Judgment:

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.06.2007 passed in CC No.4 of 2003 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The sole accused officer is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short „the Act‟). By his judgment dated 29.06.2007, the learned Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was further convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- i.e., MO.5 was ordered to be returned to PW.1 and MOs.1 to 4 and 6 to 10 were ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

3. The substance of the charge against the accused officer is that he being a public servant, working as Lineman, AP Transco, Kallur, demanded Rs.2000/- on 21.12.2001 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from PW.1 for doing official favour of processing the application for giving electricity service connection to his motor fitted to the bore-well and in pursuance of the said demand on 24.12.2001 he demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.2000/- from PW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. In the course of same transaction, the accused officer by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.2,000/- on 24.12.2001 from PW.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the accused officer worked as Lineman in AP Transco, Kallur, Ananthapur district, from 16.05.2000 to 24.12.2001, as such he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The de facto complainant (PW.1) got drilled a bore-well in his wet land and to get the electrical connection to the said bore-well, on 31.05.2000, PW.1 paid Rs.25/- at Garladinne Electrical Office, got registered his application and obtained the receipt. Later, he came to know through the accused officer that he had to pay Rs.5,000/- through demand draft to get the electrical connection to his bore-well on the seniority basis. On 21.12.2001, PW.1 went to the accused officer along with Rs.5,000/- to get the demand draft which is required for electrical service connection to his agricultural bore-well. Then the accused officer informed the particulars in whose favour the demand draft had to be taken and took the signatures of PW.1 in the agreement papers. On 22.12.2001, PW.1 met the accused officer, showed the demand draft taken in favour of the Deputy Executive Engineer for Rs.5,000/- and requested him to process his application. Then, the accused officer is alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1. When PW.1 expressed his inability to pay the said bribe amount, the accused officer returned the demand draft to PW.1 by saying that unless he pays bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- he would not process his application. In the circumstances, PW.1 agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- as bribe to the accused officer. The accused officer asked PW.1 to come to Manjunatha Suppliers, Kallur on 24.12.2001 at 10.00 AM along with the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and demand draft of Rs.5,000/-. As PW.1 was not willing to pay the said bribe amount to the accused officer, he lodged a repor