JUDGMENT

K Lakshman, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.29 of 2001, the appellant preferred the present appeal. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the appellant - 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 convicted him of the said charges. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months under each charge. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

i) Accused Officer - Mr. N. Hrudayananda Reddy worked as Junior Assistant in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at the relevant point of time.

ii) PW.1 - de facto complainant - Mr. Budavath Valia S/o Teja is resident of Madanapally Thanda of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He is owner of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.1.17 guntas in Survey No.105 of the said Thanda.

iii) He applied for pahani copies in respect of the said land on 08.02.2001 for the years 1996-97 to 1999-00. On 09.02.2001 in the morning hours, he went to the office of MRO and met the Accused Officer, who was working as Junior Assistant for the purpose of obtaining the pahani copies, on which the Accused Officer demanded an amount of Rs. 1500/- as bribe and requested him to get the said amount by evening of the said day. The Accused Officer threatened PW.1 saying that in the event of non-payment of the said bribe amount, it would take 15-20 days to get the pahani copies. iv) Since PW.1 was unwilling to pay the said bribe amount, he approached the ACB officials on the same day i.e., 09.02.2001 and lodged Ex.P3 - complaint. The ACB Officials after registering a case under Ex.P18 - FIR, laid trap on the same day itself.

v) After completion of investigation, the ACB Officials laid charge sheet against the Accused Officer and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.29 of 2001.

3. Thereafter, the 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 and accordingly the trial Court proceeded with the trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight (08) witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 8, marked Exs.P1 to P18, and MOs.1 to 10 were exhibited. In support of defence, the Accused Officer examined two (02) witnesses i.e., DWs.1 and 2 and marked Ex.D-1.

5. After completion of the trial and 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 21.08.2006 in C.C. No.29 of 2001 and imposed the punishment in the manner stated supra.

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

7. Heard Mr. B. Rajavardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel - cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases for the State of Telangana appearing on behalf of the respondent.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant - Accused Officer that the Accused Officer was not competent to do the official favour as he was only a Junior Assistant in the MRO Office. There was no official favour pending with the Accused Officer at the relevant point of time. The ACB officials without conducting discreet enquiries hastily proceeded in laying a trap against the Accused Officer. In the month of January, PW.2 has taken an amount of Rs. 1500/- from the Accused Officer by taking Rs. 1000/- from DW.2 and by adding Rs. 500 of his perso