IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the importance of a valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act were established.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.15 of 2002 dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. The appellant, while working as Assistant Civil Surgeon in the Government Area Hospital, Mahaboobabad was entrapped by the ACB on the basis of complaint of P.W.1. The grievance of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that in the year 1999, his mother was suffering from stomach pain for which reason, she was taken to the hospital and the appellant had prescribed certain medicines. Tests were conducted and the appellant had attended on to the mother of P.W.1 on 30.09.1999 and 13.10.1999. Appellant advised for removal of uterus of mother and for the operation, demanded an amount of Rs.2,500/- as expenditure on 13.10.1999. They expressed their inability. However, P.W.1’s mother was again taken to the hospital on 20.08.2000. The appellant demanded the said amount. However, asked to arrange for an amount of Rs.1,600/- and directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,600/- on 05.09.2000 on which date, operation would be conducted.

3. Aggrieved by the said demand made on 20.08.2000, P.W.1 approached the ACB office and filed Ex.P3 complaint on 02.09.2000. Having taken the complaint, the DSP/P.W.11 asked P.W.1 to come on 05.09.2000 on which date trap was arranged. The trap party gathered in the office of the DSP around 7.00 a.m. on the said date. The formalities required before proceeding to trap were followed and pre-trap proceedings were drafted which is Ex.P9. The mother of P.W.1 was also present during the pre-trap proceedings. The trap party reached the government hospital around 10.45 a.m. The appellant was in the operation theatre and she came out around 12.00 noon. When P.W.1 and her mother met the appellant, she prescribed the mother to undergo blood and urine test. After the test was undertaken in a private lab, both P.W.1, his mother along with P.W.2, who was a police constable and part of trap party met the appellant. Appellant then asked whether Rs.1,600/- was brought. P.W.1 took the amount from his shirt pocket and handed over to the appellant. She counted the amount and wrote the name of the mother on a small slip by mentioning the numerical number 16. The said amount was kept in her small black colour bag. The said slip on which 16 was written which is Ex.P6 was inserted in between the currency notes. Thereafter, another slip Ex.P7 was handed over directing to take the mother of P.W.1 to the Government Hospital and admit her in the said hospital. P.W.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap party that there was demand and acceptance of bribe.

4. The trap party entered into the hospital and questioned whether the appellant had received any amount from P.W.1. Test was conducted on both the hands and both the hands turned positive for sodium carbonate test solution reflecting that the currency notes were handled by the appellant. The currency notes were then handed over by appellant from her leather bag. In between the amount, Ex.P6 slip was also found. There was other currency also in the said bag which was seized by the trap party. During the course of the post-trap proceedings, the appellant, complainant and others were examined and relevant documents were also seized. Post-trap proceedings were drafted which is Ex.P11 after conclusion of proceedings.

5. Investigation was handed over to the Inspector/P.W.12 who concluded investigation and filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. Learned Special Judge having taken cognizance of the offence, framed charges for the said offences and examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P17 on behalf of the pros