The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

A.V.Ravindra Babu, J. - The judgment, dated 15.03.2007 in C.C.No.15 of 2005, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, ('Special Judge' for short), is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal filed by the State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau ('A.C.B.' in short), Eluru Range, Eluru.

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience.

3. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.18/ACB-RCT-EWG/03 of ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for short) against Accused Officer No.1 ('A.O.1' for short) and the offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act against Accused No.2 ('A.2' for short).

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet as above, is as follows:

(i) The A.O.1-Earlapati Mruthyumjaya Raju, S/o late Gogaiah, worked as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kovvuru, West Godavari District, from 08.05.2003 to 15.12.2003. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act. One Vishnu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Suryanarayana (A.2) is a private person. Velagala Nageswara Rao, S/o Venkata Rao (P.W.1) is native of Yerugudem Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. He used to run a fancy store under the name and style of Rohini Enterprises. He has a Maruthi Van bearing No.A.P.10-A-3636.

(ii) On 12.12.2003 night while he was brining two bags of fancy items in his Van, the A.O.1 stopped his vehicle and threatened him that he will book a case against him as he is carrying fancy items in his Van which happened to be a non transport vehicle, as such, demanded him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as a bribe for not booking a case against him. Then P.W.1 informed to the A.O.1 that those items were for his personal use. On enquiry, he produced the vehicle registration certificate. However, the A.O.1 did not return the same and informed that the certificate would be returned without registering a case if he pays bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to him. P.W.1 expressed his inability to do so, but the A.O.1 did not hear the request of P.W.1 and stuck to his earlier demand of bribe of Rs.2,000/-. Having reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe due to fear that his registration certificate would not be returned, but ultimately P.W.1 decided to lodge a report to ACB. Accordingly, on 14.12.2003 he proceeded to the office of P.W.6-ACB DSP and presented Ex.P.1 report. ACB DSP after causing necessary formalities registered a case against the A.O.1 and took up investigation.

(iii) On 15.12.2003 at about 4-40 p.m., on receipt of prearranged signal, P.W.6 along with his staff and mediators rushed into the office of the A.O.1 where P.W.1 informed to him that he gave the bribe amount to A.2 as per the directions of A.O.1 and shown him. Then P.W.6 instructed his staff to keep surveillance on A.2 and after disclosing his identity to the A.O.1, he got conducted Sodium Carbonate solution test on both hand fingers of the A.O.1 which proved negative result. On enquiry with the A.O.1, the A.O.1 gave his explanation and basing on the same, he called A.2 and when he conducted Sodium Carbonate solution test on both hand fingers, it yielded positive result. During further enquiry, A.2 produced the tainted amount from his left side pant pocket, which was seized by the trap laying officer in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report. When the Sodium Carbonate solution test was conducted to the left side pant pocket of A.2, it proved positive. Hence, the trap laying officer seized the relevant record and arrested the A.O.1 and A.2 and forwarded them to judicial custody and investigated into.

(iv) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the competent authority to remove the A.O.1, issued prosecution sanction