ORDER:

This is an appeal from acquittal in a CBI trap case. The respondent, hereinafterwards referred to as accused, who was admittedly a public servant at the relevant time was tried on two charges i.e. one under Section 7 and the other under Section 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short Act), in C.C.No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (trial court). Both the charges were based on allegations of bribery and trap.

2. The trial court after considering the matter by its judgment dated 12.04.2002 acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the CBI through its concerned officer filed this appeal. It should be mentioned that the trial court discussed the validity of the sanction order which is marked as Ex.P.13 as point No.1 and held that the said sanction was not valid. It then proceeded to consider the merits of the matter as point No.2 and decided that point also against the CBI and recorded acquittal.

3. Initially the matter was heard on both points

1 and 2 and the appeal was reserved for judgment. Again the appeal was suo motu posted under the caption “for being mentioned” to hear on the question of validity of sanction and if this court also finds that the sanction is invalid what would be its effect on the matter and whether this court can proceed to answer the merits of the matter or whether the trial court itself should have discharged the accused having found that the sanction was invalid, and as it did not, whether this court is now bound to discharge the accused. Both sides were again heard on the above aspects with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme [1]

Court given in State of Karnataka v. C.Nagarajaswamy and I shall refer to the contentions of the learned counsel on either side a little later.

4. The prosecution case which led to the above charges is this. At the relevant time the accused was working as Junior Accounts Officer in the office of the Telecom District Manager, Nellore, and was admittedly a public servant within the meaning of the Act. P.W.1 K.Suresh Kumar (de facto complainant) was at that time running a public telephone booth with number ‘53438’ near Gudur. The accused as a Junior Accounts Officer among his other duties had the power to give re-connections to the telephones which were disconnected for non-payment of dues by subscribers. P.W.1, for one reason or the other, could not pay the dues for his telephone for the period from 15.08.1999 to 31.08.1999 and also for the period from 01.09.1999 to 14.09.1999 within time and therefore his telephone connection was disconnected.

5. The prosecution version is that having paid the bills for the period from 15.08.1999 to 31.08.1999, P.W.1 met the accused in his office at Nellore on 23.09.1999 requesting for giving re- connection and on that day the accused made the first demand for bribe of Rs.500/- to give re-connection after informing him to pay the arrears for the above second period also. It is also alleged that P.W.1 thereafter again met the accused on 28.09.1999 requesting for demand notes for paying the bill for the above second period and for re-connection and even on that date the accused renewed his demand for the bribe of Rs.500/-.

6. The further version of the prosecution is that as P.W.1 was not willing to pay the bribe, he on 28.09.1999 at about 11.45 AM gave Ex.P4 report to P.W.6 Ishaq Mohammed the concerned CBI Inspector and that the said Inspector on the same date itself in the afternoon arranged to trap the accused and the trap proved successful. The charge sheet would also read that P.W.2 G.V.Subba Rao and another who were also public servants acted as mediators and after obtaining Ex.P.13 sanction order the accused was put on trial on the aforesaid two charges. The defence of the accused was that money was thrusted into his shirt pocket after re-connection to P.W.1’s telephone was given. The trial court framed two points. The first relat