JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused Officer No.1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge (SPE & ACB) cases at Hyderabad, dated 15.05.2007 in C.C.No.3 of 2003, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for the charge under Section 7 of the Act and a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment, should run concurrently.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/A.O.1 and learned Standing Counsel for ACB.

3. The appellant/Accused Officer was convicted for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,500/- from PW1 as ‘mamool’.

4. According to ACB, the appellant was a ration checking Inspector. One Bhoomalingam who was the owner of Fair Price Shop No.833 died in the month of November-2000. Half of the ration cards attached to the said fair price shop of Bhoomalingam was allotted to the fair price shop of PW1. It is alleged that on the ground of getting more income on account of entrusting half of the cards pertaining to Bhoomalingam, appellant/Accused Officer demanded PW1 to pay Rs.500/-every month. Since five months have lapsed, Rs.2,500/- had to be paid. PW1 paid Rs.1,000/- on 30.04.2000 and the appellant directed PW1 to pay the remaining amount of Rs.500/- on the next date i.e. on 01.05.2001. PW1 wrote down Ex.P1-complaint and approached ACB at 11.00 a.m. on 01.05.2001. The DSPPW4 having received the complaint asked PW1 to come back at 3.00 p.m. on the same day. The said complaint was registered and two independent witnesses i.e. PW2 and another who are government officials were asked to be part of the trap party.

5. The First mediators report-Ex.P5 was drafted in the office of DSP, ACB, Hyderabad, in between 3.40 p.m. and concluded at 4.45 p.m.

6. During the said proceedings, PW1 was examined regarding the complaint Ex.P1 by the independent mediators. Thereafter, the bribe amount was applied with Phenolphthalein powder. The reason for applying phenolphthalein powder on the currency was explained to PW1 so also the Sodium Carbonate test stating that whoever comes into contact with the currency would prove positive for the test. After concluding the said mediators report, the trap party proceeded to the office of the appellant. PW2-the independent mediator was asked to accompany PW1 and to observe what transpires in between PW1 and appellant/accused officer. PW1 went inside the office followed by PW2. PW2 sat on the bench outside the room of appellant and was in a position to see what transpires in the room of the appellant/accused officer. PW1 entered into the room of the appellant and on demand, placed the bribe amount in the left side table drawer as instructed by the appellant. Ex.P2-off take particulars paper, which contains the particulars of stocks of rice, wheat, sugar, oil etc., was also handed over. The appellant took out the tainted currency from the left side table drawer and transferred it into the right side table drawer. Thereafter, PW1 came out of the room and gave a pre-arranged signal to the trap party indicating the acceptance of bribe. The trap party entered into the room of the appellant and conducted Sodium Carbonate solution test which turned positive. When questioned, the appellant informed that the amount was kept in the drawer and took out the said amount from the right side table drawer and handed it over to the trap party.

7. Post trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P9. The documents Ex.P2, handed over by PW1 to appellant and Exs.P6 to P8 were also seized. Ex.P10-rought sketch was also drafted.

8. The learned Special Judge having examined the evidence produced by both the prosecution and the appellant found that the appellant was guilty and convicted accordingly