JUDGMENT

1. Appellant along with another accused were put on trial for offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases by judgment and order dated 29.10.2013 held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences but acquitted the co-accused. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1183 of 2003 whereas the State aggrieved by the acquittal of the co-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 2004. Roth the appeals were heard together and dismissed by the impugned order. It is against the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against his conviction and sentence that he has preferred this appeal with the leave of the Court.

3. Criminal prosecution was set in motion on the basis of a report given by PW1 P.S. Janardhana Rao before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB City Range, on 3.6.1997. According to the report, the informant had 9.08 guntas of land at Survey Nos. 235 and 223 and 3.25 guntas of land at Survey No. 235 at Gudimalkapur Village, Hyderabad. According to the report, PW1 had transferred the entire land, excepting 2500 yards, to a Cooperative Society. In the year 1996, he wanted to sell the 2500 yards of land, which he had retained. One Gnanesar along with some other persons demanded money from him which was refused by the informant. Those persons made allegations that the informant had encroached the land and, accordingly, approached the Land Grabbing Court. On the basis of that, land grabbing case was registered and one Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take measurement of the said land. The Advocate Commissioner directed the informant to be present at the site and, according to the informant, he along with the Officers. of the Cooperative Society went to the site. It is alleged that the Advocate Commissioner and the appellant, who at the relevant time was working as the Survey Inspector, and the Assistant Surveyor (since acquitted) had visited the site several times. According to the report, the appellant and the co-accused called him (PW1) separately and asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 for preparing a favourable report. They are alleged to have stated that in case the amount is paid they would prepare the report in his favour and in case he does not do so, they will give an adverse report. In the report it had been further alleged that the informant approached the appellant on 2.6.1997 and requested him to do justice. At this, the appellant is alleged to have demanded Rs. 20,000 to do justice and when the informant showed his inability to pay the said amount, he had reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 5,000 and asked him to come in the evening on 3.6.1997 to pay the said amount.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and after the investigation, the Police submitted a charge-sheet and the appellant was put on trial. The appellant denied to have committed any offence and from the trend of the cross-examination, his defence seems to be that he never made any demand for illegal gratification.

5. The trial court on analysis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts so far as this appellant is concerned. However, the trial court acquitted the co-accused. The said order, as stated earlier, has been affirmed by the High Court on appeal.

6. The informant P.S. Jnardhana Rao was examined as PW1 during the course of trial. He has a different story to tell during the trial. According to this witness, when the matter was being adjourned, he thought