for establishing the defence.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 4/10/2007 passed in CC No.27 of 2001 by learned Special Judge for ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. In the aforesaid C.C., the appellant/accused officer was tried for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). By his judgment, dtd. 4/10/2007, the learned Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Act. The accused officer was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1, 000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The tainted amount of Rs.1500.00 was ordered to be forfeited to the State.

2. Case of the prosecution is that, the father of the informant (PW1) worked as Superintendent in the Agricultural Department and retired in June 1997. He died in the month of February 1999 and the informant's mother was getting family pension. While so, when the informant came to know through Syndicate Bank authorities that the pension records were sent to the officials of the Sub-Treasury, Srikakulam, he met the accused officer, who was working as Senior Accountant, Sub Treasury Office, Srikakulam, in the last week of May, 2000 and enquired about the matter. It is alleged that the accused officer informed the informant that his mother's pension was to be enhanced and asked him to handover the pension papers which were received from AG Office. Accordingly, the informant handed over those papers to the accused officer in the first week of June, 2000. The informant again met the accused officer in his office on 30/6/2000, as asked by the accused officer. It is alleged that the accused officer informed the informant that his mother's pension was increased to Rs.900.00 per month and demanded Rs.1500.00 as bribe to calculate and to prepare the bill. The informant requested the accused officer to reduce the amount of bribe, but the accused officer insisted to pay the demanded bribe amount within four days, and stated that otherwise he would not attend to that work. As there was no other way, the informant reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe amount and preferred a report against the accused officer before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vizianagaram, on 3/7/2000, which was registered as a case in Crime No.7/RCACB/VZM/2000 for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. After conducting pre-trap proceedings, the accused officer, who was working as Senior Accountant in the SubTreasury Office, Srikakulam, was trapped by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vizianagaram on 4/7/2000 at 11.30 AM in his office room while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1500.00 from the informant for doing official favour in the matter of family pension belonging to his mother and to draw arrears. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the right hand fingers and inner lining of the left side shirt pocket of the accused officer yielded positive results. The tainted amount of Rs.1500.00 was recovered from the left side pocket of the accused officer when produced by him voluntarily and, on verification, the serial numbers of the said currency notes were found tallied with those mentioned in the pre-trap panchanama. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vizianagaram seized all the relevant documents pertaining to the case under cover of a mediators report. Having satisfied with the material secured during