Point of Law: Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised only as a previous statement and nothing more.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed assailing the judgment dated 18.11.2008 in CC.No.32 of 2003 passed by Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, whereunder the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

2. The charge against the appellant/accused was that the complainant, Nednuri Venkateswar Rao (P.W.1), took the vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing No.AP 10 U 8010 from his owner and proceeded to Medak with the family of his co-driver by name Sridhar Rao (P.W.2) during the night hours on 21.08.2002. On reaching Mamdapur village, the vehicle met with an accident. P.W.1 sustained simple injuries, wife of P.W.2 received fracture on her right hand and they got first aid in a private hospital at Medak. On the report given by P.W.1, on 22.08.2002, a case in Cr.No.33 of 2002 was registered by the Sub-Inspector (accused officer) and the injured were sent to the government hospital for treatment and certificate. P.W.1 was arrested and sent to judicial custody on 04.09.2002. P.W.1 met the accused officer, who demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe for doing official favour i.e. for expediting filing of charge sheet and also to facilitate in getting insurance benefits. On 07.09.2002, P.W.1 again approached the accused officer, who reiterated his earlier demand of bribe. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount. The accused officer voluntarily reduced the bribe amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/-and instructed P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount on 13.09.2002 at Shankarampet Police Station or at his residence.

3. P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the DSP, Nizamabad on 12.09.2002 against the accused officer and the same was registered in Cr.No.12/ACB-NZB/2002 under Section 7 of the Act on 13.09.2002 and investigation was taken up. The DSP, ACB, secured the services of one U. Narsimhuloo, AEE, R&B, O/o. EE, R&B, Sangareddy and Sri Mohd. Azam Ali, Senior Assistant, O/o. District Registrar, Medak at Sangareddy as mediators and laid the trap on 13.09.2002 against the accused officer. Phenolphthalein test was conducted over both the hand fingers of the accused officer, which yielded positive result. The DSP, ACB, seized the tainted amount from the possession of the accused officer, which was produced by the accused officer from his left side shirt pocket. The statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. The accused officer was arrested and released on bail. After obtaining sanction from the competent authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 22.04.2003, to prosecute the accused officer, charge sheet was filed. The accused officer was furnished with the case papers under Section 207 IPC. The accused officer pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The trial Court framed the following points for consideration:

(i) Whether AO is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.

(ii) Whether Sanction Order accorded to prosecute AO under Ex.P9 by the Government is valid.

(iii) Whether AO demanded the PW.1 for payment of bribe amount, and in pursuance of earlier demand, whether AO demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.3,000/-on 13.9.2002 as gratification other than legal remuneration from PW-1 - Complainant Sri Nedunuri Venkteswar Rao for doing an official favour for expediting in filing the charge sheet and to facilitate the PW.1 in getting insurance benefits, by abusing his position a