Point of Law :
there cannot be any presumption that the contents of FIR are true or that they have been originally given by the complainant; similarly, there cannot be any presumption or assumption that 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. statements or investigations done by the police officers reveal truth; the judicial officers should not be under the impression that whatever stated by the police or the accused is true; if that is the case, then there is no need of establishing the Courts and conducting criminal trials and all the accused may be straightaway sent to jail through police stations; therefore, the Judges must realize the role assigned to them and they must apply their logical mind, reasoning power and judicious approach and consider the facts and circumstances of each case on the basis of settled legal principles and decide the case; they must have an inner satisfaction that their judgment is correct; for any reason, if their judgment is not satisfactory, then they must do hard work, ascertain the facts meticulously from the evidence and search for the case laws by burning oil in the midnights, if necessary, and then only prepare the judgments; and a judgment pronounced by a Judge may not affect his career, but, the same judgment will ruin some families and may cause lot of miseries and heart breaking to who feel that injustice has been done to them; even the party who had lost the case should have an inner feeling that the judgment is perfectly justified

JUDGMENT:

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 25.04.2007, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.26 of 2003, Accused Officer preferred the present appeal.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the Accused Officer guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and accordingly convicted him of the said charges. The trial Court sentenced the Accused Officer to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (01) month for the charge under Section 7 of the Act. The trial Court also sentenced the Accused Officer to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (01) month for the charge under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. The trial Court ordered to run both the sentences of imprisonment concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Accused Officer was working as Junior Lineman in the office of APCPDCL, Distribution - XI, Chatrinaka, Hyderabad, at the relevant point of time. The Accused Officer abusing his official position as a public servant, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from PW.1 - de facto complainant for providing new electricity service connection to the house of son of PW.1 viz., PW.2 on 13.06.2002.

4. The ACB Officials filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. The trial Court took the cognizance of the said offences against him vide C.C. No.26 of 2003. Thereafter, trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. On examination, the Accused Officer denied the said charges and prayed for trial. Accordingly the trial Court proceeded with the trial.

5. During trial, prosecution examined as many as nine (09) witnesses viz., PWs.1 to 9, marked Exs.P1 to P16 and MOs.1 to 6 were exhibited. In support of defence, none was examined by the Accused Officers.

6. After completion of the trial, on consideration of evidence both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the Accused Officer guilty of the aforesaid charges and accordingly convicted him vide impugned judgment, dated 25.04.2007 in C.C. No.26 of 2003 and imposed the punishment in the manner stated supra.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the Accused Officer preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard Mr. V. Shyamsunder Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant - Accused Officer and Mr. N. Ananda Rao, learned Standing Counsel - cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases for the State of Telangana, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

9. Impugning the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the material witnesses to prove the demand and acceptance, twin requirements are PWs.1 to 4, but they turned hostile and, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the said twin requirements. Further, the Accused Officer was not in a position to do any official favour to PW.2 as deposed by the prosecution witness viz., PW.5, who in fact deposed that the Accused Officer had no role to pay in processing the application of PW.2 for providing new electricity service connection. PW.8 - DSP, ACB did not conduct any discreet enquiry before registering the FIR under Ex.P16 which is mandatory as per ACB Manual. He has also not considered the animosity between the Accused Officer and PW.1 and that out of such animosity, PWs.1 to 3 got laid the trap falsely against the Accused Officer. PW.7 - Sanctioning Authority has specifically deposed that he did not mention the documents which he perused while according sanction proceedings to prosecute the Accused