JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/AO is convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts, vide judgment in CC No.23 of 2002 dated 23.04.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was Sarpanch of Kamole Village in Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad District and the Grampanchayat passed resolution during March and April, 1999 for construction of slabs over side drains at Kumsara, Hamlet of Kamole village and other works at the cost of Rs.1,30,000/-. P.W.1 undertook and completed the works during the month of October, 1999 and approached the appellant for recording in M books. However, no such recording was done though P.W.1 went around office of the appellant several times. On 27.01.2000, P.W.1 again requested the appellant at Mandal Parishad Office and the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/- to record in M books and reduced the said amount to Rs.10,000/-. P.W.1 lodged complaint Ex.P1 with the Inspector-P.W.9 on 01.02.2000. DSP-P.W.6 was also in Karimnagar ACB office on 01.02.2000. Having conducted preliminary enquiry, the trap was arranged on 03.02.2000 at Nirmal.

3. After registration of the crime, the trap party assembled in a lodge at Nirmal and after concluding the pre-trap proceedings drafted Ex.P7. The trap party went to the house of the appellant. While the other trap party members waited outside. P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into the house at 9.00 am and at 9.15 am P.W.2 came out and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party to indicate that the bribe amount was passed on to the appellant.

4. The trap party entered into the house of the appellant and conducted sodium carbonate solution test on the hands of the appellant, which turned positive. The amount was recovered from the table and the amount was wrapped in Urdu paper. The trap proceedings were concluded and Exs.P2 to P4 M-books were seized and also Exs.P8 to P10 estimates. Having completed the formalities, Ex.P11 post trap proceedings were drafted.

5. P.W.6 handed over investigation to P.W.9, who investigated and filed charge sheet for the said offences. The learned Special Judge, having framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P14, which were produced by the prosecution and also marked Exs.D1 to D10 in defence by the appellant. After conclusion, the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted as stated above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no proof that any work was entrusted to P.W.1 for execution. The M-books which are Exs.P2 to P4 do not relate to the work in question as admitted by P.W.4. The most important factor is that P.W.1 who was Sarpanch of Kamole Grampanchayat during 1995 to 2006 was prohibited from drawing the Grampanchayat funds, since P.W.1 did not execute the works. Ex.D10 which was issued on 06.02.1999 is a proceeding of District Panchayat Officer, according to which, the Sarpanch/P.W.1 was prohibited from drawing the Grampanchayat funds as P.W.1 did not execute any works. The local MLA requested to authorize any officer to arrange for execution of works in the Grampancayat. In the absence of any documentary proof or any other oral evidence supporting the claim of P.W.1 that he was entrusted with the Grampanchayat works, the question of claiming the amount for execution of work does not arise. P.W.1 had a criminal back ground and falsely implicated the appellant. For the said reasons, counsel prayed for acquittal of the appellant of the charges. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in the cases of; i) Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his L.