The main legal point established is the court's reliance on the evidence of bribery and the rejection of the appellant's defense, highlighting the importance of credible evidence in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT

C.K. Prasad, J. - The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.06.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2002, affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, has preferred this petition for grant of special leave to appeal.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant was put on trial for commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). He was found guilty by the trial court by its judgment and order dated 4th April, 2002 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under each count and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under each count. The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court in appeal.

4. According to the prosecution the appellant-Billa Nagul Sharief at the relevant time was posted as Junior Assistant in the office of the District Supply Officer, Guntur and thus a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. He was incharge of works pertaining to grant of composite licence to deal with scheduled grains. PW.1, P. Rama Krishna, de facto complainant, a resident of village Pedaravuru within Block Tenali in the District Guntur possessed a house in Sivalayam Street of the village and had constructed R.C.C. godown in the vacant portion of the house with an intention to carry on business in scheduled commodities; like Redgram, Blackgram etc. For that he obtained registration certificate and C.S.T. Form from Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Tenali. De facto complainant PW.1, P. Rama Krishna was required to obtain composite licence from the District Supply Officer, Guntur for carrying on the business. Accordingly, on 19.12.1996 he went to the office of the District Supply Officer and submitted an application for grant of composite licence. The District Supply Officer forwarded the application to the Deputy Tahsildar for enquiry and report, who in turn inspected the godown, recorded the statement of de facto-complainant on 22.12.1996 and submitted his report on 23.12.1996.

5. According to the prosecution on 30.12.1996, de facto-complainant went to the office of the District Supply Officer and enquired about the licence. The appellant asked PW.1 to deposit Rs. 1,000/- National Savings Bond, pledged in the name of the District Supply Officer. As directed PW.1 obtained the same and handed over to the appellant. The appellant demanded from de facto- complainant; i.e, PW.1, P. Rama Krishna to pay the bribe of Rs. 3,000/- for issuing the composite licence. The de facto-complainant showed his inability to pay the amount and again met the appellant on 6.1.1997 at 11 a.m. and made enquiry about the licence. The appellant made it clear that the licence shall be given to the de facto-complainant only when he pays the bribe of Rs. 3,000/-. On de facto-complainants repeated request the appellant agreed to deliver the composite licence on payment of reduced amount of bribe of Rs. 2,500/- with further stipulation that the said amount be paid within two days. De facto-complainant pretended to pay the said amount to the appellant but in fact he was not willing to pay the bribe. Hence, de facto-complainant met PW.4, J.B. Haskarna Rao, on 6.1.1997 at 7 p.m., who was working as Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guntur and lodged a report. De facto- complainant was asked to come on 8.1.1997 along with the bribe amount. As instructed, on 8.1.1997 de facto-complainant went to his office where PW.3, M.V. Mallikarjuna Lingam and other members of the trap party were present. De facto-complainant produced 25 currency notes of 100 rupees each. The serial numbers of the currency notes were noted and phenolphthalein powde